Ep 486 Yet Another Humiliating Loss for the Democrats
In this episode I discuss the Democrats' devastating loss in Georgia's special election and the strategic electoral blunders they continue to make. I also address the Washington Post's stunning admission about the problems with single-payer, government-run, healthcare. https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/06/19/wapo-admits-single-payer-health-care-astonishingly-expensive/amp/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Aiming to stop free speech so the speaker can no longer speak is exclusively a far-left phenomenon.
I'm talking to moderates in the Democratic Party who are actually interested in what's going on, not blind lemmings walking off a cliff into an abyss of stupidity.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
The rich did it.
Yeah, the rich did it.
They lent money to people who bought homes and the people never paid the money back.
Oh, wow.
That sounds like a great business plan.
On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right, welcome to The Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino.
Preacher Joe, how are you today?
Well, all set, ready to go after a real nice night last night.
Yeah, man, these Democrats, they just can't get their heads out of their cabooses.
It's unbelievable.
Keep it up, folks.
The resistance is working really well.
As I tweeted last night, this seems to be the only resistance movement in political history exclusively designed to resist electoral victories.
So great job.
I mean, I don't know what to tell you guys.
I got a lot on this today.
I've got a couple of strategic pointers for us.
And again, I'm going to give some advice to liberals who are, you know, you're just I almost feel bad for you.
Almost.
Almost.
Little sore today too.
Back into the, I'm loving the Brazilian jujitsu.
Thanks for all the emails on that.
Got back into it last night.
Go to this place down in, uh, in Stewart and the instructor there's really good.
Showed me a few cool tricks to escape from the bottom when some dude is on top of you that I hadn't seen in a long time.
He's trying to pound your face in.
So a couple of tricks I hadn't seen in a while, you know, so I'm digging that a little sore, but that's all right.
We'll get rock and roll.
All right.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Birch Gold.
You know, I love Birch Gold.
I am really into security, whether it's security of the food supply, security of your home and your family, you know, keep your firearms, keep them secure, keep them safe, keep them available.
I'm also into security of my financial resources as well.
That's why I like Birch Gold.
These guys will sell you precious metals, gold and silver, if you would like that, but they can also sell you an IRA-backed By actual money, real precious metals, gold and silver.
This is an A-plus rated company by the Better Business Bureau.
Big fan of these guys.
They actually sent me some silver I have right in front of me right here.
All you need to do is give them a look online.
Go to birchgold.com/dan, birchgold, B-I-R-C-H, gold.com/dan, and ask for your free 16-page
guide on how to transfer your eligible 401(k) or IRA into one of their IRAs backed by precious
metals, gold and silver.
I really like what they do.
I really enjoy some stability with inflation right around the corner and the Fed holding
on to trillions in assets.
It's inevitable that inflation is going to eat away some of your savings.
Secure some of that savings.
Go to Birchgold.com slash Dan.
Ask for their 16-page guide today.
No commitment, folks.
Just check it out.
I bet you'll like it.
Birchgold.com slash Dan.
Take a look.
Okay, so last night was just a rout.
Democrats get their butts kicked, and I wanted to make sure I took some notes, keep the show flowing, and some takeaways for you all.
Number one, last night's—oh, just to repeat what happened, because some people complained that I don't give the backstory first, assuming they know.
That's a good idea, yeah.
We gotta remind you about that, Joe, sometimes.
Sometimes I just roll right into it.
House of Representatives, United States Congress, 6th District had a special election last night for the congressional seat vacated by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who was the congressman, left to accept that position.
When that happens and there's an open seat, these districts will hold a special election, meaning that the special election is not on the normal election cycle, which happens every two years, at least for Congress.
So, this was a special election.
Now, The Democrats saw this as a golden opportunity to quote Joe, send a message to Trump.
They were going to pick up this seat.
Now, they thought this was a message sent or was going to be a message sent because the seat has been in Republican hands for something like 20 plus years.
It was the Newt Gingrich seat, the Tom Price seat.
The Democrats haven't been able to touch us.
The district is in the suburbs, the Atlanta suburbs.
One of the reasons the Democrats thought they could take it is because they're saying Trump is historically unpopular, Joe.
Historically unpopular!
Yeah, that's why I won.
Okay.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, I'm just giving you their stupidity, so you have a little background on what the kookadoodles are thinking.
I'm just acting like a butt munch.
I'm sorry.
Yes, you should.
And that's fine.
We like that.
We were doing some impersonations before the show, too.
Joe was.
It was pretty funny, actually.
