Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 7, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show

04:30:10

Wave Watch: Daily Wire Midterm Election Special

Join this election night roundtable discussion featuring Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, Michael Knowles, and Daily Wire god-king Jeremy Boreing, as they watch the results come in and analyze the impact on the country moving forward. Elisha Krauss provides live updates as election results come in, subscribers get to submit live questions moderated by Colton Haas, and Kassy Dillon brings us the latest from the leftist meltdown on Twitter. No matter what, there will be plenty of laughs, whiskey, and cigars to go-round. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, this is Michael.
	You're about to listen to our latest episode of Daily Wire Backstage, where I join Ben Shapiro, Andrew Plavin, and the man who will one day fire me for real, Daily Wire God King Jeremy Boring, for a great conversation on politics and culture, and where we answer questions from Daily Wire subscribers.
	Without further ado, here is Backstage.
	Alright everybody, fake laugh in three, two...
	Welcome to the Daily Wire backstage election special.
	I'm Jeremy Boring, known round these parts as the Daily Wire God King, lowercase g, lowercase k, maybe a hyphen in place of the o if you're Ben Shapiro and roll that way.
	Let's get this thing started.
	Whoever picked that music is 100% losing their job. - Joining me for the fire and the fury of the most important election ever in our lifetime, which also happens to come around about every two years, are my three amigos Benjamin, Chevy Shapiro, Andrew, Martin Clavin, and Michael Shortnoles.
	I actually think the joke would have been funnier if it had been Ben Short Shapiro.
	Yeah, what the heck?
	I mean, 5'9".
	Yeah, 5'9".
	And tonight's election results roll in.
	We'll be joined via satellite by the lovely Elisha Krause.
	With Elisha tonight, we'll also be...
	The also lovely, they didn't even put this in the teleprompter, but she's quite lovely, Cassie Dillon, a.k.a.
	the lone conservative.
	And the also lovely, beaver-haired, stand-in, and all-around wonderful young man, Colton Haas, known around these parts as Young Colton.
	He's a wonderful young man.
	Right at him, bushy tail.
	Young man, he's a wonderful man.
	Hey guys, we're really good.
	Sorry having audio issues here, but we are live in the Daily Wire backstage election headquarters, and when you come to us throughout the night, we'll be making sure that we give our viewers and our amazing subscribers updates about what's happening, where it's happening.
	We have about a dozen states whose polls are closed.
	CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, everyone is We're eagerly watching.
	We're watching them.
	And we're making sure to not be like the New York Times and inaccurately call things like they did back in 2016.
	Of course, it's going to be really exciting because polls are kind of all over the place.
	But the general conception is that it looks as if the Democrats might take the House.
	They won their first seat that they were very excited about.
	Barbara Comstock, a Republican incumbent in Virginia 10, is no longer the Congresswoman from that district.
	A Democrat won.
	But Shouldn't be really surprised considering that Hillary Clinton won that district in 2016, 52 to 42.
	So we'll have lots of fun stuff.
	Everyone should be checking back in here.
	And Colton and Cassie are going to be doing some really great things.
	Colton.
	So I have a number of strange and bizarre ballot propositions that I'm going to be throwing to the guys as well as some audience questions.
	If you guys want to ask questions, just type them in the chat box on the live stream at dailywire.com.
	Remember, only subscribers get to ask questions.
	So if you're not one, become one tonight and get your questions in.
	And I'll be on Twitter telling you exactly what's going on.
	If there's a meltdown, I'll let you know.
	If there's a blue wave, I'll let you know.
	And if there's more of a blue trickle, which is what I'm thinking is going to happen, I'll also let you know.
	So if you want to tweet at us, just tweet at Real Daily Wire, and we'll be sure to give you a shout-out.
	It'll be lots of fun.
	Just check in with us whenever you want election updates or, you know, to see if Melissa Milano is melting down on Twitter.
	I'm expecting lots of fun memes of her, like peering behind Brett Kavanaugh, who our very own Colton Avocado Haas wrote in for Dian Feinstein's seat.
	Indeed I did.
	I'm so excited about this.
	How did we get Justin Bieber to do comedy?
	It's still huge.
	No price is too high to pay for a backstage.
	So who's excited about being here, guys?
	The air conditioning was on.
	This is true.
	We have no air conditioning tonight.
	Our air conditioner here at Data Wire Central is broken.
	And there's nothing I like better than breathing in the smoke from your guys' oral orifices.
	There's nothing I enjoy better than that.
	I'm not smoking a cigar.
	Why aren't you smoking a cigar?
	What's that?
	Why aren't you smoking a cigar?
	I'm getting over cold, you know, I'm kind of working through.
	Because it turns out that smoking cigars is bad for your health.
	I hate that this admission was just made.
	Stay tuned, everybody, for some cigar smoking, whiskey drinking, and a plethora of insight as we make election night streaming great again.
	I think it's because it's connected to the earlier Three Amigos joke.
	So I think Lathora was the appropriate.
	I don't know who writes this crap, to be honest with you.
	So Michael, I'm going to start with you.
	Why?
	What's set up for the...
	It's the only chance he's got to talk.
	Say your piece.
	Set up for us the stakes tonight.
	Well, I really want to get my opinion out early before Republicans start losing, so I can at least have a little enjoyment tonight.
	So, look, the stakes, historically, the Republicans should lose the House by a lot.
	Barack Obama lost 63 seats in 2010 at his first midterm election.
	Bill Clinton lost 54 seats at his midterm election, 94, another really tough one.
	So, historically, things ain't looking good.
	That said, the polls have been all over the place, they've been changing a lot, and we are not in normal times.
	So we'll have to see where this is.
	I've talked to GOP operatives on the ground who have told me with a straight face that Republicans are keeping the House.
	Is that historically likely?
	Nate Silver says it's one in a thousand chance.
	But that's what they're telling me.
	Hey, Elizabeth Warren.
	That's right.
	It's a victory according to Elizabeth Warren.
	I mean, to be fair, did he say it's one in 1,000?
	Because what 538 said is that he said it's about one in seven chance that Republicans retain the House.
