Can a third-party candidate shake up the 2024 election? Join Mike Leon and Nick Zaveri from the "Can We Please Talk" podcast as they dissect the political landscape with a critical eye and intriguing insights. Grading Joe Biden’s presidency as a B minus, Nick offers a balanced look at Biden’s achievements and pitfalls, including the infrastructure package and job growth juxtaposed against challenges like income inequality and ineffective messaging. This episode promises a thorough examination of voter dissatisfaction with both major parties and the pressing issues such as rising housing costs, homelessness, and foreign policy missteps.
From the Republican Party’s fracturing to the potential influence of third-party candidates like RFK Jr. and Cornel West, our conversation covers it all. We dive into the strategic importance of key issues like abortion rights for Democrats, and the nostalgic sentiments some voters have towards the pre-COVID era under Trump. The upcoming debates and critical election week moments are highlighted as we navigate the complexities of the political climate and speculate on the potential outcomes.
Media’s role in shaping public opinion, the decline of local news, and the spread of conspiracy theories are crucial topics explored in this episode. We discuss the impact of sensationalism, the importance of diversifying news sources, and the critical need for expert voices in public discourse. Whether you’re interested in the potential for political gridlock or the influence of non-traditional news sources like TikTok, this episode offers a rich and nuanced discussion that sets the stage for the pivotal 2024 election year.
Can a third-party candidate shake up the 2024 election? Join Mike Leon and Nick Zaveri from the "Can We Please Talk" podcast as they dissect the political landscape with a critical eye and intriguing insights. Grading Joe Biden’s presidency as a B minus, Nick offers a balanced look at Biden’s achievements and pitfalls, including the infrastructure package and job growth juxtaposed against challenges like income inequality and ineffective messaging. This episode promises a thorough examination of voter dissatisfaction with both major parties and the pressing issues such as rising housing costs, homelessness, and foreign policy missteps.
From the Republican Party’s fracturing to the potential influence of third-party candidates like RFK Jr. and Cornel West, our conversation covers it all. We dive into the strategic importance of key issues like abortion rights for Democrats, and the nostalgic sentiments some voters have towards the pre-COVID era under Trump. The upcoming debates and critical election week moments are highlighted as we navigate the complexities of the political climate and speculate on the potential outcomes.
Media’s role in shaping public opinion, the decline of local news, and the spread of conspiracy theories are crucial topics explored in this episode. We discuss the impact of sensationalism, the importance of diversifying news sources, and the critical need for expert voices in public discourse. Whether you’re interested in the potential for political gridlock or the influence of non-traditional news sources like TikTok, this episode offers a rich and nuanced discussion that sets the stage for the pivotal 2024 election year.
Today, we're breaking down the 2024 election and the prospects of both Biden and Trump, but also analyzing RFK Jr's campaign as well. Expect to hear both the blunders of Biden and Trump thus far, but also some of the issues that voters may find them favorable around. Welcome to Overcoming the Divide, a platform dedicated to insightful political discourse and debate. In this episode, we're joined by Mike Leon and Nick Zaveri, the co-host of the Can we Please Talk podcast, where they dissect numerous political issues, what's going on in contemporary discourse, and much more. If you enjoy this conversation, I'd please ask you to one share it with a friend, but also check out their podcast, can we Please Talk, which is available on Spotify, apple and all other major platforms. Now, without further ado. Welcome to Overcoming the Divide. Welcome to the show, nick and Mike. Pleasure to have you guys here today. Yeah, thanks for having us.
Speaker 2:Thank you.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and for context here you guys host the podcast Can we Please Talk, which I took a listen to recently and really enjoyed the dynamic of you guys and also some of the guests you brought on. But under today's kind of conversation, what we're taking a look at today is Joe Biden, his presidency, how that's looked so far, where he's got going from going into the election this year and probably a whole lot in between. But I'd love to kick things off on getting your guys' thoughts on. If you had to assign Joe Biden a letter grade for his presidency first term, what would that be and why? I know broad question, but Broad question right.
Speaker 2:Well, you know what Broad question. I'll let Nick go first because I feel like I'm a little bit of a harder grader and also as I've been doing some more television and being more in the throes of the DC world. You kind of hear different feedback from different people, some that have worked for former administrations et cetera, and we've had a bunch on our show. So I'd like Nick to go first because I'm curious to see what he thinks as well from a letter grade perspective.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I would say I would give him a B minus. I think by all metrics and I'm going to talk about metrics in the sense now of nationally, where we are we're in a better situation than we were in 2020. Now, that being said, to the average American, let's talk about not those really sort of at the top 1% or even the top 10%. From a socioeconomic standpoint, it hasn't been great. I mean, we're still in a situation where there's a growing income divide, and this is actually from just some reporting from Bloomberg. And just from a domestic standpoint, we've seen some pretty big wins in terms of the infrastructure package. The problem, though, with that is the benefits of it we're still not going to see anytime soon. So when you ask me for a letter grade, I have to talk about now, like what we're experiencing. You know, when we think about where we are economically in terms of interest, you know we're still in a place where the number continues to be high, but it fluctuates. In terms of some of those domestic wins, though, you know we're seeing a continued increase in jobs. Now again other side of my mouth here, I guess because while there's still an income, a growing income gap, we're still seeing more and more Americans receiving employment.
Speaker 3:From a climate standpoint, our spending as a nation toward addressing climate change continues to rise. We're not anywhere near trying to hit that 2050 goal of zero carbon emission. That's not realistic. But there's been an effort to recognize a very real problem that we're having as a planet. Where, I mark him down, a lot is and this is entirely true of Democrats, although more so probably with the Biden presidency is when I just shared those details about jobs and a better effort towards addressing climate change.
Speaker 3:We don't hear that from the press secretary. We don't really hear that really from his administration. What we hear often is well, I'd like to do more, but it's just these darn Republicans, and to me that's excuse making. You know, we've seen a president who in some ways, has been able to reach across the aisle, unlike the former president, where that was really a challenging situation, and even previously with President Obama particularly I'll use Mitch McConnell as an example Joe Biden has had a better relationship with the Senate minority leader than arguably even the former president in Trump, and even more so with Barack Obama, and that's gone a long way in terms of when we address the challenge in Ukraine. If I'm going to move to foreign policy for a minute, and while McConnell is now the Senate minority leader, there's been opportunities to make some gains as it relates to bipartisanship. We've seen that with the passage of arguably somewhat toothless gun bill, but it's the first type of legislation successfully that we've seen in years in relation to the gun issue in this country. So, overall, I think by most metrics, he's done well.
Speaker 3:The problem is A his messaging is horrible. B we're in a place right now where he's no longer inspiring us. I mean, I remember back in 2017, the speech he gave in his reaction to Charlottesville was the speech that I thought really just teed up his pursuit of the presidency, what he realized he probably should have done in 2016, but opted not to. From that speech, though, to now, we see someone who looks really like a doddering individual.
Speaker 3:It's a president and vice president combination that no one really is all that excited about, and for everything I just said a moment ago in terms of having a relatively successful administration. I mean, it's up there, arguably, from an economic standpoint, perhaps with what we've even seen in the Clinton administration, but, as I say that Bill Clinton left office in 2000 with a country that was in a good situation. Joe Biden goes into a situation in the 2024 election where it almost kind of nets out where this country is as it relates to economics, almost kind of nets out where this country is as it relates to economics. But I would say that we're set up for a better future, but the current here and now for the majority of Americans hasn't been great.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I kind of agree with Nick's letter grade, but C plus, b minus. I think the biggest thing for me right now is Aaliyah has a famous song called age is nothing but a number. Well, I'm sorry, age is a number and Joe Biden's 81. And if you watch the 2019, like what he was saying I've talked to independent voters about this. If you watch Joe Biden 2019 primary, joe Biden 2020, you know speeches and you watch him. Now, to Nick's point it's not inspiring.
Speaker 2:And to Nick's point, on the economic front, we are doing better economically, and I say this as somebody who is unemployed right now, whose industry has taken a hit the media and technology space, the industry that I work in, day job wise. So I'm unemployed saying this folks. So that way, the transparency level we are doing better economically and the job growth, it's in sectors that are not mine. You know it's in healthcare, it's in leisure and hospitality, but we are doing better, but you don't know it. And to Nick's broader point, you don't even know that President Biden is matching numbers from arguably the greatest president, bill Clinton, in terms of economic benefit for the United States, so he gets grades down for that. I agree that KJP, the White House secretary and I'm somebody that's kind of glued to these pressers. Obviously I'm a contributor for a network, so I get a lot of questions asked about Senate hearing, committees, subcommittee hearings, pressers of the day, either from the state department, from you know what's happening at the White House podium. So I watch these things and, to Nick's point, it is a bit uninspiring because I don't think that there's somebody spearheading it from the top down that can inspire that message. And, by the way, it's the same thing with the former president, donald Trump. Anybody that he had at a spokesperson level or even when he's given speeches to the American people, they haven't been good. You know, they're a little bit off kilter and stuff like that. And what we talk about all the time on our show is you want to come out there, you want to practice, know your stuff, but you don't want to sound rehearsed. And right now President Biden just can't get it together with respective messaging and his age is showing, and that's not a bad thing to say. It's his age is showing Like he's 81 years old, Like that is not a bad thing to say and the other guy is 78. So, like these aren't bad things to say, it's not ageist of us to say it. These are things that are playing out in front of us. They both have had gaffes to varying degrees.