So they won.
Trump won the district by one point five points.
But the congressman, Tom Price, who took the HHS job, won the district by 20 plus points.
But really, you can't.
I'm not trying to, like, put an edge on this for us.
As I explained to you yesterday, I'm not going to go over yesterday's show again.
There are a number of reasons why local congressmen do very well sometimes while the president in a national election doesn't do as well in that race.
You can listen to yesterday's show for a full recap on that.
And in some of those races, he was largely unopposed anyway, so it was like a rout just because there was no serious opponent.
But they thought because Trump won the district by one and a half points and Price won by 20 that, oh, this is a golden opportunity.
So Trump won by one and a half.
Well, last night, the special election was called relatively early, and Karen Handel, and thank you for the correction, a listener sent me an email saying it's not Handel, it's Handel.
My apologies, I don't like to mispronounce anybody's names.
People do it with mine all the time.
Bongino, Bongino, Bon Jovi, I get it all the time.
But so Trump won by one and a half, and Handel won by six.
I don't know what to tell you, guys.
I mean, maybe it's time to rethink your strategy.
So, a couple takeaways from this.
One, the base.
Your base can be motivated by rage and anger.
And I don't mean that as a bad thing.
I really don't.
I mean, I know rage and anger have negative connotations to them, but let's be honest, folks.
You know, we're all sinners.
We all get angry.
I was certainly angry at the eight years of Barack Obama for a number of policy reasons I'd be more than happy to discuss.
You know, on a different show and we have more time.
I mean, I can go over the whole Obama record, the economic record, the Obamacare record, the regulatory record, the school choice record, the attacks on, you know, private education and for-profit colleges.
I mean, the list goes on and on and on.
And I was angry and I was mad.
And that, contrary to what people tell you, a lot of talking heads, they say, well, you know, you have to run on something positive.
You really don't.
I mean, you can run on an anti-something agenda.
But you can't win with that.
There's a difference.
You can run on it, as the Democrats have shown in their last few elections.
You know what I'm saying, Joe?
Like, you can run on Trump sucks, I know you're really mad, and we are gonna show Trump how to do it.
You can do that.
But you have to understand that that only motivates the base.
Now, I read a book.
It's by a left-leaning guy a while ago.
It's a pretty decent book.
I didn't get through the whole thing, but I got through a good portion of it.
Called The Political Brain.
The guy wrote it's a leftist.
But it's an interesting book nonetheless, and one of the premises he bases the book on is that roughly 40% of each side of the political aisle are relatively committed.
And that leaves about 20% in the center that are persuadable.
So the point I'm trying to make here is that rage and anger, in other words, Trump is the worst, we're gonna go get him in D.C.
if we elect this guy, will convince probably 40% of the people in a swingy type district to go and vote.
So it can work.
You just can't win with it.
Why?
Because the 20% in the middle are not as angry as you think they are, Joe.
Why are they not as angry as you think?
You know, the why matters.
Folks, by the way, just to set the ground rules here for why I'm saying... I'm not speaking here out of focus group tested talking points.
I knocked on well over 10,000 to 15,000 doors during my three political campaigns.
By the way, in two different states.
And in a couple of congressional districts.
I have a really good flavor for what people think, and I know it because I've been surprised at people's doors where you're like, you knock on an R, a 4x4 Republican, right?
You knock on a four-by-four Republican's door, a guy who's voted in the last four primaries and last four generals, and you think, this guy's a die-hard Republican.
You get to the door, and he starts saying things, and they're like, Democrat talking points, and you're like, huh?
And vice versa.
You knock on a swingy Democrat's door, and he turns out he's more conservative than the Democrats.
I've been surprised repeatedly.
And the 20% in the middle are just not as angry as you think they are.
And here's why.
Here's what I noticed knocking on those doors.
Don't forget this.
These are moms, Joe.
They're dads.
They're firemen.
They're tin knockers.
They're carpenters.
They're pilots.
Newsflash, Joe.
They have jobs.
There you go.
Now, Joe, I know you live in the real world, like I do.
They have lives.
Folks, for as much as I love politics, and I adore you all listening for the political news of the day, This isn't, and by the way, one of the reasons Joe and I did this show, 35 to 40 minutes every day, was to give you a 40 minute summation of the politics of the day, precisely so you could go live your lives and not have to worry about reading every single newspaper.
Right, Joe?
Right.
That was the whole point of the show.
That's why it's 35 to 40 minutes.
We'll do it for you.