	And he said it's about one in seven chance that Republicans lose the Senate.
	Which, you know, he also said that If you're going to look at sort of the 80 percentile block, meaning that, you know, the range of expected possibilities, he said Democratic pickups between 21 and 57 in the House, which would mean anywhere from them not taking the House to them taking the House in a landslide.
	And he said that on the other side, it's a possibility the Dems pick up two, it's a possibility the GOP picks up four in the Senate.
	And so things are going to be tight in the Senate, but it's very unlikely that Republicans lose the Senate.
	Again, I think that the data will be pretty good.
	I think that they're probably statistically undersampling Republicans only because they did that in 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014.
	Also because pollsters tend to think that Republicans are not going to show up at the rates that Republicans actually have in midterms.
	And this includes particularly 2014, when there was only in the RealClearPolitics poll average about a 2.9% advantage for Republicans, and they walked out with a 7-point generic ballot advantage by the end of the night.
	So it is possible that what is a generic ballot advantage for the Democrats of anywhere from 9 to 11 points in the various polls right now might only be 6 to 8.
	If it were 5 to 7, that means Republicans could theoretically hold the House.
	Let's get on the record right now since I lost money to pretty much everyone in this room in 2016.
	Thank you.
	Let's get on the record right now as to how we actually think things are going to go.
	No weaseling out of it.
	How many seats move in the House?
	How many seats move in the Senate?
	We'll start with you, Noel, since you took cash from me and then displayed the check on your freaking desk.
	Well, you know, this is the real question.
	The desk you paid for also.
	Correct.
	Because the odds are so bad.
	Do you want to make it interesting?
	You go F yourself.
	I already paid for your wedding.
	And blew your wedding proposal.
	And blew your wedding proposal over that check.
	I have nothing else to blow for you there.
	That's not a thing.
	I think.
	I know.
	I've seen all the polls.
	I've seen all the data.
	I see the historical trends.
	I right now want to say...
	That Donald Trump will be elected to every seat in the House and every seat in the Senate.
	He will be the emperor for...
	No, I think...
	Before we get to predictions, we've got to make a little money and talk about Honey.
	I love Honey.
	One of my favorite sponsors, Honey.
	You know what's funny about Honey?
	Yeah.
	Is that before they became a sponsor for us, you know who actually was an evangelist for them and got me hooked on it?
	Little old me.
	Really?
	It's amazing.
	I know a good deal when I see one.
	With Honey, it's just a browser extension.
	You install it, takes two clicks, and it just saves you money.
	So it tells you what the prices are, where you can find it cheaper.
	In the old days, you used to have to Google around and say, where are the coupons?
	No.
	This automatically...
	I only use it when I make purchases.
	I have saved, I kid you not, thousands of dollars at this point using it.
	And it works out on all the biggest sites, too.
	I spend half my life on Amazon, and it just keeps popping up and saying, we're going to take $2 off this.
	We got the Instant Pot, not the drug, but the actual implement.
	And we saved ourselves a bunch of money on that using honey over at Amazon.
	To be honest, you did it because of Bethany, didn't you?
	Of course I did it because of Bethany.
	She is to the Instant Pot what Michael Knowles is to honey.
	That's exactly right.
	And you can be involved with Honey as well.
	Honey is the money-saving shopping tool everyone can agree on.
	Get Honey for free right now at joinhoney.com slash backstage because this is the backstage show.
	joinhoney.com slash backstage.
	Again, that's joinhoney.com slash backstage because it is the easiest way to save money while shopping online.
	When all four of us are this enthusiastic about anything, then that means that it's got to be a pretty good product or a terrible product.
	In this case, it's an actual really good product.
	You're going to want to go check it out right now.
	Join Honey.com slash Backstage.
	Michael Knowles, back to you.
	My prediction.
	Winston Churchill said, for myself, I'm an optimist.
	It doesn't make sense to be anything else.
	My gut is speaking to me.
	My liver is speaking to me.
	I think Republicans keep the House.
	There.
	I said it.
	I said it.
	And how many seats do they pick up in the Senate, you think?
	Two.
	Okay, so here's the part where I say my critique of predictions, just so folks know out the bat.
	The best thing you can do, if you're a political pundit, being a professional political pundit, the best thing that you can do is make outlandish predictions like Knowles just made.
	Because if they turn out to be right, everybody's going to say, what a genius!
	He has a genius.
	Thank you.
	A higher connection to everything.
	Exactly.
	And if he's wrong, everybody just goes, oh, well, that was kind of a crazy thing that he said.
	And that completely goes by the way.
	He can build an entire career based on making a wild prediction.
	As opposed to, like, this is really, like, Nate Silver got shellacked after 2016 for saying that there was a 75% chance that Hillary was going to be president.
	And he said, right, which means that one in four iterations of this means Trump is president.
	Which is correct, right?
	And everybody was like, how dare he say that?
	What he meant is 75% is 100%.
	Well, no, 75% is not 100%.
	He was operating based on the data, which is why, you know, I think that the original stuff we were saying earlier about sort of the data analysis and where the percentile falls in terms of the range of possibilities is more statistically accurate.
	Now who's talking themselves out of having to make a freaking prediction?
	I'll make my prediction.
	Okay, I'm going to say Democrats pick up 34, Republicans pick up one in the Senate.
	Which one?
	I think...
	I have a tough time believing that...
	Well, right now...
	I think they're going to hold Arizona.
	So I think McSally is going to hold there.
	Because I just can't say...
	I swear to God, if this country elects...
	If a state elects an honest to God...
	Quote-unquote Taliban supporter from 2003 over an Air Force lieutenant, right?
	She's a lieutenant colonel?
	Lieutenant?
	Lieutenant?
	The first woman to fly an F-16?
	And that state deserves...
	I mean, really?
	Like, really, that's just a bad...
	By the way, she was right about Arizona.
	She's a pretty good singer.
	She sang the national anthem, too.
	So 34 plus one.
	The plus one...
	I'm gonna say that it comes in Florida.
	I think Rick Scott's gonna beat Bill Nelson there.
	That's close.
