Episode 26 - President Elect and Eyes on Georgia

In the return of Fate of the Union, Franklin looks at the outcome of the 2020 election and the impact of potential voter fraud issues across the country.  Next, we assess how two run-off races for the Senate seats from Georgia could impact the future of the country.  Finally, we revisit how the invasion of politics in sports is taking its toll on the business of companies like ESPN.

If you enjoyed this video, please subscribe on YouTube for more videos, as well as iTunes for the Fate of the Union podcast. You can also find out more about the show and its host on Twitter at Fateoftheunion_, searching Fate of the Union on Medium, and at franklinfotu@gmail.com.  

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello and welcome everyone to the fate of the union podcast, a weekly review of the biggest issues in national politics. Given from a conservative perspective, the show also periodically address current true crime cases from across the country. If you like, what you hear, please hit subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts. Now let's talk about the fate of the union by all accounts, the 46th president of the United States to be inaugurated next January will in fact be Joe Biden, uh, as I'm sure a lot of you have also heard there are ongoing legal battles, uh, initiated by the Trump campaign in order to expose some voter fraud. Uh, most of most relevance in the rust belt States and in States where it really came down to the wire, at least as being the last outstanding States to report a winner for their respective electoral votes. It does seem in the interest of full disclosure that these legal battles aren't going to overturn the results of the election and a more granular level, not overturn the winner of the electoral votes in each respective state. However, I think it is useful to see where these lawsuits take us. There have already been reports that certain votes were counted when they were either not postmarked at all or postmarked too late, uh, after election day and were nevertheless included in the vote count for each state. There has also been reports, uh, most notably from Michigan and Wisconsin of deceased former citizens of the state, actually somehow casting a vote in this year's election. Again, if you look at some of the last elections exposure of either voter fraud or simply a miscounting of votes, it seems to be safe to say here that any reversal or disqualification of votes in each of these States is not going to amount to the tens of thousands, uh, needed to overturn what would be, uh, a Democrat victory and, uh, in some cases turning blue of these States. But I still think it's interesting to see what is an accurate depiction of voter fraud in the country, because you could imagine on a more local level that it could voter fraud and voter miscount could have a more profound effect in that, in those elections. Obviously a lot less people vote, any manipulation of the counts would have a more significant effect since smaller amounts of votes will make a bigger difference and, and sway the percentages in a lot bigger way, um, in, in smaller elections. So we'll keep an eye on that going forward, but of particular relevance for conservatives across the country at this point would really be the outstanding election of two Georgia senators to be a runoff election come this January. And in, in, in the first, what will be a runoff race in Georgia in January, we have Joan Oz versus David Purdue. Now this came down to about a 1.7 percentage point difference in the election this fall, and looks like it'll be as razor thin going forward. Jon Ossoff has been a younger up and coming what at least progressive Democrats have tried to posture as an up and coming star. He hasn't really had the track record to back that up yet, but that's the way they kind of fancy him. And he's going up against David Purdue, uh, again, less about a 1.7%, uh, difference in the Paul's November, the other race being a Democrat Rafael war, or knock versus a Republican Kelly Loffler. Now in November here, we saw that Warnock did edge Loffler by about 7%, a percentage points, which on its face can seem pretty significant. But if you look closer at the election, the third place finisher was also a Republican. So Loffler does have at least a little bit reliability to maybe pick up some of that third place, finishers vote in a straight up head to head election with Warnock and by all hopes eclipse the gap that was, uh, about seven percentage points here in November and overcome net for a victory in January. And as far as the country's concerned, the significance of this is as follows right now. The Senate count as far as Republicans versus Democrats is 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats. So the Democrats are trying all, uh, they can, you've seen former Democrat candidate, Andrew Yang and others move to Georgia to not only have their own votes counted, uh, in that election, in the runoff, but also help in the efforts to, uh, prevail in both of these races. And the Democrats need to go to for two here for the simple reason that that would of course result in a 50 to 50 tie in the Senate. Now, as I'm sure you're all aware in that case, uh, any proposed, uh, law that comes up for a Senate vote and falls to the 50 50 Getty, Ty would then be kicked over to the vice president of the United States who would act as a real tie breaker, a hundred and first vote to settle any dead heat tie at 50 50. And of course we know that that that tie breaker would be vice-president elect Kamala Harris and going forward. That would mean that try as they might, uh, Senate Republicans would add best, be able to produce a tie, right? And eventually what was really effectively be a loss for any proposed legislation that they tried to defeat in the Senate. And we've already seen these two races get pretty dirty, pretty down in the mud. Um, Raphael Warnock appears just by appearance and presentation may not seem as, as truly radical as he is, but if you parse through some of the speeches and some of the public statements he's made, um, it really shows his true colors as far as being on the true far radical left. He's outright said that, uh, president Trump's legal team and those who support him have a duty to quote or a Pence to the rest of the country for the sin of supporting president Trump and both and Jon Ossoff for that matter, the Democrat and the other Georgia Senate race have supported efforts either by suggestion or really outright explicitly stating that there should be some kind of public statements of public shaming for those who have supported president Trump and supporting the kind of list-making that you've seen from other, uh, congressional members, such as the squad in AOC that we really need to put full spotlight on those who have supported president Trump in the past. And really for a very clear purpose, it's not for a reconciliation of any kind. It's not for a, for an effort at unity. They've heard, suppose it, efforts of unity are coming from the Biden administration. It's really, for again, the public shaming, the negative facts that it would have for certainly professional reputation for those that are publicly named going forward. So this is going to be a dead heat tie, a dead heat battle, rather going into the next couple months. Um, I think that it's going to be a close race, but I do think that actually Republicans pull out both, uh, races and go two for two. And does, would lead, uh, any Senate votes, assuming everyone votes, according to party affiliation at a final vote of 52 to 48? Uh, like I said earlier, I think, uh, Kelly law Loffler overcomes the deficit demonstrated in the November race. Once she picks up some support, uh, that was previously, uh, votes cast at, for the third place, Republican finisher and uses that to kind of volt ahead of Raphael Warnock and end up the Victor in her race. Uh, whereas I think David Purdue also, uh, overcomes what is a very, very thin race. Uh, as far as the November numbers are concerned and really capitalizes on both being a more seasoned politician than Jon Ossoff, but really counting on the fact that Jon Ossoff has had his foibles. Uh, he doesn't do well, uh, publicly in public speaking and trying to get his message across he's while a certainly a legitimate candidate for it. The Senate he has gotten this far, there is an air judging from the Democrats support of him that perhaps he should be a little bit farther along. They like would have liked him to achieve a little bit more by now, at least if you go by their assessment and their description of what they really think he is within their plans. So, well, the word is, is definitely ahead of us conservatives and there's a lot of work to be done. I think right now, if we put boots on the ground and we do put, uh, the man hours in, down in, we can look forward to two hard-fought albeit, but two victories and make it at 52 to 48 Senate going forward in 2021 in favor of the Republicans.