Yeah, we wanted you to listen to it in your car, listen to it while you're mowing your lawn, listen to it while you're preparing dinner and feel like, okay, I got the important news of the day.
I'm relatively good.
That was the point of the show.
People have lives, folks.
The 20% in the middle that are persuadable in elections are not as angry as you think they are.
Now, to Republicans, they were not as angry at Obama as we thought they were.
I remember knocking on doors in Maryland 6 and Montgomery County when I found a Republican.
Are you really fuming about Obamacare?
They were like, um, Yeah, kinda, but, you know, I haven't gotten a raise in a few years, and you're like, I'd take a note, like, really not concerned about Obama, which stunned me because the guy was a 4x4 Republican.
Likewise for Democrats.
I remember knocking on some doors in Cape Coral, hitting a few Democrats once in a while, when Trump was running.
Man, you know, are you upset about Trump or Ted Cruz?
Nah, I like those guys, they're alright, I'd consider voting for him in a general, what?
The guy was maybe a union democrat who hadn't had a raise in a few years and all of a sudden he's willing to try something different.
Folks, the 20% in the middle are not as angry as you think they are.
Anger and rage.
Believe me, I can be angry at times.
Trust me, I am not without sin or without stain on this one.
Yeah, back you up on that one.
As Joe well knows, right?
But I'm just telling you, and who knows, maybe that's why I lost.
I'm just telling you that is not a strategy.
It's not a strategy to win.
And for the Democrats going, well, the Tea Party did the same thing.
They were just angry at Obama.
You are totally 1000% wrong.
The Tea Party, we took up the acronym, although the Tea Party wasn't initially intended to mean this, but Taxed Enough Already became the rallying cry.
It became about taxes.
It became about controlling your own health care.
It became about smaller government.
The Tea Party had a platform.
You may not like the platform, but it had a platform.
It wasn't a rage-based movement.
That's why we actually won elections.
There were people, Joe, who I knocked on doors who told me they hated the Tea Party.
Until you asked them, well, how do you feel about taxes?
Oh, they gotta be lower.
How do you feel about healthcare?
You know what?
I'm getting tired of these premium hikes.
We gotta do something different.
How do you feel about schools?
Yeah, yeah, I think the public schools could use some reform.
You're like, dude, you're a Tea Party guy.
In other words, we had a platform.
You may not like it.
You may have fallen prey to the media meme that, oh, the Tea Party is just an angry bunch of white guys.
They had a platform and people agreed with it.
The Democrats right now in the, quote, resistance show, has nothing.
Resistance is not a movement when it's not resisting anything that's not deeply impacting people's lives.
In other words, If we were living in a totalitarian regime, say Maduro's Venezuela right now, this socialist regime where people are starving to death, people are actually resisting something.
They're resisting dying.
They don't want to starve.
They need jobs and they need money to feed their kids.
Folks, this is real for them.
Resistance to them is real.
What are you resisting?
I don't understand what you're resisting.
We're in the wealthiest country in the world.
Trump's not really an ideological conservative.
You're resisting what?
Tax cuts?
So let me get this straight.
Your wallet's going to get fatter and you're expecting to marshal a mass movement for the government to take more of your money?
What?
Again, I'm not here to give advice to Democrats.
I'm not.
But I'm just trying to explain to you, as Republicans and conservatives, This strategy for the Democrats, basically I'm saying this because I don't want Republicans and Conservatives to get all anxious.
I'll get out and vote, be a little bit afraid about the Democrats, but they do not have the stomach for the long fight.
They don't.
I've discussed a couple times now William Jacobson, who runs Legal Insurrection, which is an amazing blog.
I strongly recommend it.
He does just terrific work over there.
He's a professor, forgive me, I forget where he teaches, but Legal Insurrection is the site.
He put a piece out a couple months ago that I have discussed on the show repeatedly, where he says, listen, they don't have the stomach for the long fight the Democrats.
They don't have it.
And the example he gives is telling about Wisconsin, a purple if not blue-leaning state, Joe, where the Democrats went wild.
Remember the protest, Joe?
Sure, yeah.
With Scott Walker, Governor Walker, and the union reforms?
In the state house.
State house.
They occupied the state house.
Democrat lawmakers fled the state.
They were in hiding like Bigfoot.
I mean it was like it was on the news every single day.
But the point Jacobson makes is it's all a show.
It's all a show.
How do we know that?
Walker won re-election.
Walker won a recall election.
The Republicans have increased their numbers in the statehouse.
They won a state Supreme Court election.
All of it was a show!
It's all rage.