	I hope you're right.
	That one's real close.
	So, as you know, I believe that the future is the thing that's going to happen that we don't know what it is.
	That's the first thing.
	Wow.
	That's so wild.
	I gotta write that down.
	As I believe, as I believe you do not know the things that haven't happened and what would have happened if they hadn't.
	That's why you and I get into these arguments.
	The reason that Drew has this wisdom is because he's very, very old.
	I remember a time Back in the heady days of 2016, when Andrew Klavan made a definitive prediction of the future.
	Oh, proving my point.
	And I was wrong.
	And you were wrong.
	That's proving my point.
	You do not know.
	So late at life, after shutting your finger in the drawer many, many, many times, you go, ah.
	But no, and I do think that's true.
	My heart would like to go with Knowles on this, I'd like to say.
	And I do think it's possible.
	The best predictions I've seen, and the thing that the map sort of says to me, and that history sort of says to me, is we lose 30, we lose the House, and we pick up maybe one or two in the Senate.
	And the thing about this is, though, that this is...
	What's so interesting about this is this is obviously a referendum on Donald Trump.
	And the way we know it's a referendum on Donald Trump, on his personality, it's a referendum on his personality.
	The way we know it's a referendum is because he's done such a great job as president of the United States.
	So the only reason to dislike him It can't be about politics.
	It's because of his personality, which we all knew from the beginning was this wild, enormous, weird...
	It will be fascinating because 2016, there were two ways to read it.
	One was that it was a referendum on Trump.
	This is how Democrats wanted to read it.
	And some Republicans, it was a referendum on Trump.
	He built a movement large and deep.
	And then...
	That was not a description of President Trump's relationship with any woman with whom he may be in a lawsuit.
	But in any case, that was one narrative.
	I'm sorry I'm in this hot, smoke-filled room.
	I know, it's quite terrible.
	The other sort of narrative that was brought out was, this is a referendum on Hillary Clinton, and she didn't bring anyone to the polls.
	Well, the results of tonight's election, the assumption is that it's going to be a referendum on Trump.
	And the one thing I think Trump did do pretty successfully, and a lot of the Republican media helped him out here, was try to make this a referendum on the radicalism and insanity of the Democrats.
	And so if the Democrats don't pull this out, is that a referendum on people love Trump's politics or people really, really cannot stand the politics of the Democratic Party right now?
	That is the position we are in right now.
	We're in a position where one party has its flaws and Trump has its flaws and the other party is out of its mind.
	And the high point of these two years...
	And the point to me of the ecstasy of these two years was the Kavanaugh hearings, the failure of that absolutely ugly, disgusting technique that they used, that stratagem that they used, and the fact that it failed because the Republicans, taking a tip from Donald Trump, stood up to the press, which, as one, basically was ready to set this guy on fire.
	Jeremy, before you get to your update, before you get to your prediction, because we don't want you to talk, Indiana is actually, so according to Henry Olson, who is Drew's favorite pollster, basically, Indiana is looking very bad for Donnelly.
	which is interesting.
	He says, the election day vote comes in, Donnelly is slipping everywhere.
	He's now running behind his 2012 margins in both Marion, which is Indianapolis, and St. Joseph's, which is South Bend.
	He needed to run ahead of his 2012 margins here to hold off bronze rural surge.
	That would be a Republican pickup in Indiana and could be a decent bellwether.
	Word of the night, bellwether.
	Bellwether, yes.
	It is a good early sign.
	I also care what my prediction is, but first I want to suggest that one critique that comes in from time to time, so I'm going to remind us to be mindful of this.
	Anytime we talk about anyone who isn't Elizabeth Warren, Ted Cruz, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump, we should say what their party affiliation is.
	Yeah, that's Joe Donnelly, Democrat of Indiana.
	Thank you.
	And if Republicans pick up the seat there, then they pick up a seat in the Senate, which...
	And again, that stuff is really, really important because you need a margin of about three Republican votes in the Senate so you don't have the ability to have people like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski hold up a Republican nomination to the Supreme Court.
	That is my actual, by the way, prediction, just since we're all saying things.
	That have no actual power to shape reality in any way.
	The Dems are gonna pick up 30 seats in the House, but it's going to be a 50-50 split in the Senate, making Mike Pence the deciding vote in whether or not to oust his boss.
	The Handmaid's Tale is real!
	In other words, I am rooting for mass chaos.
	Complete pandemonium.
	Cats and dogs living together.
	Also, this just in from Florida.
	So Rick Scott, who's the Republican governor of Florida, is running for the Senate against Bill Nelson.
	Right now, Scott is up by about 11,000 votes with 90% of the vote in, which is a shocker.
	And DeSantis is up over Gillum.
	DeSantis is the Republican.
	And I like Ron DeSantis.
	I know Ron DeSantis.
	He's a good man.
	He's been unfairly maligned.
	It's one of the most disgusting things that I've seen in modern American politics to watch Andrew Gillum portray Ron DeSantis as a racist without any evidence and the media cover for Andrew Gillum's absolute corruption in Tallahassee.
	He's a corrupt city mayor.
	Correct.
	And Ron DeSantis is up right now by about 34,000 votes with 90% of the vote in.
	So the panhandle's coming in too.
	If the Republicans hold Florida, it's going to be a real good night for Republicans.
	That is a bellwether and the panhandle is good for us, right?
	So the next question that I want us all to tackle is We've made predictions, but I want to talk about what different vote totals actually mean for the president going forward.
	But before that, I want to kick it over to Election Central, Daily Wire, Election Central, which is literally the inside of a Daily Wire Tumblr.
	Hold on, someone's talking in my ear.
	We don't have her yet.
	Her audio's not working.
	Guys, guys, guys, I gotta tell you this.
	This is so much fun.
	So 538 has its real-time forecast, and its real-time forecast works like the needle, right?
	Just like the needle from 2016, which was everybody's favorite thing, where it went from 99% Hillary to 0% Hillary over the course of the night.
	And it was just...
	It was so great that I lost 10 grand I kid you not, 10 grand on that election.
	10 grand and $400, I believe.