Speaker 2:To Nick's broader point again, foreign policy always ranks lower in terms of voter sentiment, but the foreign policy stuff he came in carried over the Trump philosophy of no new wars. We're going to get out of wars, including the longest one we've been in, and then he botches it right. And then you know, obviously he's going up there from a messaging standpoint talking about that. The Afghani president will be fine, taliban won't take over. And within three weeks time the Taliban is taking over and we have what happened with 15 Marines losing their life in that blast at Kabul airport, and we've covered that on our show, nick and I. So the foreign policy stuff gets them down a notch, because right now we're seeing Russia invade a sovereign country, their neighbor to the South, along their border. Now we're seeing China's aggression to Taiwan and we're seeing what's happening in the Middle East. Now, again, he's not the president, prime minister, of any of these countries, but military aid, assistance. All of that stuff is at the behest of the American taxpayer, so we're going to have to pay for that stuff. Somebody has got to pay for that and we're the ones paying for it, and so you kind of give them a little bit of you know, a little bit of a markdown for that.
Speaker 2:But to Nick's overall point, what I looked for and the reason why President Biden, you know, spoke to so many voters in 2020, that was the biggest thing Voter turnout 150,. You know, 6 million people turned out. In 2016, there was only 123 million people that turned out to vote. There was only 123 million people that turned out to vote, and so the reason why is because he said I will be a president for you. It doesn't matter red or blue, right? I didn't mean to rhyme right there, but he said that and people thought he would continue to carry that message. The problem is, to Nick's point, the message has gotten lost and the messenger is older now, and so I don't know what we do in this 24 election.
Speaker 2:This is a pivotal election where it's the first time ever where we truly could see a third party candidate get to like double digits in terms of, especially if RFK is able to get on ballots he's still having ballot access issues.
Speaker 2:Cornel West potentially now is doing more TV and media as this ramps up, you never know with these third-party candidates. And this is the time where 60% of Americans say they don't want to see this rematch. They don't want to see a former administration that they think was callous disregard, flagrant in terms of some of the things that they did from a policy perspective, and we saw how the former president left the Oval Office the first time ever not doing a peaceful transfer of power. And now we have this person, this administration, in which right now has had foreign policy botches, and we have wars popping up, obviously with Russia and Ukraine, israel and Gaza, and yet we're doing better economically, but we're not able to get that message out to people and he's not expiring confidence to be able to get that voter turnout like he did in 2020. So I'm with Nick. I give it a C plus, b minus. If there was a grade right in between there, I would throw it in there.
Speaker 1:I think a lot of what that boils down to. What you guys mentioned was what's not going well? Is there's not a material difference made in someone's life and you can point out, say the CHIPS Act and be like well, we're investing in onshoring CHIPS, manufacturing and safeguarding our supply chains from global issues, especially foreign threats such as China, but how does that help with housing costs and that increasing In 2022, the amount of cost-burned homes, households, renter households that is increased to over 20 million, which is pushing 8% at this point of the domestic population, maybe a little less. So it's like material difference is not there. Another thing is that I don't know if there's that vision for the future that you guys were kind of mentioning. There's a lack of a positive vision for the future. There is, though, this constant restating and rehearsal of like we'll just mitigate the damage done from the other side, and this goes both ways, but we'll just not be them, and we do understand that negative polarization kind of drives a lot of people to the voting booths. Similarly, like a great example, this is abortion rights and reproductive rights, whatever you may call it. That is a key issue, especially for suburban women, but a lot of people as well, that drives into the polls, but it's not like the Democrats are promising they're enshrined, them or the time, like putting that together as a policy hope or aspiration. So I think it's the lack of material difference in people's lives, the lack of a positive vision for the future.
Speaker 1:And what you point out, Mike, which I think was astute, was Biden comes in, he pulls out of Afghanistan. It's not the best pullout, A lot of things are wrong, but Biden comes in, he pulls out of Afghanistan. It's not the best pullout, A lot of things are wrong, but he's out nonetheless, ending a foreign war and within a year and a half, two more, two more, and people can go back and forth and be pedantic over whether the war in Israel is something that really concerns us and whether we'll get dragged into it. Well, I think we're already dragged into it, but nonetheless, there's just like the foreign policy botches, as you called it, especially. I think it's extremely, it's the word I'm looking for is it's it hits harder, especially just this past tax day. People are paying taxes and they see just right after that, it is now 60 billion is going to Ukraine and I believe, 13 billion to Israel.
Speaker 1:Okay, how about the fact that homelessness has increased by over 10% in the last couple of years. How about the cost of living is increasing for the average American? And to the jobs numbers you mentioned in the leisure industry and healthcare industry at least the leisure industry I can say more confidently these are not the high-paying jobs that people are going for. There may be more jobs. What are those jobs? And I think these are all fair points that we're kind of all coalescing around. But I will also put out there, to be fair, that it's not as if Republicans are offering something much better, at least to my knowledge. It's just like hey, we won't be those guys. That, once more, is not really a positive vision for the future.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I think the problem that the Republicans have is that what you're putting up there is not someone with a plan. We've seen four years where the only legislative victory that the Trump administration had was a reduction in taxes, which ultimately didn't really spur the economy positively. It was essentially a tax cut for wealthier Americans, which oftentimes Republicans. This tends to be their stock in trade and that's always been a problem. I've, at this point, come to the view of and first off, I always bring this data point up about Republicans and taxes. You know, in the Reagan administration you had what I would consider very reasonable capital gains taxes and these are the taxes, of course, that go against what you bring in in terms of your investments. You know, oftentimes when we think of taxes for most income earners, we're talking about your 1040. And obviously we're just past April 15. So we all have gone through this. But you know, since the Reagan era, we've seen the capital gains tax continue to lower and that means that the tax burden essentially lives most with the majority of Americans. And you can ask yourself why is it that Democrats, just like for, put Republicans aside for a second? Why is it that Democrats aren't doing anything about that? And this, I think, is what Trump was trying to bring up in 2016 with a, I would argue, and also less than savory candidate for progressive politics in Hillary Clinton, which is your people are just as bad as my people, but they're not really my people, because I'm trying to be a different voice here sorry, but I was trying to hit the mute button um, and I think that's, of course, this rematch and I and I can't emphasize what mike said enough is the most unsavory experience we're all about to have, and I think and as mike was talking about voter turnout, that's where I mean, if we get, I don't want to, you know, ruin or bring up spoilers. That's why I think it's going to win this election after all, but that's going to be a huge problem. You know I just voted today, today's Pennsylvania's primary, so you know I'm registered Democrats. I went, obviously, to my local voting area Not a lot of people, grant. I went around 5 pm, so we'll see what the numbers look like. I'm fascinated today, though, to see does joe biden carry like 90 more or more in pennsylvania? Because if he loses any ground to dean phillips, it continues to perpetuate. A theory I have, which is democrats across the board may say that their support is the president, but behaviorally, do not show that.
Speaker 3:And Daniel, you were talking about Israel for a moment. I think Mike was hitting. Well, yeah, you would hit on this. And what we're seeing recently with the protests at Columbia and Yale, what we have seen been going on is an outcry, particularly from younger Americans who are not necessarily as tied to an ideology about complete and unfettered support for Israel which we've seen since, really, the creation of the nation. And now there's a generation that questions that. Whether you agree with that or not, that's not for me to say, but it is real and there's a huge wondering. We saw this in the Michigan primary right. There's a question now of how much of a backlash, how much political capital does Joe Biden lose because of an unwavering support of Israel?