The rage felt good.
The venting felt good for Democrats.
Go to the statehouse, Joe.
Bang some pots together.
Whatever they say.
Hell no, we won't go.
No justice, no peace, or whatever they say.
You know?
I mean, if it was Black Lives Matter, be pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon.
I mean, do what liberals do.
Scream and yell.
Get a few celebrities in there.
And then don't vote.
That's what they do.
They don't vote.
They have no stomach for the fight.
Folks, they have no stomach for the fight.
Because it's all rage!
So just to circle back, the 40% Remember what I told you about the political brain book?
And I think he's right.
There are 40% of both sides that are committed.
40% of conservatives, libertarians, and republicans are absolutely committed to their ideas, no matter what.
They're not persuadable.
40% of liberals, greens, communists, socialists, same thing.
He said it's that 20% in the middle, in swingy-type places, and in a swingy country, frankly, those are the people you can persuade.
Those are not the people, folks, that are showing up at the rallies, banging the pots and pans.
You are preaching to the choir.
But that preaching to the choir with Madonna, and I'm going to blow up the White House, and people screaming about how Republicans want to kill babies, puppies, and old people, that doesn't work!
The 20% people, almost no one is listening to that.
They are rational maximizers to steal an economic term, that 20%.
They're looking at and gauging, not the intricacies of the platform.
They're not analyzing the Laffer curve.
But Joe, they hear tax cuts.
They're struggling for money.
They're like, okay, that sounds like a good idea.
They're not hearing like, I want to blow up the White House and thinking, oh my gosh, I got to go vote for the Democrats now.
You don't know who votes for that.
Does that make sense, Joe?
Yeah, I mean, that's what's happening, man.
That was exactly what's going on.
Obstruction, ladies and gentlemen, is not a platform.
It does not appeal to the 20%.
By the way, I don't like to inject myself into this in my runs for office because I know it sounds very self-serving.
Frankly, my wife hates it and I hate it too, but I just want to make a quick point just to point out the media hilarity on this too.
The media is framing this as some kind of a moral victory.
How?
I have no idea.
Trump wins the district by one, the congressional candidate wins by six.
I mean, it's a moral stain, not a moral victory.
I don't get it, Joe.
For a party that hates morality, they seem to claim a lot of moral victories.
But I said to Joe, I just find it funny That like all the hacks in the left-wing media that when I lost my congressional seat by one in a D plus six district, I should have lost by six.
I lost by one, but I lost.
There's no silver medals.
I lost.
Go read my concession speech.
There was no whining.
I tried to be as gracious as possible.
I, you know, I still get along with the congressman who beat me.
So I overperformed by about five points in that district, right?
This guy, and by the way, the left-wing media could not have shellacked me enough because that's just what they do.
They just go after conservatives.
That's part of the game.
You know, it's fine.
No big deal.
They're usually pajama boys anyway, go after you.
You're like, whatever, dude.
But this guy Asaf is in an R plus 9, and he loses by 6.
So yeah, he overperformed a little bit, but he overperformed by 3.
And now this guy's like the next coming of the Democratic Michael the Archangel.
And I'm kind of like, you know, is this bitter on my part?
Yeah.
Am I taking the high road here?
Absolutely not.
But I'm not.
I'm just going to be self-deprecating because it's true.
I'm a little bitter about that.
Like, so what?
I was the worst candidate in human history over-performing by five in a hugely Democratic district.
This guy over-performs by three in a Republican district.
And Joe, he's Clark Kent turning into Superman.
I mean, it doesn't matter.
I'm not running again.
It's just, I said to Joe before the show, I really, there's a part of me that's like, You know, if I was a Democrat, you would have been like the next big thing.
And when you're a Republican, it's just any excuse to take a shot at you.
All right.
A couple other takeaways for this.
So I brought up how the base can be motivated by rage, but election victories cannot.
That's not a strategy.
Obstruction is not a strategy.
Uh, big trouble for Democrats.
I took a note on that because he outperformed, uh, she, Karen Handel, outperformed Trump significantly in this, which is good.
I mean, it means like this Trump anger is just a myth.
It's not there.
If it was there, she would have lost.
They're now 0-5, what is it, Kansas, Montana, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana.
0-5 in elections of Democrats since Trump won.
That's a great record there, folks.
Keep it up.
Nice job.
Democrats 0-5.
Man, I've had baseball games I won 0-5.
I got benched at a doubleheader.
One more point I wanted to make on this.
It was a poll that came out not too long ago.
It shocked the Democrats.