	Wait, did you lose 10 grand and $800?
	I gave everybody up, so I bet $1,000 at four to one odds.
	I figured if I was going to have a bad night, then I might as well have a good night.
	Exactly, so I bet Michael Medved $4,000 to $1,000.
	Wait, wait, wait, I'm sorry, back up.
	You lost money to Michael Medved?
	I will say this, to Michael's credit, Michael then had me give it to charity.
	Oh, good for him.
	Michael's a really nice guy, isn't he?
	He went to the Michael Knowles charity, which I have been paying into monthly for legitimately his entire career.
	And Knowles gave the money to charity.
	Oh, no, wait.
	He also gave it to the Knowles charity.
	That's exactly right.
	Like, legitimately six minutes ago, the real-time forecast from 538 said that the chance the Democrats were going to win the House was a two-in-three chance.
	As of, like, a minute ago, it is now a one-in-two chance.
	Holy moly.
	So that is...
	You know, this guy Knowles is a genius.
	Have you ever heard about this genius?
	I don't know.
	The guy who's always getting it right.
	His predictions are like, it's uncanny.
	I do want to say, if we hold Florida...
	I want television set up all around us tuned into MSNBC so that for the rest of the night, I can fill my leftist-tears hot or cold tumbler.
	Well, with CNN, it's the same thing.
	You know what?
	I want to watch CNN because earlier tonight, it looked like, I swear, it looked like Wolf Blitzer was snorting lines in the bathroom because he was so excited.
	He was looking at the election map like it was a Playboy centerfold.
	He was like, ah, ah, Indiana.
	If they hold the house, if they do hold the house, Oh, my God.
	I mean, you have to say.
	My God, Matt.
	Orgasmic.
	It will be orgasmic.
	Well, it will be the most consequential political moment of my lifetime if we hold the House of Representatives.
	It will be incredibly consequential.
	Because there is no possible way that we should, right?
	That's right.
	Then you have to consider that there are two data points in favor of the idea that Trump has a unique connection to the American people.
	That's right.
	Which is something that I have been loath to say because I really don't believe that theory too much.
	But if he is able to do this, then he is working a particular magic that no president has worked in my lifetime, and 2002 doesn't count, because that was right after 9-11.
	It hasn't worked in 80 years.
	I'm really happy to hear you say that, because I think...
	Dude, I am pretty good at admitting when I'm wrong.
	No, no.
	That's actually something that I take pride in.
	I think those rallies are saying something to us.
	It's a question of how much.
	Are they just saying that there is this pocket of people who love this guy, or are they saying this guy has...
	Struck a chord.
	And if he struck a chord, I think we, as conservatives, I think we need to think about what the hell it is.
	And I do think that we're going to have to figure out what that is.
	Because I think the temptation is to intellectualize the policy aspects of this.
	And this is why you're getting all these new debates.
	We were having this debate earlier about economic populism and all this stuff.
	The truth is Trump hasn't implemented any of this.
	I think that this is the one area where I have been completely consistent with regard to President Trump's appeal.
	And I said this going all the way back to 2015 when I said I thought he might be the only Republican who could win.
	And then I changed my mind as he became more toxic over time.
	But in 2015, I gave a speech at Mizzou University in which I said he may be the only person in the Republican field who can win because he is fighting back against identity politics in a way that no one else in the Republican field is.
	And he is still doing that.
	He's doing so in ways that I don't always like.
	I think that he crosses the line for me too much.
	But it is possible that the Democrats have crossed the line so far that anybody who's willing to shatter this glass with this hammer right here is working a certain magic.
	Don Lemon, who is one of the people I just...
	Who is a bellwether...
	Talking of bellwethers, he's a bellwether to me.
	Bellwether?
	Hang on one second.
	Yeah, we've got a drink.
	But you know, he made that horrible comment about how white men are the big problem in this country.
	And I thought, wow, that really is a racist thing to say.
	Now he's doubling down on it.
	He has a chart of who has done extremist violence.
	And I thought, wow, what if I put on a chart that showed that 7% of the population, black males, had committed 50% of the homicides and attributed it to their blackness.
	It's one thing to get the stats out there, and the stats are true, but to attribute it to their blackness.
	I would be fired from CNN. I shouldn't.
	Rightly.
	You would rightly be fired.
	That's right.
	And so should he.
	This incredible racism has taken over the left.
	And you know, on the right, we get it.
	We get it.
	The racism is over.
	You know, I mean, you and I, we know every conservative, the four of us know every conservative basically in the country.
	I don't sit in private meetings with these guys and suddenly hear them spout racism.
	No, this is right.
	That's not what's happening.
	I've never heard, I mean, I know probably a hundred members of Congress, and I know probably one-third of the members of the Senate, and I just dropped a bunch of names right there, so I'm going to have to pick all those guys.
	But the Democrats really believe, like, there's a huge swath of the media that believes that behind closed doors, whenever there's a meeting, people are just dropping the N-word.
	I have never heard one of these people even come remotely close to doing anything like that.
	And this is the difference between the racism on the right and the racism on the left.
	I, too, know exactly one senator, Ted Cruz.
	Dear God, I hope he wins, but I still know one senator.
	You've got to make friends with Beto.
	I, too, know many people in elected government, of course, don't know any racists.
	But that's not to say that there is not racism on the right.
	There's racism everywhere.
	There's racism on the extreme fringes of the right.
	The racism on the left is not at the extreme fringes.
	The racism on the left is on CNN. And the same thing is true of anti-Semitism.
	It's welcome on college campuses.
	It's welcome in polite conversation.
	And they don't even know it about themselves.
	And this is the part where I think that people have reacted supremely awfully on the left to the whole situation in Pittsburgh.
	So, a person I'm friends with, Barry Weiss, who's a columnist over at the New York Times.
	Barry's delightful.
	She's a nice person.
	Not one of the good ones at the New York Times.
	Right, but she went on Bill Maher and she said that she was voting straight-line Democrat as a sort of renunciation of President Trump's language with regard to the alt-right in 2015-2016.