Speaker 2:Yep, I think I think Nick touched on a lot of different things there. You know the only thing I would put a bow on this before and Pennsylvania. How many people really knew, besides Nick, that today was Pennsylvania's day to vote in the primaries, or that people in Texas it was their day to vote, like a lot of people don't know. The primary calendar voter turnout was always lower in the primaries. That's been true for decades. Right, and it's mainly because, again, it's not as wall to wall coverage. You have an incumbent president. The GOP side is already wrapped up, obviously, with Donald Trump reaching the amount of delegates, so there's no interest there. There's nobody still around, so I wouldn't put too much stock in this. But what people are going to try to look at is these numbers to see if it tells them anything. Heading into November, you're going to see poll after poll and the biggest thing I always tell people is, when you look at these polls, just look at how many people were part of this poll. If it's 300 people, you can't extrapolate. I mean you can, but a little bit of it, not a lot of it. If it's a 4,000 person poll, right, like what are some of the questions? Where's the plus minus leaning in the polling. So we're going to try to overanalyze this. But the biggest thing for Joe Biden right now going into and I'm curious to see how he does on the campaign trail, because 2020 campaign trail was him and cars beeping, if you remember, because you know people weren't. They were attending them, but it was like kind of muffled sound that you couldn't get like a true audience type thing, whereas the Trump rallies were just, you know, straight chaos, thrown in the wind and everybody kind of cramming into places to see him speak. And so I'm curious, in 24 right now, as he goes on this campaign trail, I'm just curious to hear what this sounds like. We know what it'll look like, right, we know that the people with the signs will be behind them and we know that there'll be the network set up covering these events and the questions and stuff like that. But what is he going to say? Because, back to Nick and I's point and you made this point too, daniel as well we are involved in these wars, we're giving aid. We just gave $60 billion. The house just approved this package of $95 billion. $60 billion is going to Ukraine. $20 billion is going to be going to replenish our weapons stock. Israel aid's in there, there's money in there for the Indo-Pacific and coverage for what is happening with China's aggression towards Taiwan, and so we're involved in these wars. We're spending this taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 2:And so his message of economic recovery and what I've done, what the last guy did, leaving the office of the presidency and this democratic state, do you want it to remain? One Vote for me? We're on the flip side, the Republican side. Right now, the party is fractured, and I know it because I'm steeped in it, and there's people I'll talk to people when I'm about to do a television hit and they're Republican strategists or they've worked for former campaigns, for Ted Cruz, et cetera, and they'll say to me I wouldn't say that out there and it's like what are you saying it to me for in here? You got to say it out there, where the cameras matter, because the issue that they're having right now is there's a can't, he's, he has a grip on the Republican Party folks that, if you look at the voting totals from the primaries and caucuses, voted for Nikki Haley or voted for Ron DeSantis, right. So there's people that wanted to try somebody different, but at the end of the day, well, they still vote R down the ticket, and that's going to be the interesting thing.
Speaker 2:And the other part is some members of Congress on the Republican side of the aisle. Representative Chip Roy said this on the House floor we haven't passed anything, guys. Nick and I have had members of Congress on and they've said that this is going to go down in history as the House that's passed the lowest amount of pieces of legislation I think around 28 to 30, if memory serves me correct. This is terrible and Chip Roy's like what. Can I go back to my district in Texas and tell them that we've done, especially a border state where immigration has been listed as an exit polling, as people's number one issue? This is not me saying, it's not Nick saying it, this is representative Chip Roy saying it, the guy who's upset with his own caucus and so in conference, excuse me. So we have right now the Republicans specifically as the House majority shrinks. They have shown that they have not been able to govern that chamber and then, when Democrats get in power, we have certain things you guys just mentioned this before about, like abortion is going to be on the ballot.
Speaker 2:Where is that message of what's the plan to codify? Can't go back to the law of the land. What's the message? What does that plan look like? To make Roe v Wade or that instance, or write that legislation so that there is an access to reproductive care for everybody at a federal level that supersedes state mandates and laws? Where is that? What does that look like? They have alluded to it, but they haven't specifically outlined what it looks like and how to do it. We've seen with the student loan debt. Right, I'm running on this, but now you're getting challenges from it. So this is. I'm so interested. Just I want to get to November already. I want to fast forward everything. I want to see one or two speeches, a debate or two, which Nick and I are involved with a foundation that is trying to get all of these candidates access to debates, and we can touch on that in a little bit. But I want to see one or two debates and then I want to see what happens the week of November 5th or the 8th.
Speaker 3:It's funny because Democrats use the argument in support of abortion and women's reproductive rights a little like the way Republicans use guns. There's there's this sense of if you don't support us, this privilege will be taken from you. There's not a if you vote for us, we'll put into law provisions to make sure this never gets taken from you. You know what we've seen in terms of victories for women's reproductive health in Kansas states that you would not imagine that Michigan you know we've seen at a state level that there's been victories there and that's many ways have been a good thermometer of why this has been such a horrifying, horrifyingly bad issue for Republicans. And I think many moderate Republicans may not publicly admit this, but they wish this had never been brought back to the public's discourse. But I know I agree with you both. I don't.
Speaker 3:Even if the Democrats were to win, say, let's say they run the table, they win back the way they keep the White House, the Senate and the House, they won't get enough votes to pass anything. But what you can run on is, if we don't win, there may be federal protections in place to make sure that you don't have access to an abortion. That what you're seeing in Florida right now with a six-week ban, may become the law of the land and, at the very least, democrats can win on the argument of the last time you all sat out in 2016,. We got three justices up there that absolutely lied during their Senate hearings about their views on a woman's right to choose, got on the bench and then went ahead and just gutted Roe v Wade. So there's going to be the ability to put forward a very real specter that if you don't support Democrats on this issue, that this will become the law of the land. I mean, as a cynic, I don't think that's the case, but I totally understand the argument.
Speaker 1:And so I think, if we were to look at what's going well for Biden here is abortion being this galvanizing issue for a lot of people, and then also Trump's chaos, which we didn't really dive into. But simultaneously, what Trump has going for him and this is quite potent, I would say is even stronger than maybe some of his irrational truths, as it's called is the feeling of nostalgia. And let me take you back to a time very quick, where it's 2019, gas is rather cheap, the economy's growing. You know steadily what the hell is covid, things felt rather normal and you can see this, and this is maybe something of my generation, but you can see this on tiktok and instagram reels maybe you guys have seen it yourself where you'll see a few second video of bliss and it will have a caption saying 2019, and then it will go to a dystopian future, usually from like a movie such as blade runner 2049 and say 2024. I don't know if you're familiar with any of that I'm speaking to, but it just speaks to the nostalgia of past times. Now people look at that more fondly, and it's not just, you know, instagram reels or tech talk here.
Speaker 1:This is like actual policies, or actual polling indicates this too. From a Sienna poll that uh surveyed over, or about a thousand registered voters found that one the 18 percent of people said, or voters said that biden's policies helped them personally, while 40 percent of voters said that trump's policies helped them personally, whereas on on the opposite end, I believe it was 43% of people said Biden's policies hurt them personally, while only 25% of people said the same thing. So these are pretty like. This is pretty abnormality that we're in where you have a vice or not vice, but former president running for reelection I believe there's only maybe one or two have done in the past outside of like their term, but nonetheless it is.
Speaker 1:I think it'd be quite difficult for Biden, and something that we kind of touched on briefly I want to get your guys' thoughts on this is and why. I just mentioned too, but also with that is the Israel-Gaza war. As mentioned, younger generations have a whole different view of this and overall the American people from a YouGov poll found that just voters or American people in general, surveyed that 60% of them disagreed sending military aid to Israel. It's a majority. So all of this is amounting to, I think, some kind of catastrophic ending, for maybe Biden come this November. But he does have a couple of things going for him simultaneously. So I kind of just want to get your guys' thoughts on both of those parts real quick on both of those parts real quick.
Speaker 2:I mean, look, you know the polling number. And Biden I've seen a couple of different instances as he's about to get on the helicopter and go somewhere, either to speak to voters somewhere or do a press stop somewhere. He's always said you guys are looking at the polls the wrong way, because these polls tell me this, these polls tell me that. I think what's interesting from what you just said is and huge Jewish diaspora around the world, specifically here in the States, palestinian diaspora. Nick and I have done different instances, episodes with an Israeli historian, a Palestinian historian, somebody covering the war for one of the major networks stationed out there, and every single time all you got to do is go to our comment section. Can we Please Talk podcast. You go check it out for yourself on Instagram, on YouTube, and you can see the vitriol that's in either direction. What Nick and I get we've both been called Hamas supporters, then we've both been called Israeli supporters. It's intellectually dishonest and lazy, because what Nick and I try to do on the show and it's so funny that we're on your show, daniel called Overcoming the Divide, because we're not going to be able to overcome the divide because people don't believe that the sky is blue, the sun is yellow, and then there's people that are selling that the sky is red and the sun is green and they know it's not red and green. But they have to wake up every morning and they have to do it or else they're not going to make any money. The show, because I'm a former Fox News producer. I've worked in television. Nick and I went to college together, journalism grads, and now we've kind of become thrown into the DC circles and the television punditry world and now we get members of Congress on the show so we're able to ask some of these questions and we come at it from subject matter experts. We want to get subject matter experts to answer these questions. Why is the US giving so much money to a country and then giving money 9 billion in aid relief, so we're supplying the weapons to blow it up and then we're handing them out meals after we blow it up at a boy, as we've seen the videos from Al Jazeera of all of these aid packages with food being dropped off to folks in Gaza or by Rafa at the border. I mean it's ridiculous. So I think for President Biden and you're mentioning the young vote the young vote's always critical and your TikTok algorithm is different than mine, but I'm familiar with the trend that you're talking about. I get a lot of North Sea videos because of my wife watching all these North Sea content things, or I get police chases. I don't know what Nick gets. Nick probably gets wrestling videos or something like that and then I send it to him. That's probably why he's still in that funnel.