It was an internal study they had done.
And focus group type polling, they said that people were starting to believe the Democrats had become the party of the rich.
And there's a lot of panic over this, Joe.
I don't know if you've heard about this, but it was in the Washington Post, and there's a lot of worry right now that that poll may be accurate.
Remember, I said that right.
Not that the Republicans are party of the rich.
That people are starting to worry that the Democrats have become the party of the rich.
And there's a little panic setting in the Democrat community of activists and left-wing groups wondering how this happened.
Because remember, Joe, for decades now, You know, since JFK, if not earlier, they've been painting the Republicans as the party of the rich guy and they're wondering how they lost the quote narrative, right?
Right.
I have a suggestion for you.
And again, I'm not providing evidence here for the Democrats because I don't think they're going to change.
It doesn't matter.
They're too starstruck.
It doesn't really make a difference.
But I think one of the reasons for this, Joe, is their unending allegiance to Hollywood.
Guys, Democrats out there, I cannot recommend to you in strong enough terms that you cut that tie like yesterday, brother and sister.
I mean, they had everybody and their mother showing up in Georgia for the special election.
I used to have a crush on Alyssa Milano when I was a kid, when I was like 13, and she was in Who's the Boss?
I could see that.
Sam or something.
We were the same age.
I think she's like a year older than me.
But Alyssa Milano was all over this race and she was in, what is it, that witch show.
She's the three sisters.
I don't know.
Witches of Eastwick or something like that?
Yeah, whatever.
Something like that.
Witches of East Georgia's 6th Congressional District.
But she showed up down there.
She was down there.
Samuel L. Jackson was doing robocalls.
Gents, ladies.
How many times is Hollywood going to slam you in the face in an election?
You had Katy Perry for Hillary Clinton, Bruce Springsteen, all the celebrities.
Have you ever put two and two together?
Voters think Democrats are the party of the rich, Democrats hobnob with the rich, the Hollywood types.
I'm just saying, do what you want, keep it up.
I mean, it works great for us, but you're really making fools of yourselves.
Nobody cares what Hollywood has to say.
The only thing this does is alienate that 20% in the middle.
And by the way, it keeps me from buying tickets to any of your movies.
That's it.
It does nothing.
It does not win elections.
The proof is in the pudding.
It absolutely does not win elections.
And yet you keep doing it.
And I don't think any of this is going to change because I think they're obsessed with the idea that they're part of the cultural elite and they feel important and Hollywood gives them that imprimatur.
I think one side feeds off the other on that.
The Hollywood guys like hanging out with the politicians because it's cool.
And the politicians like hanging out with the Hollywood folks because it's cool.
Yeah, because it's cool.
Right.
It's like circular stupidity.
Yes.
Right.
We're going with that.
Yeah, it is.
It's circular stupidity.
And they feel like they're all culturally above the rest of us.
And look, we're out there with the adoring Great Unwashed and look at us on the stage.
It's really kind of sick, but keep it up.
Remember, they have no stomach for the fight, these Democrats.
All right.
I have a number of other stories I've got to get to, so I don't want to hammer this too much.
I probably spent more time on it than I care to, but there is a lesson to be learned.
I feel like we had a couple of good takeaways there.
All right, have you tried Brickhouse Nutrition yet?
I needed some of this recently.
I was having a really long day.
I've been doing some two-a-days lately, doing my kettlebells in the morning and my lifting, and at night going in to do some grappling, which I've been reinvigorated in, even at 42.
But I gotta tell you, folks, it's tough at 42 years old getting through those really long days.
I do Facebook Lives, finishing up the book.
Got the podcast.
So Dawn to Dusk, which is an energy product by Brickhouse Nutrition, has been absolutely invaluable in my life and my wife's.
The feedback I get on this is nothing short of incredible.
I have not gotten one negative email.
I've gotten about two to three hundred overwhelmingly glowing reviews of this product, and here's why.
People tell me the same thing every time.
Helps me get through the day, no highs and lows.
And this is people working on assembly lines.
I've got a pilot who emails me all the time about it.
I got a professional athlete who emails me about it.
The product's called Dawn to Dusk.
It doesn't have any of the problems with coffee or energy drinks.
It's a time-released energy product.
You're not going to get jittery in 10 minutes and then sleepy 10 minutes later.
You're going to feel great.
Elevated mood elevation.
Elevated mood elevate.
That's really high.
That's like super high.
Mood elevation, good energy level.
About 10 hours you'll get out of it.
Really, really good stuff.