	Now, as the number one target of that alt-right in 2015-2016, someone who has been highly critical at literally every step of not only the alt-right, but what I thought was Trump winking and nodding at them, In 2016, which he did do in 2016.
	With all of that said, the notion that you are going to respond to what happened in Pittsburgh by endorsing the party of Keith Ellison and the Iran deal and the party of let's bring in as many immigrants from countries that we know nothing about as humanly possible without vetting any of them.
	That's your response.
	Americans have been told, and this is what I think is really happening, and it's good to feel justified if that's what happens tonight electorally.
	Americans have been told that their agenda is racist by the left.
	That's right.
	And they are sick and tired of hearing it.
	And when Trump crosses the line, when he says stuff that's racially tinged or close to racist, and the media says...
	Well, not only is Trump saying something racist, he's dog whistling to all of you.
	The implication is that we are all the dogs and we need him to dog whistle to us and somehow hit the button of racism and then we're ready to go.
	Our racist cap pops up and we are ready to go to battle against all of the minority folks and it's bullshit.
	Of course it's bullshit.
	Of course it's bullshit.
	Not bullshit.
	I can't segue into these ads sometimes.
	Here's the thing about an ad read.
	It takes years to learn how to segue.
	And the thing about an ad read is we're talking about people who make it possible for us to have a broken air conditioner and audio problems.
	Like the only money.
	They pay for our broken air conditioner.
	They pay all the money that we have in the company.
	And I just sometimes feel bad for them when it's like, yes, that's bullshit, and racism's bad, and I hate the left.
	Now a word from one of us.
	Speaking of Linda Sarsour, speaking of the ultimate doom of the Democratic Party, and also your ultimate doom, let's talk about the need.
	I'm like a professional.
	You are so good.
	That was so good.
	Let's pause for just a minute.
	Wow.
	Right.
	You think that your night was dead enough being with us.
	But you can resurrect your night and your possibilities of future financial independence by getting life insurance right now.
	Because the fact is, if you don't have life insurance, you're being an irresponsible human.
	And when you plot and your family looks around, they say, how are we going to pay for this schmuck's funeral?
	The only way that's going to happen is if you actually went and bought life insurance.
	This is great, man.
	Actually having life insurance is an important thing.
	And...
	The people of Policy Genius are the folks who make that happen.
	In just two minutes, you can compare quotes from the top insurers and find the best policy for you.
	When you compare quotes, you save money.
	It is indeed that simple.
	They don't just do life insurance.
	They also do disability insurance and auto insurance and home insurance.
	If you care about it, they can cover it.
	There's no reason for you to put this off any longer.
	If you're listening to this broadcast later, the election's already over.
	Just go pause it right now.
	Go to policygenius.com.
	Go pick up your insurance and then come back here safe in the knowledge that if you crash your car five minutes from now, everything's going to be okay for your family.
	So go to policygenius.com.
	It's the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
	Get those quotes.
	Apply in minutes.
	Again, be a responsible human, not like a candidate from Texas who drives drunk and hits somebody on the oncoming side of the road.
	Policygenius, the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
	Policy Genius, I can't segue into ads, but I can't talk about what's good about these companies.
	This is another, I kid you not, we're on a roll tonight.
	This is another company in which I got a recommendation from Ben to look for life insurance on Policy Genius before Policy Genius was a sponsor on our show.
	And because I, you know, I like wear untucket shirts and everything I own comes from the internet.
	So I was like, oh, I want some life insurance.
	And Ben's like, have you tried the internet?
	That's a good idea.
	I've heard of that internet.
	We're going to get back to this thrilling conversation.
	First, I want to finally, I think we've solved the technical issues that were forbidding us from speaking to Elisha Krause.
	I think we have her now in Daily Wire election headquarters.
	Elisha, what's going on out there in the crazy world?
	Honestly, I should have kept it that way because I would have still been able to talk to you all.
	I just wouldn't have been able to hear you, which would have been a relief.
	But, no.
	Now we have updates.
	And my birth state of Florida.
	I mean, as Kristen Solstice Anderson rightfully said on Twitter, their main exports are the wonderful Tim Tebow, alligators, crazy news stories, and toss-up elections.
	So we got some crazy toss-ups today.
	It looks as if Rick Scott there, a former governor himself, is real close.
	And then, of course, we have the Senate race as well.
	It looks like Bill Nelson is neck and neck with the GOP candidate.
	We have it right here.
	This is fascinating.
	It's going to be really interesting.
	There's almost 80% of the precincts reporting.
	Of course, all the polls there are closed.
	Moving over to the gubernatorial race, of course, just four days ago we saw former President Barack Obama give that fiery speech where he attacked Donald Trump and he talked about the importance of getting out and voting and he got my, as Ben and I refer to, his Obama preacher voice on.
	He was down there promoting Andrew Gillum and it looks as if Gillum and Ron DeSantis Trump supporter, you remember him because he did that whole commercial where he told his toddler son to build the wall with the Legos.
	They are also neck and neck.
	So, Florida guys.
	The Florida guys.
	Hopefully it won't be another 2,000 with the hanging chads.
	I was concerned that the governor races in Georgia were going to keep us twiddling our thumbs and anxious all night long, but it looks as if Florida is once again delivering this election cycle.
	Let's move to Indiana if we can, though.
	It looks as if President Trump Really did a wonder for the Republican candidate for Senate there.
	It's looking like, I mean, this.
	Early results, yeah.
	Huge results, especially because Donnelly, you know, he ain't a Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein Democrat.
	He was really, he's voted with President Trump on some things.
	He's sided with his own party on others.
	So this is fascinating, and I think the president— Do we know what percentage of the vote is in right now in Indiana?
	The percentage of the vote that is in right now, I think, was around 50%.
	So we still have a long way to go.
	We still have some of those metropolitan areas that we had talked about earlier, you know, that need to come in because the metro areas, of course, tend to be more liberal, which got CNN really excited because, I guess, the city of Austin, which is the blueberry in the cherry pie of Texas, of course came in for...
	Betta Bay, or whatever the hell we call him.
	But we will be watching all of these.
	I can't do an Irish brogue, so I can't...