Speaker 2:But even just in that, right there, there's polling that shows people get their news from non-traditional sources. We just did this on our last episode where obviously the TikTok ban and what the House is trying to pass and trying to get ByteDance to sell 170 million people on that platform. They're all getting their news and information from something that's not CNN, msnbc, fox News. They're not reading traditional papers. All of them have converted to digital. How young voters are going to sway?
Speaker 2:But we're seeing more and more protest around the Biden administration's handling of the war. Back to the primary voting process and Nick mentioned about Michigan and the uncommitted vote. Yeah, it's considerably higher three, four percentage points higher the uncommitted vote than when Barack Obama ran for his second term. So there's polling that shows that. But at the time there wasn't a war happening in the Middle East right, I mean again, israel and Hamas has been since 06, 07, but there was not a war happening at current present time, like there was what happened on October 7th. So it's going to be interesting to see.
Speaker 2:If I don't know, if people are going to have short-term memory with respect to this election. I think that issue will play out for people. I think the issue is going to be and you've heard tons of pundits say it, I agree with it it's the couch, it's this. You know what? I'm not going to vote. I don't want to be a part of this. I don't like either of these guys. Yeah, 2019 was great, cool, but then 2020 happened. Unfortunately, it did happen and the response, as D-Wade likes to say, it's not about falling down, it's about getting back up and our responses in 2020, with Trump as president. I mean, we all watched those pressers from home, right? We were like what is this? This is supposed to be our commander in chief. Then we thought you know, obviously Governor Cuomo was doing a good job. Turns out, he was not doing the best job, like we didn't know what to make of our Controversial words there.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's like we did not know what to make of our leaders at the time. Know what to make of our leaders at the time, and we were swayed in either direction with public opinion and now look at the backtrack of where Governor Cuomo is on the outside of politics, and so I think the biggest thing for me is going to be is that do people forget about all this stuff? Do they just not turn out? Do we go back to 2016 levels of voter turnout? I know Democrats won't want that because it's historically Republicans always go day of right, but now the mail-in ballot process is more elaborate, it's extensive, it's extended to other states.
Speaker 2:I just don't know if there was going to be an issue that would get people to not go to out and vote. If you could think of one thing economic collapse, something like that I don't know. People think that there's tons of people coming into our country illegally and custom border patrols saying that numbers are rising. Or I don't know, jews are under attack on college campuses and there's a war in the Middle East oh geez, I got all three of those things and president Biden is the current president. I don't. I don't know that Donald Trump is the solution to that. But president Biden, to Nick's point, we don't know if he's the answer either. So you could get a lot of people that are like you know what, you know not my. As my wife likes to say, not my monkey, not my circus. So they'll sit out. That's not the right thing to do either, nick what do you think, Nick?
Speaker 3:you want to. Yeah, you know, I think, the thing about the rose-colored glasses in 2019, and many administrations will say this and I'll echo the same thing. So you know, we're a few years removed, you know, from eight years of what many would consider a successful presidential administration in Barack Obama, and I said earlier that Trump's only legislative victory was reducing taxes. So you set up a 2019 where he's still basically banking on eight years of economic recovery. So the country is in a far better situation than it was in, say, 2008. And then, with the pandemic, and then you move to a situation where, economically, companies are still playing catch up. And I say this because, inflation being what it is, when you still see high prices in your stores if inflation costs were to go down, does that necessarily mean that companies will reduce their cost? Not necessarily. Many companies took PPP loans, are still trying to use that as an excuse of well, we keep raising prices for whatever reason. Inflation could sometimes be lobbed up there as a justification for rising costs. Daniel, you were talking about housing costs. So where I live in Pennsylvania in 2020, we actually moved here, and at the time, the price for our home was incredible. We lucked out when we moved here Shortly thereafter between lumber costs and other additives, essentially, I'll say, to get a home like ours, even for our neighbors who just came, maybe a year later, significantly higher asking price, also coupled with high interest Interest as it is. Yes, that is a matter that lays at the fee of the Fed, and I do put that on the administration of the White House, but in terms of price gouging, which is often what you're seeing in grocery stores, that's a consumer advocacy problem, and I don't see any easy fix. I mean, I think even if you have a Republican president, does that mean immediately prices go down? I don't know. I do think, though, that one thing that also came up in something I read from Bloomberg was those $1,400 stimulus payments that were given. That were given to voters, not even just voters, just American citizens. Problem with that is and I think you need to do that but the issue is, when you're giving money directly, you devalue the money, hence inflation, inflation. So there is a problem with trying to come out of a massive economic downturn during the pandemic to a situation now where companies are playing catch-up and using the pandemic as an opportunity to try to recoup lost money again, despite receiving federal support in the form of ppp loans that will live on. Biden because of the you know that he's currently president. But Biden because of the you know that he's currently president. But going ahead, I don't know if you're going to have a situation where a Republican president at least the being I mean the current front runner is necessarily going to have a solid plan.
Speaker 3:Now I say all this with a very important caveat. There is something that I'm actually sympathetic toward the Trump administration, on or in lockstep with. I am a huge critic of China. I'm a jobs, I'm a US jobs first Democrat. You can consider me a blue dog Democrat this way. I'm pro-labor, but I also believe in American jobs.
Speaker 3:The Democrat Party ignored that With the onset of globalization, the Democratic Party basically went the way of Republicans, like, let's just basically hand all of this to major corporations and wherever they get their employees from, all the better for the US, and that, arguably, was a mistake. I don't so in that, and I say all this because if we're trying to look at some form of economic recovery, we also do have to look at production, and you know, daniel, you mentioned the CHIPS Act. You know we have to look at what are the other opportunities for American jobs that could become viable again, that we're not just simply offloading them to other nations in the form of cheap labor, which shame on both Democrats and Republicans for greenlighting that. You know where Trump's stance on China was made a lot of sense, but the problem is it's Donald Trump. Mike and I talk about this all the time. We're both in our 40s.
Speaker 3:If you grew up in a tri-state area in the 80s and 90s, you're very much aware of the track record of one Donald John Trump, and it's to say as a businessman, he's a con artist, really doesn't have any economic or any business ventures you could point to and say that's an example of success, Even as a real estate person.
Speaker 3:We're seeing what happened in New York in the sense of fraud, basically inflating values in order to get more money from banks. To trust that individual to have a clear vision for economic prosperity is something I can never sign off on, because I've known this person too well. Could I see a Republican president step forward and say yes, we need to push forward and potentially look at deregulation as a way of just basically creating a production-based country, as we once were, possibly? The problem is you have a person who's a front runner, who has no vision for that and will not. Let's be clear should he win, the presidency will not put a cabinet together that will be in any support of that whatsoever, as we saw previously with a previous cabinet where, by the time he was done, most of those people did not keep their original positions.
Speaker 1:All problems, all a bunch of problems for both candidates coming into 2024. However, what I see here, too, being broken down is how Trump would not be an answer to a lot of these problems, but I think that's one step ahead. So it's almost like two decisions in the eyes of, maybe, a voter is, or just your average person thinking about it is like, all right, well, Biden's not doing that good of a job. All right, that's one, but would Trump do a better job? Or am I just voting against Biden because he's just not doing that good of a job in my eyes? So I think it's like two decisions and I don't know how many people are really thinking of the latter. And I also don't think like for the people who are more on the left, typically progressives, where the Israel Gaza war is this animating issue for them and they're debating a ceasefire and everything and chanting Genocide Joe. I don't see those people voting for Trump at all. I do see those people as you said, Mike, earlier, being couch voters, like, nope, I'm just not here for it. I don't want to vote for either candidate and I'm going to sit this election out, which is obviously going to be devastating for Biden when you do have a candidate like Trump that does have this loyal fan base that will go to the mat for Biden, when you do have a candidate like Trump that does have this loyal fan base that will go to the mat for him time after time. So those are a couple challenges. I think right there, but I am curious because this was brought up a bit earlier.
Speaker 1:But, dark horse in the race, maybe the first time since the 90s that third party candidate may be quite influential in this upcoming 2024 election, and that is Robert F Kennedy.
Speaker 1:What do you guys think of his prospects? Because he is starting to gain ballot access, His VP whose her name is alluding me at the moment but I think that was a strategic move to gain a lot of, honestly, her wealth, in essence, her support, her aid to get that ballot access, because that's what a lot of it comes down to is making sure you have the money to put this forward. So what do you think if he continues to get that ballot access, which he is doing, how much of an impact do you think he could have and do you see him as someone offering a positive vision forward? And I'll lastly add that I think he's actually the only person. I'll just give my personal thoughts who's actually offering. He acknowledges how, like America's quote steered off course and that we need to get back on track, and I think his Super Bowl ad that he did was quite ingenious to bring back the Kennedy name that so many people are familiar with, but also just a number of more recent ads as well that kind of encapsulates this message.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So you know I said this at the beginning of the show that it's if there's one election where you think a third party candidate could you know a la Ross Perot? You know get Garner, you know at least a fair percentage of votes where you start to think about shouldn't we have more parties? Shouldn't we be like other countries around the world that have multiple parties that engage in this and we don't cram all this ideology into two political parties here? This would be the election to do that right. And you were talking about RFK's VP choice, nicole Shanahan. She's the one that actually paid for that campaign ad that you saw during the Super Bowl, so she's an interesting VP pick.