Speaker 2: 12:11

So we will continue to keep an eye on both of those very influential runoff races down in Georgia. In other news, this may be off of some people's radar, but I think it's indicative of some of the cultural issues that are still not really being understood and really not being comprehended as far as the effect for those people outside of the culture Wars. Let me explain. Here's an article from last week from our cake, the coverage that's clay Travis's outlet. I encourage everybody to go over and give it a read. This particular article discusses ESPN recent layoffs ESPN announced on Thursday that there would be layoffs of 300 employees and that 200 open positions would go unfilled. So really it's a net loss of 500 jobs over at ESPN. The network faces challenges from the pandemic and cord cutting long time, ESPN anchor, Bob Lee, blasted Disney's decision to cut jobs saying that he quote, he saw a quote countless decades of journalistic experience and expertise, jettison and quote. So far a couple of writers and some who work behind the scenes have announced they are out. Now. That's not surprising since we know from the previous mass layoffs at ESPN back in 2017, that many of the people who get the acts in, in furthering the mass layoffs are not going to be on our talent. They're not going to be people that you see when you flip on sports center, they're likely going to be the office jobs behind the scenes that are going to be website only writers, those analysts and commentators who don't appear on TV. They're going to cut those jobs first and then kind of work up in, in inverse order of prominence at the network back in 2017 in the mass layoffs, which by all accounts will still be less than the rounds of layoffs going on. Currently. Then you saw a lot of roles being, being asked that were production assistance, um, behind the scenes, uh, tech workers on the individual shows, uh, office workers at the network that really don't provide any commentary for sports per se. They just happen to work an office job at ESPN. So now again, we see a similar kind of break down that website only writers and production workers on the individual shows and podcasts they'll be asked, but not at least by all accounts, not anyone that you would actually see on TV. I'm seeing here, there's an, uh, an NHL draft, uh, analysts writer. Who's out at ESPN. One of the producers for Dan Lebatard show, we'll get to him in a second.