	Heideideide, my name's Beto Rorke.
	Heideideide.
	An even worse actor than you are a political comic.
	Whoa, whoa, whoa.
	Hold the fort there.
	Fight your tongue there.
	What if we produced an entire series just to test the proposition?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Because this is our election special, but it's also an episode of our backstage show, which we do once a month.
	And for that reason, I want to take some questions from our audience right now.
	If you're a subscriber to The Daily Wire, if you give us your $10 a month over at dailywire.com slash subscribe, you can ask us questions throughout the night.
	And that's a big part of how we do the job that we do here is because we have these wonderful subscribers who are mailing us their alms each and every month.
	And they keep us all in employ.
	Yes.
	Can I tell you, last night I was at UCLA, and a guy got up and he had gotten into my mailbag.
	I had apparently told him to man up.
	He said it changed his life for the better.
	Is he currently married?
	I don't know if he's currently married.
	He used to be a female.
	He said, yeah, exactly.
	He was a woman.
	But no, he said that was what he needed to hear.
	So my mailbag answers 100% correct.
	So some people say in life that the measure of a good life is if you could reach just one poor soul and bring value to them.
	I'm done.
	As the guys who write your checks.
	One ain't enough.
	I'm ready.
	I'm done.
	Keep it coming, Clayton.
	Keep it coming.
	Let's go back to Election HQ and hear some questions from our viewers.
	Yeah, we do have some of those from Cassie and Colton over here.
	Four subscribers who everyone is watching.
	We've got some great viewers on Facebook and YouTube, but only subscribers can ask the questions.
	Cassie, what do you got?
	Well, we have several questions over here.
	Colton has them right up in front of him.
	So let's start off with Dawson.
	I think it's a pretty serious question, too.
	Why should I care about other states' governorships?
	Oh boy, the governors are the backbone of the country.
	They produce the executives who might go on to win the presidency.
	Far more governors.
	Governors are much more well-trained for the presidency than senators are.
	And they are the ones...
	We are still a federation of states, and they're the ones who connect with the president through the states and direct money and direct politics.
	They're really important for campaigns as well.
	The other reason that governorships matter a lot is because You don't find out how much governorships of other states matter until those states go completely bankrupt and turn to the federal government.
	That's right.
	Because what's going to happen eventually in places like California is you have these large, outstanding trillion-dollar debts and deficits, and eventually they're going to have to look to the federal government for help.
	And when that happens, things are going to get quite ugly.
	And this is basically why the EU broke down, is you had some countries in the EU spending well past their means, and other countries having to sack up and pay for those countries.
	You could have something similar in the United States based on Debt in places like Illinois, places like California.
	Also, obviously, those governors very often end up running for president, so their politics end up making a difference.
	And you can change the population's view in populous states of politics more generally by how you govern.
	If you have a good democratic governor in a state, I know, oxymoron.
	But if you did, then that could help change the state's entire political complexion.
	The same thing is true of a Republican governor in a purple state.
	They are really the laboratories of democracy.
	And the great bulwark against tyranny was always intended by the founders to be the state governments.
	That's right.
	And while we've eroded the power of the states, I think one of the great hopes for the country is that we can see the states be empowered once again.
	There's a very personal reason, too, which is that when you live in California, you know, like, you've got Governor Moonbeam here.
	You might think, you're in Texas, you think, oh, I don't care that they've got Democrat Governor Moonbeam, except when he governs that state into the ground, then all the refugees from California invade your state and ruin your politics and maybe elect beta to the United States government.
	One more question.
	No.
	Colton, so we got a question from Alex, and it says, if Ted Cruz loses, what do you think it means for Texas?
	And why do you think Beto has received so much fanfare?
	Is he the next Obama?
	He is a great candidate.
	Beto is a great candidate.
	First of all, he's outspent Cruz by at least $10 million.
	He's got a political machine that is maybe eight times...
	Yeah, more than that, maybe like 80 times the size of Ted Cruz.
	He is a terrific candidate.
	He knows what he's doing.
	He's run the campaign that Ted Cruz ran when he won the first time.
	He has knocked on doors.
	He's brought out new voters.
	And yeah, he is the white Obama.
	That is exactly what he is.
	He's also been given tremendous credit by the media.
	Well, that's going to happen to any white Obama, any Obama.
	What's rare about that is that usually the media has been withholding that sort of support except for minority candidates.
	And this is why the whole Beto thing is actually a little bit more than humorous.
	If he had been called Robert O'Rourke in this race, I do not think there is any chance that the media treat him this way.
	I want to say something a little controversial here.
	There are a bunch of reasons why Texas has drifted purple, more purple than we're comfortable seeing.
	Some of it is the refugees from California.
	Some of it is unchecked immigration that's been going on in the country for some time.
	But a major part of the reason in my opinion that Ted Cruz has had the fight that he's had It's because part of the collateral damage of the way that Donald Trump conducts himself is that he hurt Ted Cruz with his base, which he co-opted from Ted Cruz.
	It is the conservative base who turned out for Donald Trump ultimately.
	And because President Trump is not gracious with the foes that he vanquishes, many people...
	I made a defense of Senator Cruz on my Twitter feed this weekend.
	I got hit from all sides on it.
	It really surprised me.
	There were those who said that they couldn't support Ted Cruz because, for example, he didn't stand up for his wife when Donald Trump attacked her.
	There were other people who said that they couldn't support Ted Cruz because he's lying, Ted, and he's just going to run against Donald Trump in two years.
	In other words, when you engage in the kind of burn-the-ships Style of political warfare that Donald Trump engages in.
	You do sometimes take down your own allies.
	And Ted Cruz has been an enormous ally of this president in practice over the last few years.
	Well, that is true.
	I'm not going to put that all on Trump.
	I think that Ted has hurt himself with his base because Ted's original pitch was that he was the most authentic conservative out there.
	And the key word there is authentic, not conservative.
	And in 2016, because of all the machinations and because of all the back and forth, it made him look more politician-y than he had been before.
	And so Beto's whole pitch was basically, I'm an authentic candidate, here I am, look at me being authentic as I ride my skateboard and do kickflips.