Speaker 2:I've talked about this before in a couple of different segments. You know again when you're making a VP pick and Nick and I have never worked in strategic communications for a campaign or anything like that, so let's not misrepresent anything. But I know I've done strategic communications for other businesses and I know the first thing you want to do if I want to instill some public confidence. Yeah, I got to show you that. My number two you've heard of.
Speaker 2:I mean, you didn't even know her last name right now, daniel, we're like we got to look that stuff up, and that's what I'm saying and even the ones that he was vetting that the public knew about at least that had been leaked to media. Potentially we don't even know if this was actually true is a former Super Bowl winning quarterback that's still playing football. And then the other person is the former governor of Minnesota, and quote Logan Roy in succession that you want. These are not serious people, so you can't bring those as choices when you're truly trying to make a campaign run at this and, like I said again, the polling shows this is the election to do it. If you're going to be a third party candidate, nick and I and I've been doing more work right now for the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, so you can go to free and equalorg, give them a plug here for this and as the director of policy and strategy there, we're putting on a series of debates Nick and I attended one of them that are featuring some of these third party candidates, libertarian party candidates. We got one potentially coming in July at Freedom Fest that potentially will feature RFK, cornel West, jill Stein and a couple other candidates from the libertarian side. That it will really showcase a true debate system One all the candidates on stage and, by the way Trump and Biden have both been invited to this debate. We're trying to get all of them on stage together.
Speaker 2:Rnc doesn't want Trump to debate. Trump doesn't want to do it. He thinks he's ahead of everybody, so he doesn't need to debate anybody. And then President Biden is the President of the United States, so he's got prior commitments. Something will pop up and he doesn't need to go debate folks that are polling at like eight or 9%. But back to the ballot access thing, and if RFK gets on ballots, will voters actually give him a shot? Nick and I have talked about this before. We've had some other polling people that have been on the show talking about this. Um, I, I, the voters that I've spoken to, and I'm in Florida right, nixon, pennsylvania.
Speaker 2:So Nixon for all intent and purpose in a blue state, I'm in a red state. So red state voters that I talked to down here, you know and I've done this now because now people know our show, they've seen me, so of course their first inclination is to just regurgitate everything politics-wise that they have built up inside of them, and so I said, okay, well, let's do this, let's do a little circular table here. I'm going to go one by one and you tell me who's standing out to you. These are Republican voters, these are not. You know, maybe some say they're independent, but they voted Republican in the past and they're all like I do, like RFK, I would vote for RFK. So, for all of this Biden and there's a new NBC news poll that talks about this for all of this like RFK is going to steal votes from Biden. The people I've talked to again in a red state with a red governor who just ran for the GOP ticket, they're all like we would give RFK a shot. We think he has a little bit of Trumpage and obviously the Democratic Party doesn't like him, so he kind of encapsulates a little bit more of what we want to do. He's taken on as an environmental lawyer. He's taken on some of these companies head on and stuff like that. They'll point to different things like that in his past.
Speaker 2:The family name I don't think resonates as much, except for people that are deeply instilled in politics or entrenched in politics, I should say. So I don't, you know RFK died in 1968. Like I don't how many people really know you really know when he died, how he died, and stuff like that. I'd be hard pressed to find anybody under 25 that would truly know that without looking it up, and so I don't know if the name carries as much weight. But what I do know is and especially Cornel West now too, with Israel and Gaza and his show of support for the Palestinian people, and he has sat at a couple of these rallies at a couple of different colleges and he's doing more TV and non-traditional TV. Both of these folks, if they gain ballot access in these states again, I think you're gonna get to like 11, 8, 7% with each of them respectively and that's going to really make for an interesting 2028.
Speaker 2:Like could somebody actually buck the trend of the traditional RNC-DNC path, go it independent and really get a third-party movement in this country and that's kind of Free and Equal Elections Foundation and I've come around to this because I've always been on the side of you vote third-party might as well throw it in the trash. I still feel that way, but that's only because from a math perspective, that's not because of from an ideal world perspective. From an ideal world perspective, we should have multiple parties and we should have multiple candidates representing those parties and they all go and debate each other and then we all go to the ballot box and there's four or five people listed and we go see who will be the leader of the free world. Not two choices and one's 81, one's 78, and we can't do anything about it and we're stuck into this. So from an ideal world perspective, I agree with that. And Free and Equal Election Foundation, it's not so much about helping with the ballot access and stuff like that, but it is about getting these candidates noticed.
Speaker 2:You know, jason Palmer is a perfect example. He was a guy who came in our series of debates and he won American Samoa against president Biden If you heard about this on the democratic side of the aisle with their, with their caucus and primaries season. So he won American Samoa and everyone's like who the hell is Jason Palmer? I don't know anything about him. We've had him on our show, he's a friend of ours and it's because a foundation like this is putting on debates to get people more noticed. So I want to give the foundation a plug because I think and you're seeing more of more of these nonprofits pop up that are trying to unite America. They're trying to what you're doing, daniel overcome this divide. But how do we do that? How do we truly call to action, do that? Well, the first way to do that is to realize that we can't cram all this ideology, like I said, into two political parties. There needs to be more voices, more choices, the tagline of the foundation.
Speaker 2:And I think I don't agree with a lot of the things RFK says at all like, not even close. But I do agree. And we should all, as first amendment, free speech folks, right, if we're truly going to be there, he should have a right to debate this. Especially if he gains ballot access and especially if he's polling at a certain numbers, let him go out there. If he makes a fool out of himself on a debate stage, that's the whole point of this right. That's the whole point of this right. That's how debating started in the advent of television, right With JFK and Nixon.
Speaker 2:It won't be for a while, but there's a chance that we could see this guy and Cornel West. And we're going to see Jill Stein and she's already impacted the elections in different states with the percentage of votes that she's gotten in different states back in 2016. And she's run again in 2020. She's running again in 2024. Nick and I got to meet her at that last debate. So I'm in agreement. We need more voices, we need more choices, we need more people thrown into this political process so that way we can try to break this system of just being R and D, because there should be another option and nothing says it better than what's happening right now, in 2024, with this November election.
Speaker 3:You know, one thing I would offer, though, when we think about third parties, is that we often try to think about the home run in terms of the presidency, and we use examples of like the no nothings. We use the example of the election of 1860, when you had like four essentially candidates, you know, vying for the presidency, and the opportunity really is actually at the congressional level, and the example I'll use is the Tea Party from 2010. What you now have in the form of the Freedom Caucus is essentially the children of the Tea Party. So Republicans specifically that faction realize that it began at the local level. Democrats have tried to make some headway with this, with more progressive candidates and some who've now really done a good job of really building up momentum in their respective districts. You know, representative Ocasio-Cortez comes to mind. Representative Rashida Tlaib in Michigan is another one who probably will likely secure her seat. So when we talk about looking at third parties for the presidency, I think we're sometimes missing the bigger conversation, which is how, at the congressional level, can you have more diverse voices? Because it's that kind of momentum that builds to an opportunity for leadership.
Speaker 3:As far as Robert F Kennedy goes, as you both were talking, one thing I was doing was looking at. So you know Kennedy, you know Robert's website, you know Kennedy24.com and I've checked this out before in terms of his policy vision and when I went to it previously there wasn't a lot of information there. Thankfully there's more in the policy section, but it's some of these policies I think that in a debate would come to light in terms of viability. But there's also a little bit of a stink on Robert F Kennedy which, at least for me, always comes back to some of that smacks of conspiracy theory, particularly younger voters who really are disaffected with the way our current structure is in terms of being corporate friendly, being capitalist based. But when your website talks about, you know, big AG controls the Department of Agriculture and that's a quote from the policy section under this is for we the people, not we the corporations in terms of his policy view. When you talk about big pharma controlling the CDC, the FDA and the NIH, you sound a little like the friend that we all have that probably smoked a little too much pot and suddenly thought that it had answers to everything. Now I think there's some out-of-the-box thinking too that he brings to, that Kennedy brings to this conversation under the homeownership and American dreams section of his policy page. You know there's a reference there's a discussion here about a tax-free, 3% government-backed mortgage bond, the idea being that homeowners would actually save money on their mortgage because of a new structure in terms of how mortgages are acquired. The problem, though, is that it also talks about the financing, for this will come from investors. I want you to think about that for a minute, because investors denotes that when the market's great, then you will probably have lower interest rates. When the market's not so good, you may see those numbers fluctuate, and if that sounds familiar, then congratulations. We're back in the 2008 housing crisis, so there's policy matters that make me a little uncomfortable. That all being said, I would welcome a different view.