Speaker 3: 15:42

Um,

Speaker 2: 15:44

Even writers who have won pretty prestigious awards, like the baseball writers association of America awards for their achievements in, in writing about the sport. They nevertheless are also finding themselves without a job due, due to the cuts. But of course, this is predictable because while there is the over arching air of cord, cutting that be people cutting their cable subscriptions in pursuit of something that more finely addresses their viewing habits and won't break the bank as much. Uh, there is also a note of other issues here that being the infusion of sports and politics in, in content over at ESPN, we saw the same battle back in 2017, when the cutoffs came in the next financial quarter, after the 2016 election. And similarly here, these cuts will be within the same financial quarter or the one quarter beyond the 2020 election, where you would assume that the most politically charged commentary would come up there. It's always a topic of conversation across the country, of course, and that kind of at least puts a little bit of a halt on the narrative that this is all cord cutting cord. Cutting has been an issue for networks like ESPN ever since the advent of Netflix

Speaker 3: 17:20

And

Speaker 2: 17:22

With the creation of similar, uh, platforms like Hulu, like YouTube bread, YouTube TV, the issue of cord cutting is there has been there constantly for networks like ESPN, but it just so happens that the only time that mass layoffs at ESPN have happened in the last decade is the spring of 2017. And what will now be the fall of 2020 into the spring of 2021? So why is it that within the last 10 years, there's two particular time ranges of about three to four months where all of the layoffs will Kerr. It's interesting to note that those two time periods of course come immediately following a presidential election. And when the network has amped up it's social justice commentary and political commentary on the network, it would be no surprise then that in the months, following those most tumultuous, tumultuous, and intense political discussions, then those timeframes in particular are the ones where jobs would be lost because while cord cutting is always present, ESPN is exacerbating an already existing problem. They're making it worse. They're throwing gas on a fire. That's already been in golfing networks and the way they do business for the better part of the last decade. You saw some of those members of ESPN like Dan laboratory, who indulge in the far left social commentary, blasting the network, and really having a problem with them, cutting all these, these employees. It's also, so it's hypocritical. It's really very rich similar to, again, going back to 2016, 2017, that the worst offenders of infusing politics with sports are also the ones to decry. What are the inevitable results of delving into this kind of content and this kind of commentary on a sports network. And they're also the types of employees that will never themselves feel the repercussions. Um, while there is some talk that Dan lumberyard's contract will not be renewed at ESPN, there are long standing issues that he's had with the company, aside from the inclusion of political commentary at the network. And nevertheless is still not amounting to being fired. His job is not being terminated per se, but you hear this kind of commentary from people who who's inclusion of politics at, in the content at ESPN is responsible for these jobs. They themselves are not going to hear feel the repercussions, but it's going to be those website writers, those beat reporters, those production assistants, and those behind the scenes working kind of normal nine to five office jobs at ESPN, they're going to feel the brunt of the effects and the very well known effects at this point of including sports with politics and having their jobs excised from the company. And that's the real issue that I personally have with the inclusion of sports and it, with the inclusion of politics in sports commentary, particularly at ESPN, is that it's, well-documented at this point throughout the last several years that it's going to get innocent. People fired the people who either don't want politics in sports, or don't really have a dog in the race, either way. Those people who work behind the scenes, they're going to have their jobs cut. They're going to get fired for the decisions made by the on air talent, who coincidentally and very conveniently will never feel the repercussions as far as losing the jobs themselves for engaging in this kind of practice and this kind of content that's proven to be a failure. It's proven to be detrimental to a sports media company's bottom line.

Speaker 4: 22:02

So

Speaker 2: 22:02

This is another story that we'll keep an eye on as well, going forward. See if there are any more prominent names at ESPN who either They're terminated, which is pretty unlikely, or maybe at the expiration of their contract, decide to go a different way and, and go in a way that's either an independent venture, which would be really interesting, um, for an on-air talent to do at this point in their career, or to jump ship in favor of another network that will maybe stay a little bit more true to form for sports commentary. So that does it for this week's episode of fate of the union. You can reach me Franklin, the host of the program on Twitter or medium.com by searching fate of the union, and please visit our new YouTube page over at fate of the union as well. You can also reach us by email@franklinfothueatgmail.com. This has been the fate of the union. Thanks for listening to everybody. Bye-bye.