	Yeah.
	But to Jeremy's point, this is one of the things that we are going to have to deal with, especially if the Republicans win tonight, and we have to credit Donald Trump with touching something in the American public.
	We have to also say that this is a tremendously flawed man.
	None of us has disagreed with this.
	Even I have admitted the guy.
	It was Trumpy among us.
	We think this is a very flawed man.
	And we have to ask ourselves, does that speak to a flaw in the American character?
	Or are the American people saying, no, we're overlooking his flaws to get to something that really is gold?
	What I'll say is, it was not necessary for Donald Trump to destroy Ted Cruz in the end of the 2016 election cycle.
	Well, he's a burn-the-ships guy.
	He's a burn-the-ships guy.
	Yes.
	And had he not...
	Ted Cruz would be, in my estimation, walking away with him.
	He got very ugly at the end there, at the end of that primary campaign, and I think both guys did things that...
	I don't remember Ted Cruz saying that Donald Trump's father killed...
	But he didn't endorse him at the convention, and that's what...
	It was a political mistake, but it was not a moral duty.
	I agree with that entirely.
	But with all of that said, You know, because these election results so far are just astonishing.
	I mean, astonishing.
	Like, if Ron DeSantis ends up as governor of Florida after as much press as the media gave Andrew Gillum, and him going out there and maligning Ron DeSantis, a good man, as a racist, If the Republicans end up pulling this out, then you have to say at a certain point that Donald Trump's brand of rage politics, which it is, I do think that that has struck a chord in the American people because he's at least authentically rageful.
	So what I said on my show this morning is that I think authenticity is the currency of the realm right now.
	I think it's the only thing that matters.
	I think that everything else is secondary.
	There is no one more authentic in American politics than Donald Trump because everything that he believes comes out of his mouth right now.
	And what that means is that...
	I was actually analyzing this on my show this morning, looking at the final pitch that was being made by Republicans versus the final pitch being made by Democrats.
	The final pitch being made by Republicans was Trump going out there and saying, here I am.
	Rocky like a hurricane.
	And his pitch was, I'm here.
	I'm Schmier.
	I am who I am.
	And that's all that I am, right?
	And it was the Popeye campaign.
	I'm not hiding the ball here.
	I am what I am.
	I'm this way of immigration.
	I say what I want to say.
	Like it or don't like it.
	This is what I am.
	The Democrats ran essentially a bifurcated campaign.
	On the one hand, they were saying to their base, we're going to be as radical as you can.
	You're not even going to believe how radical we're going to be.
	We're going to go nationalize health care.
	We're going to go Medicare for all.
	We're going to do free college tuition.
	We're We're going to defund the military.
	We're going to open the borders.
	But they were saying this kind of stuff out loud, right?
	They were saying, they were saying, confront people in public places.
	And all the Republicans were like, okay, that's what they're actually running on.
	They're running on, okay, he's running on I am what I am.
	They're running on I am what I am.
	I'd rather he is what he is than they are what they are.
	But what they were also doing is they were lying.
	And this is where I think they were hurting themselves a little bit if this turns out to be what it may be looking like here.
	The Democrats were lying to the American people because at the same time that they were doing the I am what I am routine, they were also saying to the American people, we're the good guys.
	Donald Trump's a bad guy.
	He's a bad, mean man.
	He's a bad, mean, orange, giant man.
	Just like all the racists who vote for him.
	Just like every racist who hates us, we are as pure as the...
	Paul Krugman wrote this column, I kid you not, five times in the last four weeks.
	I read all of his columns on the air because it legitimately was like a Mad Libs machine.
	He just kind of threw in a few terms like racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, and Trump, and it came out in various conjugations, and then he just slid it into the submission pile.
	Yeah.
	What that means is that Democrats have actually...
	The lying of the Democrats about who they are is even more damaging than who they actually are in certain ways.
	Because I think that people feel gaslit.
	You make people feel gaslit and people lose their shit.
	And that's what I think has been going on here.
	I have to say something.
	I want to talk for a minute, though, about this idea that Trump is a racist.
	Because I actually believe that Trump is not a racist.
	You know, the only thing to me that he ever said that was genuinely egregious on this topic was when he didn't disavow immediately the Ku Klux Klan.
	But when you really get to know Trump, as we've all gotten to know him, he's a completely practical man to the extent that more practical than I would like to see him be because I believe in morality.
	He just thinks, no, I don't want to lose that vote.
	I don't want to lose that vote.
	Donald Trump is racially insensitive.
	He is not racist.
	But Donald Trump is blank insensitive.
	Correct, exactly.
	Racially insensitive is just a subset of insensitive.
	You take the word racially right out of that.
	That's right.
	It was amazing.
	They tried to call him an anti-Semite.
	That's hilarious.
	Israel named a train station after him in Jerusalem.
	His daughter converted.
	To call Trump an anti-Semite is just asinine.
	He is a guy, and we've known this for a long time.
	Trump is...
	It's so funny.
	When people talk about Trump, It's the same thing that I get when I go into the bookstores and you see in the self-help section all these books trying to help women understand men.
	And if you're a man, you're like, this is so easy.
	Sex, food, and be nice to me.
	Those are the only thing, right?
	Sex, food, and be nice to me.
	That's all we ask.
	We are very simple people.
	We're a simple people to men.
	And Donald Trump is not complex.
	But everybody is trying to complexify what is not complex.
	He's a man and...
	It all comes down to his personality, which is, it's not just that he's transactional, it's that he likes praise and he dislikes criticism.
	And so if someone praises him, he is loathe to criticize them.
	And if someone criticizes them, he is loathe to ever praise them.
	And he sees himself as a guy who fixes stuff.
	Right, exactly.
	He has a very simple version of himself.
	And he's pretty obvious about it, and he hasn't been hiding it.
	And this is why whenever people were trying to, like, oh, Steve Bannon's running the ship, and he's got a serious intellectual policy that's undergirding all of this, or what's the secret motivation that drives Donald Trump?
	It's like, there's no secret motivation.