Speaker 3:In 1992, about 18.3, 18.2% of the popular vote went to Ross Perot, and in many ways, that was because his presence on the debate stage with later President Clinton, former President George Bush, was a voice, an outside voice, that said this is ridiculous. We could do better Later on. Not that he really garnered much of a vote, but, steve Forbes, you're talking about a 15% flat tax. There's different ways that we could be looking at the challenges that we have as a country, the current structures that we have as a country, that we should be open to more innovative thinking. Could Robert Kennedy Jr bring that Perhaps? I will say years ago, when he was a host on Air America talking about environmental challenges and the work he was doing as an environmental lawyer very inspiring and had that version of Robert F Kennedy run for office, I certainly would have voted for him.
Speaker 3:The weird heel turn see Mike's got me thinking about wrestling now around vaccines is the thing that makes me take pause. Children's Defense Fund, where he's a very big advocate, on their website posts a lot of information, medical information but on the same website, if you look further, it says that the information here is not backed by doctors or backed by the medical industry. It's things like that that make you take pause and say, well, where are you getting this from? And that's the thing. That's the concern I have, because that starts to get into. Hey, let's inject bleach in our veins, like the former president suggested, and I'm not making that up. You both have heard that press conference. So there is a concern I have about the rational side of Robert F Kennedy and the irrational, perhaps reckless, views he may bring were he to become president. That all being said, again I look at what you know is currently running from the Democratic Republican parties and I think we should be looking at alternatives.
Speaker 1:There's a couple of things on there too. I want to go back to what you said on how it starts on a local level, such as congressional seats. I think that's quite true in how you saw the red wave in 2010. But also I think it's key to point out as well that these are nationally based issues too. Issues, too, such as DEI in schools or LGBT issues, or just the culture war has really upstaged any kind of local level campaign, whether it's just made jobs in the industry or in the area, which obviously still plays a point, but depending on how the sentiment is on a more national level, that matters a lot.
Speaker 1:I think just a quick case study of that was the election in 2021 in Virginia, the governor's race, when Youngkin won and his opponent mentioned that. Well, you know, maybe parents shouldn't be in schools and shouldn't be involved in that process. When parents heard that well, you know, maybe parents should be in schools and should be involved in that process. When parents heard that and I'm not speaking for parents, but at least to me he wasn't just speaking from like a curricular level I'm like, oh, let us develop the curriculum. It was more so. Hey, everything that you're hearing about DEI and any other issues you may have, or books, whatnot. Let us worry about that. And I feel like that was a driving issue for people, especially because schools were closed for quite some time and obviously uh affected children's learning regardless, kind of moving on to um rfk. So I, from a different view, though from a different view on, at least on the conspiratorial side of things, I think it's fair make a making mention of that. A conspiratorial view, uh, conspiracy really boils down to maybe the lack of acceptance or the fringe, uh nature of it. But what if it was just simply accepted by everyone? And why I mean by this is that I could.
Speaker 1:When you hear if Biden says I guess I'm going in like granular here, but join me for the ride please when Biden says Israel is not committing a genocide, for example, and people are like, well, there's X amount of Palestinian deaths, civilian deaths, over 20,000. There is reckless Israeli behavior, military behavior, that is, in Gaza You're seeing tons of some aid workers and journalists being killed. What is this temerity that they're portraying? And also just the amount of these anecdotal stories that you came out like one I heard today where the IDf allegedly was playing sounds of crying babies as our refugee camp. So when people came out like palestinian refugees came out to see those ref, you um see, hear those sounds? They were shot at all.
Speaker 1:This stuff is like well, I see this right in front of me and you're telling me it's not happening. So who's like the conspiracy theorist now, and maybe that's not the right? So who's like the conspiracy theorist now, and maybe that's not the right labeling of it? I'm just kind of like providing a counterclaim to things that, even though it may come off conspiratorial, I think there's also deeply unpopular stances that give people pause, but they're just widely accepted as being normal.
Speaker 3:The thing about. Yeah, I mean I appreciate that. Counter to that, the worry I have, and when I talk about Robert F Kennedy Jr's stance on what he would consider sort of shadowy agents that are controlling elements of the government, what we find is often that the data doesn't back that up. I mean, particularly with the vaccine issue. You know he really was parroting talking points that we've seen previously from Jenny McCarthy, who herself has challenged who's changed her view, and it's ridiculous that I'm mentioning a former Playboy playmate here. But that's kind of America right now when we talk about science. But when you have someone who likens vaccines to autism, which has been denounced, and in fact the person who put forward that argument lost their medical license because the research that they put forward could not be verified and backed up, that's what would cause any concern. When you say that what people see in front of their eyes to tell them otherwise, could you be the conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 3:I understand the view, but what I would offer, though, in some of the takes that Kennedy Jr has had, at least in particular in science, is, well, the experience of an individual person. Tell me where that's coming from, because if we're saying vaccines cause something and you're looking at your particular child. Well then I would offer is can we talk about causality for a minute? Because when we do talk about, for example, the IDF bomb hitting a building, well that's true, like if you saw it with your own eyes, that indeed happened.
Speaker 3:If you're telling me that a vaccine then produced autism in your child, you're saying that you witnessed two things happening and you see the link. And I would say, in just any basic understanding of human anatomy there's a lot more processes are going on and you probably want to talk to medical experts to get a better understanding of that. But in the matter of a military attack, sure, I mean you could certainly say you know hospital X has been hit. There's no denying that. Granted, the IDF may refute that sometimes, but I so I understand your point. But the struggle I have there is that you can be confronted with fact and it's really hard to refute that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, Let me take it a step further here, because I was hopeful that Nick didn't say what I was going to say and he did not and he didn't come close. So at first, the first thing is and the thing that Nick and I do is the transparency part of this, right With our show like the reason why Nick is passionate about this is because his wife is, you know, an emergency room doctor, like you know, especially in the pediatric section. So he, you know, he's sitting next to somebody who is a medical professional, an expert, right Daily. I have a daughter who's on the spectrum, right, so this issue is incredibly important to me. So I don't agree with anything that RFK has said. My kids are vaccinated and stuff like that. And I also agree with freedom of choice, Like if you don't want to vaccinate your child, that is your choice. Like I mean it is, there are doctors that will refuse you. When I lived in New York City, the pediatric firm that we would go to it said it on the door If you don't want to give your kids vaccines, this is not going to be the practice for you. So that's the whole part of this freedom of choice. It was kind of like with the COVID vaccine.
Speaker 2:Nick and I have said this a bunch you don't have to get vaccinated. You should, but you can't tell me oh, I lost my job for 25 years. I was working at this place Cool, Great story, Compelling and rich, to quote Ron Burgundy but unfortunately you don't own this company, so you can't work here anymore, my man, because we've decided to make a policy where you got to get vaccinated. If you don't understand that, tell me and I'll explain it to you, because this is my problem and you're talking about the high arching theme of this show, Daniel overcoming the divide. We can't overcome the divide when people don't have a conversation on the up and up, that is, on the up and up right there. Okay, With respect to the vaccine, you don't got to get vaccinated. Nobody's stopping you. You can't complain that you lost your job. You don't own this company, you don't own Walmart, You're not the Walton kid, so you don't own this company. So sorry, get a new job where they will allow you to not be vaccinated. It's not that hard. This isn't rocket science.
Speaker 2:Back to what we were talking about before with RFK and this platform and conspiracal things. The problem with conspiracy theorists is, if I say 10 things and I get one of them right. It's the broken clock effect right, when you'd be like, wow, he was right on that. We've seen this with Alex Jones. He was right on that. He said this, that's great. He said 80 other things within the last because again, he's in this content generation space. He's got to make money. If you don't have the hot takes, you're not going to make money. You know how? I know that? Because Nick and I are not making money. We're not making money. We don't have the hot take factory coming out each week.
Speaker 2:These folks and again, I say this as somebody if I had worked at a deli for forever, if I was a plumber I have no disrespect to anybody having those jobs If I had those jobs and I didn't work in news, I didn't work at Fox News, I didn't work in conservative media for WR Radio. I don't know Sean Hannity personally, like I do. If I didn't do any of that, I'm on TV at CNN. If I didn't know any of that, then it would make more sense to be like, yeah, I don't know about this, but the problem is I lived in these systems. These folks. They come back after going on TV and then you know, hey, what are we doing here? Let's go catch this, let's go do a game. You know, like we've had people say that to us, We've had members of Congress on our show say that to us off off mic, where, uh, you know, I'll give an example, without giving the congressional women's names, two of them one on the Republican side, the Democrat.
Speaker 2:One told Nick and I this in the hearing. She's attacking me when the camera turned off. We should work on something legislatively. Why would I do that? Why would I do that with you? Are you going to retract everything you just said about me? That's false on there? No, of course not.