Great for cops, firemen, working moms, crossfitters, grapplers, MMA guys, just recreational folks who've got a long day to get through.
My landscaper worked his butt off yesterday.
Finally got those new bushes in.
Give it a shot.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com and go pick it up, dawn to dusk.
Check out their other products as well.
This is a really great company.
We're going to take over the nutrition market with these guys, the nutrition products market.
They're that good.
I really appreciate everything they're doing with these products.
Okay.
A couple other stories I saw yesterday.
I saw an outrageous story last night on Tucker Carlson's Fox program that just blew my mind.
I had to do a double take.
I really did.
I'm sitting at the table, just a little background.
I get back from the Jets class.
I'm having chicken and salad for dinner.
Not chicken salad, like one of those rotisserie chickens, and some salad.
And I'm really sore, and I know enough of why I feel great today, but I was really, really sore last night.
And I'm like, not really paying attention, I'm getting ready to do a Facebook Live, and I was going to do it on a totally different subject.
And out of my right ear, because the TV in my house got a weird setup, I hear Tucker talking about this University of California system that has a cap for admissions on the number of American citizens.
But does not have a cap for illegal immigrants.
So I'm like, wait, wait, whoa, whoa.
Time out.
I'm like, this can't be right.
I go, someone get me the remote, please.
So daughter brings over the remote.
Commercial breaks.
And I turn it up.
I'm waiting for the story.
And I'm like, surely this can't be true.
Because I'll be honest with you folks, I hadn't heard this, which is unusual because I do a lot of reading.
So I'm like, I turn it up.
I stop eating my chicken salad.
And sure enough, He's right!
So here's a little background on this, just to show you, and I'm going to give you the lesson, the takeaway for this at the end, because I don't just like to talk about the news.
The takeaway for it is a salient one, and never forget it.
The University of California system has a program now where out-of-state applicants, this is how they're framing it, out-of-state applicants, there's a cap on the number of people they can admit from out-of-state.
Okay, fair enough, Joe.
A lot of university systems have that.
I think Tucker gave the example of University of North Carolina.
Most of them have caps on out-of-state applicants.
But here's the problem.
There is no cap on in-state applicants regardless of immigration status.
Now think about what I just told you now, folks.
What is the de facto result of that?
The real world result of that is if you're an illegal immigrant in the country, you came here illegally, you violated the law, you're not in the country legally, you can just show up in California Declare residency.
Who knows what it could be?
A P.O.
box?
Your aunt's house?
It doesn't make a difference.
You will now have an advantage in getting into a high quality University of California college funded by the taxpayers over an American citizen from say, you know, a neighboring state that wants to get in there.
Or say even you're from New York and you want to go to a University of California college.
You will now be at a disadvantage because you're competing for These are not the numbers, but let me just throw it, say it's a hundred spots for out-of-state students.
So now if there's a thousand people, you have basically a one in ten shot of getting in, independent of your credentials, right?
Let's say you have a one in ten shot of getting in, but if you would just move, if you would say, go declare Mexican residency, get your Mexican citizenship, disavow your U.S.
citizenship, walk into California, excuse me, spend three years there illegally, you now have a better chance of getting into school than if you just would have applied to New York.
Folks, Here's the lesson to not beat this thing to death, because the more I talk about it, the angrier I get.
You cannot give an inch to the left.
Now, I'm not going to say who, but there's a member of my own household I've had this fight about, because it was a while ago where someone said to me, oh, you know, all right, the illegal alien's getting in-state tuition.
Maybe it's not such a bad idea.
A lot of people have been here for a while.
You know, maybe it's not such a bad thing.
Folks, from a moral and ethical perspective, I totally get how some people would feel that way.
At least in my mind, Joe.
Yeah.
Being a practitioner of a faith, I fail to live up to its standards often.
I'm a sinner, I say that all the time.
But I want to be sure, one, I respect the law, but two, I respect my faith.
That's more important than anything.
My rights, big R rights, come from God.
So does everyone else's.
The problem with any of this and viewing it from a strictly moral perspective is the left doesn't stop there, Joe, ever.
So now it's not good enough.
And now Joe's in Maryland.
So you've been embedded in this in-state illegal immigrant tuition thing for, what, five years now when they started this in Maryland, which is the testing ground for every kooky far-left policy.
Now it's just not, OK, maybe we should allow people in-state tuition.
Now it's, let's cap it for people out of state who are actually American citizens, but let's not institute the same cap for people who are in state who don't even have citizenship proper paperwork that they can document that they're actual citizens.