Speaker 2:So back to the conspiracy theory, part of this, and it's why I tell people to diversify their news sources. I'm not stopping anybody from listening to Candace Owens or Steven Crowder or Ben Shapiro, or reading Matt Teiby or Barry Weiss. I'm not stopping people from doing that. I'm just telling you. Now their revenue streams have changed. It's the same thing with Mehdi Hassan, who's been on our show, who left MSNBC. Now he started his own network. But is he going to regulate things Because he's over here saying, yeah, I'm going to let people say what they want to say Is he? I don't see any Latino voices on there. I don't see any other folks on there that are whatchamacallit of different persuasions to be able to do that. So now he's got to wear that content generation hat.
Speaker 2:And my problem with conspiracy theorists are specifically the ones that are espousing it, not the ones that are consuming it. The ones that are espousing it. You can say anything and throw it up against the wall. One thing sticks that doesn't absolve you of the other 18 things. You got wrong, One for 19,. You'd be demoted to the minor leagues. You'd be sent down already, unless your name's Jackson Holiday for the Orioles, who's struck out so many different times.
Speaker 2:This is wild to me that we are putting these things in this category of like. Yeah, it's a conspiracy theory, but only if some more people believed it. No, how about if it was true? Is the government some big conspiracy? I'm sure the government's compartmentalized like every other company. The CEO on down never told me what was happening. He would tell it to my boss, which would trickle down to his boss, et cetera, et cetera, and maybe I would get a piece of that information. That's the way the government operates. We've had former FBI, CIA, DOJ folks on here. That's the way it operates. It's compartmentalized. Is it a big conspiracy? Are there things they're not telling us? Sure, I'm sure there are.
Speaker 2:But if we're going to operate that everything is conspiratorial in nature, then you need to go all in on the conspiracy theory. You need to be taking out all your money, not trusting the bank system. You shouldn't have an Apple iPhone because that has a UDID that tracks you device-wise. You shouldn't have credit cards because that tracks you and tracks your method of payments if you're using it either at ATMs or at different kiosk locations. You got to go all in on the conspiracy theory.
Speaker 2:That's the only thing I would counter on that, Daniel. So the first one you can throw 18 things on the wall. If one of them is right, that doesn't absolve the other 17. And the second thing is for the people that are truly living in the conspiracy lane. I better not see you waiting online at the Apple store for a brand new Apple device and stuff like that, when you're talking about the government being tracking you, when I just told you, as somebody who's worked in product and technology for 15 plus years, launching some of these platforms that you use, they're tracking you't. You can't live in both worlds and say that you believe in this and then you're partaking in it appreciate it.
Speaker 1:I think all this kind of speaks to the failure of institutions and mainstream media, which I would just counter with um and I wasn't, I wasn't at least attempting to equate, equate vaccine conspiracies, whatever they may be, with a genocide or alleged genocide, more so that it's deframing of the two, which are both pernicious, not saying they're the exact same thing. Nonetheless, it's like that 1984 quote. It's like ignore your eyes, ignore your ears, don't listen to what you're being sold or what you're saying, but nonetheless it's like that 1984 quote. It's like ignore your eyes, ignore your ears, don't listen to what you're being sold or what you're saying, but nonetheless I think those points are valid, that when you talk about regulation and who's doing the regulating? But I mean let's use a mainstream media outlet such as Fox, or let's use another one such as MSNBC that peddled different, literally conspiracy theories, such as on Russiagate or on January 6th. I mean for Fox News. That is by all means a mainstream media outlet that's well regulated. It peddled lies about the election for months until a lawsuit literally forced them to admit that they were wrong. That's mainstream. So I think all these independent creators are coming out of the failures of these mainstream outlets and government institutions. Let's talk about the CDC that said we're not going to release vaccine data because we don't trust the public. You don't trust the public, that's not your job. So we can counter that night and day. But this all kind of generates from the fact that it's coming from a failure. It's coming from a need. The market's demanding this because obviously the people are not happy with the status quo.
Speaker 1:I'll just go back to that one pundit or commentator who was fired or let go, who left. I should say he left based on his Palestinian comments or his comments on the Israel-Gaza war. That view obviously wasn't really permitted there, so he went. He's doing his own thing now, so it's basically just not fitting a certain narrative within the mainstream. That's kind of, I would say, generating this. I mean, you always had guys like Alex Jones who were putting out these awful conspiracy theories such as the Sandy Hook one which literally hurt people and their families and it's despicable. But nonetheless, I'll just count conspiracy theories plenty to go around, and I agree with you that you shouldn't just pick and choose and be like oh, I believe in that, I don't believe in this. No, but let's look at like where they're coming from which I think it's a failure to admit on, say, an institution or mainstream media outlet, the truth in the matter.
Speaker 3:So yeah, yeah, I would offer there too that when we talk about Alex Jones, there's a theme in this conversation. Today we're talking a lot about national issues and often when we do that, we inevitably remove our. We end up projecting ourselves into these situations. And I was saying earlier about the death of local information. Now I talked about, like, local discourse, I talked about local elections, and a big thing that comes up for me often on our show is the death of local media. So local newspapers and I'm still a newspaper person continue to disappear. A couple of years ago in the Atlantic there was a great story about a major newspaper in Chicago that basically was bought out by a hedge fund company and the company basically just gutted the newspaper because they looked at it as a commodity. And you find the way to make profit off of it gut it and remove it. So we've gotten to a place and I bring this up with members of the House all the time, not necessarily on a show, but a concern I have is when I hear someone like AOC talking about climate change. I get it, it's real fine. I get it, it's real Fine. The district that she serves as a member of the house tell me about that. What are their needs?
Speaker 3:I live in Easton, pennsylvania. My local paper is actually basically for the Lehigh Valley right, but my local town paper is almost non-existent when I know more about national issues. But I can't tell you what's going on in my town council or where my legitimate concerns are or my aspirations are about the activities of our mayor. Something went wrong and I think that continues to be. A bigger problem is that when I go to the grocery store there's ample copies of the Philadelphia Inquirer right or even the New York Times, especially on Sunday. But local news, which is the information that helps us decide school board elections, that makes sure that we are civic-minded, involved individuals in our communities at some point got stamped out and now we're left with looking at 24-hour news programs, national news programs that put forward a narrative and, daniel, you were hitting on this in terms of, you know be it from MSNBC or Fox, cnn, whatever that paint these narratives with some level data but some level speculation that have us really in a place of emotional turmoil, but it's not helping us at a local level. Our inability to be civically engaged in our respective communities has resulted in us pursuing these larger matters, most of which really don't affect us and, as a result, you're missing the opportunity in front of you.
Speaker 3:I've said this all the time that we can often be more aware of who's on this current season, the real housewives of so-and-so city, but we don't know who is currently on our town council. When I voted today, I have to claim a level of ignorance. Today, I have to claim a level of ignorance. We had, um, you know, yes, I'm aware of our district. Um, our representative, susan wild. You know, district 10 in pennsylvania. Our senator, bob casey, was running for re-election. John federman obviously won in 2022, so he won't be up for a couple more years.
Speaker 3:Our president, yes, familiar with, but in terms of our attorney general, for, you know, for our area, I saw a bunch of names. I'm like I don't know who this is. So you're, basically, I may as well just close my eyes and, just, you know, threw something at the wall, and that's a failure on my part, because these are the matters that are going to predominantly affect me and my family, and there was a time you were talking about, daniel, you know, romanticizing 2019, I'll even go to like 1719, or actually rather 1819 that there's a, there's a place where you are very much familiar with and active in your respective community, and unfortunately that's become the past. So we tend to focus more on national drama, which sometimes does is not the primary thing that drives us. Even recently, with the protest that we saw, columbia and Yale that's a real thing.
Speaker 3:I mean you could have a view of what goes on in Palestine or what goes on in Gaza, but I would offer you that the only way you can really deal with that is that you have to show up at the ballot box. That's really where it comes from. Does your elected representative of your district if you know where that is, what is their stance on this? Go, take it up with them. You know throwing up your hands in anger at the college or university you're at? Yeah, maybe it worked in the 60s, but honestly, what got us out of Vietnam was really news coverage.
Speaker 3:Was really our understanding of yeah, this is really happening. You know protest.
Speaker 2:You know protest aside yeah, just to follow up on that. It's one of the things that we're trying to do with our show. Daniel, like you know, I wanted to start this when we started in 2020 with can we please talk? It was, it was. It came out of a you know, obviously everybody's sitting at home and the George Floyd death that happened. And then obviously you got 2.9 million podcasts are out there now and the boom was all from 2020, right, so we were a part of that fray, but I told Nick I'm like we're going to do this like an actual show, one that I've produced or worked on, where it's segments, commentary discussion, worked on where it's segments, commentary discussion, statistical data. We make a point when we come back after the break. Here's somebody running for Congress in New York, district 1, john Avalon, for example, who's joining us next week on the show. Who's a former CNN analyst who's running for Congress in a district where he has a vacation home, right? So is that somebody that should be running for Congress? Does he know the issues that his constituents are facing? We're going to find out, we're going to ask him and then, when we talk about subject matter experts and talking about topics, how do we overcome this right. Going back to the RFK vaccine point, the reason why we're so a little passionate about it? Because again we're seeing that people are single voter issues. Right now they're focused, hyper-focused on one issue which would disqualify RFK For me.
Speaker 2:We had Dr Paul Offit on the show during the pandemic or maybe a little bit after I know him, and Joe Rogan and RFK and Peter Hotez. Dr Peter Hotez had all gotten into these battles and I said to him I said, look, let me ask you. The word research has been weaponized. I want to do my own research, doc. This is Mike Leon. I come into your office, my daughter and he's the director of vaccine education. He's a doctor at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. I said I want to do my own research. What should I do? He goes. Step one read the reports, read the three reports, the studies that were generated from this. Step two learn molecular biology or epidemiology. I go yeah, I'm not doing any of that because I don't have the time for that. If I break my leg, I am not going to my buddy Benji, who works at a deli, who one time wrapped his knee properly and now his knee clicks all the time. Yeah, he can still walk on it, but he never saw a doctor. No, I'm going to go to the hospital, I'm going to go to a doctor.
Speaker 2:When Nick and I were growing up and anytime I would go to a party my parents, friends would always say to me what do you want to be when you grow up? Stay in school. These were always refrains that you would hear. Now we're vilifying people who have stayed in school and have become subject matter experts through the schooling and through their work efforts in these lanes. We're not listening to them. We're belittling them. We're challenging them to debates.
Speaker 2:The guy from news radio should be moderating a debate between an environmental lawyer and an epidemiologist about the efficacy of vaccines. An environmental lawyer and an epidemiologist about the efficacy of vaccines Does that make sense to anyone with ears and eyes and all use of their five senses? On what planet? And that's the issue I have that Nick and I are trying to kind of bridge the gap. We're not trying to. This is not confrontational journalism. I'm not going to have somebody on here that is just espousing things that are incredibly wild. But to the point I made earlier in the show about Representative Chip Roy, for example, who's a member of the Freedom Caucus with the Republicans. I would have him on because he is somebody right now that's upset with leadership. He lives in a border state. I've seen him do something with Representative Jamal Bowman and talking about bipartisanship, and they did this hour-long sit-down. Those are people that we want to get back to this thing Now.
Speaker 2:That's boring for traditional media and it doesn't equate to ratings and that's why we're seeing it with the Biden administration. To be honest with you, ratings are down and people are not engaging as much, because when Trump was in office, we saw more people engaging with content. They wanted to learn more about what he said today in this presser. What's he doing now? Biden doesn't do that for us and that's why we see media layoffs from all of these different companies.
Speaker 2:But what I wanted, what we want to do with our show, is really and I think, the efforts of your show about overcoming this divide Well, I want people to start talking again. But the talking has to start at a point where we all say that is a fact, we all agree on that, it's not your fact, it's not my fact, it's the fact. And once we agree on that, then we can move forward. So I love what you're doing here, and this is what Nick and I are trying to do with our show with respect to lending subject matter expertise on our show and giving them a platform and voice.
Speaker 2:And so people can understand.
Speaker 1:Where can people find you at too?
Speaker 2:I want to put that out there too.
Speaker 1:Because you mentioned it quite a few times.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you can check out the Can we Please Talk? Podcast. Obviously, wherever you get your podcasts, or go to LeonMediaNetworkcom. We're under a family of shows that we have there across new sports education no-transcript. You would think it wouldn't happen as much. But not only that. Like we're not in this hot take business, we're in this balls and strikes, we're the refs, we're calling the game as we see it, and then we're going to go home, you know, and hang out with our families and then get back the next day and go to the ballpark. And the only difference with that analogy of the calling and balls and strikes is that we're also interviewing the managers afterwards. We're interviewing the players, we're finding out what they thought about the game and stuff like that, and so we want to continue that process.
Speaker 2:I think what you said earlier, daniel, is right Conspiracy theorists or anybody who is just searching for more information and goes down a rabbit hole they're looking for something to fill that void. So within that and we've had people tell us this, nick knows this. Hey, you're my source for news. And what do I say to them? That's not. No, we should not be your sole source for news. You should be diversifying your news. You should be going to Reuters and NPR and AP News and Yahoo News. You should be going to every single one of them finding the same series of facts and commonalities and then that forms your opinion about the story, because all of us have come to a consensus that these are the universally accepted facts regarding that story.
Speaker 2:If you don't do that process, you're lazy. And I say you're lazy to define your search habits, not you as a person, and I think people need to start doing that. Nick and I try to do it as best as we can and exemplify that on the show, and I hope that the listeners I know, because obviously you know people listen to us, you've heard us, but this is what we're trying to do with our show and adding to the discourse.
Speaker 1:For sure, for sure, and everyone who's listening, make sure to go check out their podcast, because I have listened to a few episodes is engaging, is informative, so make sure you go check that out. But I do want to close it on a note of just last thoughts regarding 2024. If you had just one prediction as what you're thinking of, what's going to happen now, if you would like to give that out, that be interesting, because I personally I'm not someone who has shame about previous mistakes unless, like they're obviously in temple or just something else I do want to give. I do look like looking back and seeing like, oh, how that did plan out or how that didn't uh, pan out, um, the way I thought let me.
Speaker 2:Let me go first because I can make the easiest prediction, because Because I, to be honest with you, I truly like right now I could see Donald Trump being the president again. I could also see, a week from now, president Biden being the president again. Like something happens. We don't know what's going to happen over these next five, six months. Specifically, let's say there's a ceasefire tomorrow and all the hostages have been returned. Biden gets credit for all. We truly don't have a knowledge base.
Speaker 2:What I will say prediction-wise, because I think I'll be right on this, so that's why I'm going to say it publicly I think we're going to see the lowest voter turnout in history in this coming election. I truly think that people are going to give a big FU and the numbers are going to be even smaller. Georgia, we saw, was 11,000, whatever Trump said to Raffensperger on the phone 11,500 votes. We saw Arizona and the margin of victory there. I think the margins are going to be so much smaller because A voter turnout's going to be lower and B if RFK, jill Stein and Cornel West get on ballot access on these states, I think you're going to see that number impact the general. So will it be 2016 level.
Speaker 2:Like I said before, that was 127 million people or something like that in that neighborhood. I think it could be lower than that. To be honest with you, I think we're going to see really low voter turnout and we're going to see all these networks talking about. Therein lies the reason why either A Trump won or Biden got reelected because the voter turnout was so low. That's my bold prediction. Everybody.
Speaker 3:I'll go bolder or at least more clear, and I don't mind being wrong. I use DraftKings a bit all the time. So I think Trump wins the presidency for the reason about low voter turnout. Because if you're telling me I have two candidates and it comes down to the diehards, give me the Republican every time. It comes down to the diehards, give me the Republican every time. But I think Trump walks into a situation where he's not going to have both a House and a Senate controlled by Republicans. I don't think he gets that. I have a feeling that the House may potentially flip. The Senate I think may hold. I think there's a possibility. Democrats may actually pick up more seats, and it's for the reasons that we've been talking about today.
Speaker 3:While democrats may not be excited about biden at the local level in their respective states, there are a lot of concerns about a woman's right to choose. A lot of concerns about a woman's right to choose, a lot of concerns about some of these conservative stances that Republicans have. I mean far-right stances that Republicans have taken. Daniel, you mentioned Glenn Youngkin in that election. That's a really good example, but let's all and we have to remember the counter too that Glenn Youngkin goes in as what was considered a moderate Republican but then really ends up being a little bit more of a far-right leading conservative in his views about education. What do we have now? Well, the state of virginia has basically put in a essentially a blue state legislator legislature. There's nothing that's going to happen in the state of virginia, so glenn youngkin basically becomes a lame duck. So the state essentially learned its lesson from that election.
Speaker 3:I think you're going to see more of that. I think there's going to be a larger concern of like in my state. I mean, I may not give a damn about the president, but I certainly will not let my state become sympathetic to a far right pursuit of regulating women's bodies. You know, I think that's where we end up shaking out and then that leads itself to. Then potentially the next four years are going to be political turmoil, that not much is going to get done. Right now we're seeing that in the second half of the Biden administration where, with a house controlled by the Republicans, not a whole lot's being done, we may legitimately see four more years of that.
Speaker 1:I think both prudent predictions. It's much appreciated. It was great having you guys on. I think the commentary on Biden and Trump was fantastic. Just looking at the headwinds Fantastic Just looking at like the headwinds and or tailwinds and what they're going to be dealing with, both coming in 2024. And also appreciate the dialogue and a little debate going back and forth about conspiracies, because I think that's always worth and I think that gives a lot of people things to think about and ideate on. So much appreciated. On that and without anything else, I think we'll be we'll be closing out this episode, but thank you everyone for tuning in. Thank you, mike and Nick for being here. It's absolute pleasure hosting you guys and I look forward to chatting soon. Hey, thanks for having us See you Thursday. All right, bye now you.