Folks, it'll never stop.
This is my point with the left, even on social issues.
First, it was You know what?
Civil union agreements for gay couples.
Then it was, now we need gay marriage.
Then it was not only gay marriage, but it has to be in every state, regardless of what the social leanings are in that state.
Next thing you know, it was, now we need men in the women's room.
And folks, it never ends!
You know, it's interesting that the left will always say, oh, this is slippery slope, it's reductio ad absurdum.
In other words, you're reducing the argument to the absurd.
No!
You are.
That's not like a childish retort.
No, you are.
Like the Beavis and Butthead show and that Mr. Anderson guy catches him.
That was like other kids.
No, no, you actually are.
You're the ones reducing the argument to the absurd.
You started with, well, gay couples should have some of the same legal rights as heterosexual couples who are married.
Then somehow this social movement transformed it to, and we should allow men into the women's room?
You do, not us!
What started as a, okay maybe if you're here illegally, and by the way I don't agree with in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, I just want to be clear on that.
I'm just saying the progression of the argument always is on the left, it's not on the right.
The left never accepts victory as being good enough, ever.
What started as, well, maybe we should give in-state tuition to people who are here illegally, who've been here a while, you know, their children, and they were brought here when they were younger, and you're like, um, some people are like, okay, now it's turned into, now we're actually giving preference, a de facto preference, to people who are not even here legally, than to actual American citizens who live here legally.
Folks, this is insane.
It never, ever stops with the left.
Never, ever blink on these guys and ladies.
Ever.
Because you turn around and what you thought was absurd 15 minutes ago is now standard leftist platform politics.
It's just unbelievable.
Okay, this is a story...
I saw this one this morning, and I'm like, what?
I had to read it twice.
I saw it first at the Washington Post, and then I had to go to other sites, like Hot Air has a piece on it, and Breitbart, just to confirm this is true.
The Washington Post is finally telling the truth, folks, about single-payer healthcare, and it really is a staggering, staggering admittance of far-left failure.
Now, I bring this article up today Just to clarify, the Washington Post is finally admitting government-run health care, whether they know they're admitting it or not, is a total disaster.
And I'm just stunned by this, because the left, the reason I'm bringing it up after the Ossoff thing last night, the Ossoff loss in Georgia 6, is because the left doesn't seem to realize that it's got to move more towards the center to win.
It's been lurching farther to the left.
Here's an example, and the reason I'm bringing this up again is, Obamacare is failing, right?
Instead of saying, OK, let's find some middle ground Republicans and work with them on fixing portions of this health care law.
Again, I just want to get rid of it.
I'll be clear.
But instead of fixing it, Joe, the left's policy has been, well, let's lurch now towards Medicaid for all or single payer government run health care, which is not a lurch to the middle, Joe.
It's a lurch to the right.
So what I find astonishing is that the Washington Post, I think, My theory on this, I think the Washington Post is starting to figure out the futility of this approach and is trying to gently guide the Democrats back to the middle.
I know that sounds crazy, far be it from me.
You know I've been hypercritical of the Washington Post over the years after the stuff they pulled on me when I ran.
But I really believe, folks, that the Washington Post is starting to see the electoral apocalypse the Democrats have faced under this far-left approach.
I genuinely believe they're trying to lurch them back to the center a little bit.
Now, a couple quotes from this, which is really just, if you're still a believer in single-payer after this, you believe in fairy tales, Teddy Ruxpin stories, you believe in things that aren't really real.
So they admit that the single payer system, government run health care, which is what
some Democrats are advocating for now, quote, "the price tag would be astonishing."
Now you may say, "Okay, well, we already knew that."
Well, yeah, we knew that for a long time, ladies and gentlemen, but that's not what
the Washington Post and a lot of liberal outlets had always argued, especially their commentators,
the Paul Krugman types and folks like that.
What they've argued in the past is that the government administration of health care...
Government-run healthcare, Joe, like they have in a number of other countries.
What they've argued in the past is that the cost differences would be made up by efficiency measures.
Right.
They don't describe to you conveniently what those efficiency measures are.
Those efficiency measures are typically rationing.
And also, as I've described to you on past episodes, I don't want to, it'll take up too much time to go over it again.
Whenever they give you these quotes about how Medicare and Medicaid are more efficient administratively because the government runs them than private insurance, I've debunked that a thousand times by showing you how it's not based on a per person basis.
They base it on overall costs, which is ridiculous.
Of course, there's going to be a lower percentage of administrative costs on a greater amount of healthcare spending because Medicare and Medicaid deal with an older, sicker population.
When you do it on a per-person basis, folks, the administrative costs for private insurance are far cheaper.
In other words, more efficient.
I mean, of course that was a lie.
Nobody actually believes government bureaucrats are more efficient than the private sector, but the Democrats like to lie about stuff.
So they've made the case in the past, some of these liberal editorialists have made the case in the past that, oh, government-run healthcare is not that bad because there'll be efficiency savings, because the government has managed to be more efficient with Medicare-Ly, and secondly, they'll have other efficiency savings, which I don't mention, which would be rationing.
So it's really a groundbreaking moment that the Washington Post, in a pretty well-read editorial, is now admitting that the price tag would be astonishing.
What is the price tag, you might add?
Interesting study by the Urban Institute.
This is not a right-wing think tank, folks.
This is not, you know, the conservative review staff here.
Not that our statistics would be invalid, but this is not a partisan think tank.
The Urban Institute pins the price tag over 10 years at $32 trillion.
Now think about what I just told you, Joe.
Our entire economy is only worth $20 trillion.
We owe $20 trillion now.
So we owe... put it in household wealth perspective, right?
If you make $100,000 a year...
We owe $100,000 in debt now, and what they're talking about is instituting a program that's almost $250,000 over 10 years to add on top of that, roughly.
I mean, I'm not giving you exact percentages, but just to put it in perspective, the economy's worth $20 trillion, the U.S.
economy, everything we produce.
We owe that entire amount.
Single-payer healthcare A study by the Urban Institute estimated the cost 32 trillion more over 10 years.
Folks, those are staggering numbers.
Now, you may say, well, put it in a yearly perspective.
OK, so there are discount rates and things like that.
So let's say it costs between $2.5 and $3 trillion a year.
Let's say $2 trillion a year.
Let's downgrade it a little bit.
$2 trillion a year, right?
Because you may say, well, how do you get that math, Dan?
$32 trillion divided by 10, $3.2 trillion a year.
You've got to discount it back.
There's some complicated stuff depending on inflation, the value of the US dollar, all kinds of things like that.
But let's say it's lowball, just to give the Democrats a favor for the day, right?
So let's say it costs $2 trillion a year.
Ladies and gentlemen, our entire federal budget right now is $4 trillion.
You're talking about spending half of that more every single year.
Now, this is from the Washington Post piece.
I'm not making this up.
This is not from the Breitbart article I got it from, which I'll put in the show notes today, by the way.
It's a good piece.
This is from the Washington Post piece.
A tax increase so huge, they're saying this is how much this would cost, it would be a tax increase so huge that even Democrat Socialist Mr. Sanders, talking about Bernie Sanders, did not propose anything close to it.
In other words, folks, to pay for this single-payer system, this is the Washington Post admitting this, would be so expensive that even Bernie Sanders' draconian tax hike He proposed during his presidential campaign would not cover the amount efficient enough to get this thing paid for.
Do you believe that?
You're talking about just a ridiculous amount.
One more quote before I let you guys rock and roll for the day.
I don't let you.
You can tune out anytime, although I appreciate you tuning in.
This is from the Washington Post piece.
Doctors would likely have to get paid less, and patients would have to accept different standards of access and comfort to make this system work.
The third-party payer, single-payer, government-run health care system.
So let's recap what the Washington Post... Well, before we go for the day, let's recap what the Washington Post said about single-payer.
The price tag's astonishing.
$32 trillion over 10 years.
That's in additional taxes and money, or additional debt.
Which would be even worse, because then you'd have to pay interest on the taxes you'll pay later to pay up for the debt.
The tax increase is so big, even Bernie Sanders didn't have enough of tax hikes in his plan to pay for it.
Doctors would be paid less, and patients would have to accept different standards of care and access to comfort.
In other words, rationing.
This sounds great, Joe!
Yeah, kind of gives you the warm fuzzies, baby.
Warm fuzzies!
Huge tax increases, major league government debt, Tax increases so high, socialists didn't even prepare for them.
Doctors, you'll get paid less.
And patients, you'll have to accept rationing.
Good job, folks.
Again, for all the liberals who support single-payer, I will put the Breitbart piece, which quotes the Washington Post piece, in the...
Show note today, Conservative Review, just read it yourself, ladies and gentlemen.
You can link to whatever piece you want from the Breitbart piece.
The Washington Post themselves are admitting this thing is a steaming pile of horse manure.
It's crap.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I'll see you all tomorrow.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud and follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at