	He is a 1960s Rat Pack guy without the drinking.
	He likes to build gilded towers with his name on them.
	He likes to bang hot chicks.
	And he likes to say whatever's on his mind in cigar sessions.
	That's who Donald Trump is.
	He's Fred Flintstone.
	But to your point about gaslighting, meanwhile, there is a party out there that...
	Is committing mob violence.
	Let's even just go back to the last time there was an election before Donald Trump when Barack Obama encouraged a mob to burn Ferguson to the ground.
	Tacitly encouraged, but encouraged.
	So you've got...
	You've got Congress people calling for violence against Republicans.
	Meanwhile, the media is saying the right is guilty of mob violence.
	Then you've got a party that's saying white men are the enemy and we need to brownify America, which is an egregious racial statement.
	And then saying, and also Republicans are racist.
	This is to the gaslighting point.
	That's right.
	When violent people call you violent, when racists call you racist, when anti-Semites call you anti-Semitic, when people who want all of your money call you greedy, you do start to lose your mind.
	And that's created this opening for Trump to say, you know, that's bullcrap.
	This is amazing.
	Mike DeWine right now is running extraordinarily competitive with Richard Cordray in Ohio.
	Cordray is the Democrat who is the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
	One of the most overreaching federal agencies ever created by the federal government, Democrat.
	He was expected to win pretty much walking away against DeWine, who is the Ohio Attorney General.
	Right now, they are running neck and neck with DeWine just ahead.
	Not a lot of the vote in so far, but the early indicators tonight are...
	There is no blue wave.
	I'm not sure if it's too early to say this, but there's no indicator that there's...
	Certainly not a tsunami.
	There may not even be a wave.
	It may not be a ripple.
	Henry Olsen is now saying, I'd rather be Scott than Nelson in Florida.
	He'd rather be the Republican in Florida.
	Democrats can win the House and it's still not be a blue wave.
	That's one thing that we've all talked about.
	By a significant margin.
	We're talking about 24 seats need to flip.
	Right.
	They could win 30.
	They could win 30.
	There is nothing like a blue wave.
	Certainly not a blue wave.
	It's an historic anomaly in Trump's favor.
	That's right.
	If the Democrats win the House.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	So, you know what's not smart?
	Job sites that overwhelm you with tons of the wrong resumes.
	We're talking about ZipRecruiter here, who I know that all three of you have a good relationship with.
	Yeah, because if we had had ZipRecruiter, would Knowles be sitting here today?
	Not a chance.
	Not a single chance.
	If we had had Google, Michael Knowles would be sitting here.
	Is ZipRecruiter the one where they drag you out?
	Every day I say to myself, we here at Daily Wire have a special deal with ZipRecruiter where you can actually check it out and you can try it for free.
	Why have I not done this?
	Legitimately, every time I read this ad, I'm like, this stupid guy in his ridiculous jacket.
	He literally cost me nothing.
	They advertise with me.
	Why have I not replaced this human?
	Yeah, there's no rationale.
	ZipRecruiter doesn't wait for candidates to find you.
	ZipRecruiter finds them for you.
	They have powerful matching technology that scans thousands of resumes, identifies people with the right skills, education, and experience for your job.
	It actively invites them to apply.
	So you get qualified candidates fast.
	No more sorting through the wrong resumes.
	No more waiting for the right candidates to apply.
	It's no wonder that ZipRecruiter is rated number one by employers in the United States.
	And right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash backstage.
	That is ZipRecruiter.com slash backstage.
	B-A-C-K-S-T-A-G-E if you have a problem with spelling.
	That is ZipRecruiter.com slash backstage.
	Indeed, ZipRecruiter is the smartest way to hire.
	You know, I have to tell you, almost everywhere I go, seriously, one of the questions I get, you know, we always get, you know, you kind of get the same question.
	One of them is, why is everybody so mean to Michael Knowles?
	Yeah.
	And this just seems self-evident to me.
	They've never met Michael Knowles.
	You know what it is, though?
	I'm not sure I even understand the question.
	You know, I can explain it to you guys.
	So, as a number one best-selling author, I, you know, some people...
	I think now we're getting to the core of the issue here.
	No, you know, sometimes people try, you know, I understand.
	You see one of the great John Cage political philosophers of your age, and you think, that guy, he couldn't really.
	So that's why I understand.
	That is a doubly offensive joke, because first of all, who knows who John Cage is?
	And secondly, you are John Cage.
	John Cage wrote Silence as a symphony.
	So we actually have an update.
	We're going to kick it over to Alicia Krauss at Daily Wire Election HQ. Look at this.
	I wanted to call it Alicia's Election Headquarters because it has a nice ring to it, but I think me and my mom are the only two people on the planet doing that tonight.
	I'm in.
	Alicia's Election Headquarters.
	Hey, here we go.
	Change the graphic.
	Is it sort of like crawdads and stuff?
	It sounds like it should.
	Hey, now.
	Crawdads are delicious.
	Oh, my gosh.
	What percent is reporting on this, Alicia?
	Give us your update.
	We have a fascinating update.
	We only got 10% reporting in Georgia, but it looks as if right now Brian Kemp is up against Stacey Abrams.
	And of course, you know, Stacey Abrams, who you get a vote, you get a vote, you get a vote.
	Oprah went to talk to everybody the other day, but Kemp has brought in some heavy hitters himself, including Vice President Mike Pence.
	So we're going to be watching that race throughout the night.
	Like I said earlier, it's really one that I was kind of nail-biting over because I feel like we're going to go to bed tonight, much like we did in 2000 and then again in 2004 tonight.
	And waking up wondering who won Georgia, specifically because of all the voter suppression stuff and the lawsuits going back and forth from Kemp's campaign to the Democrats there and Abrams' campaign saying that there was suppression.
	There's a lot going on.
	But interestingly, there's this poll that some people have referred to as an outlier, but they could just be accurate.
	There's this Trafalgar group who accurately called the 2016 presidential election when, as we all know, a lot of the other pollsters got it totally wrong.
	Nate Silver, anyone?
	Anyway, they are saying that their latest polling just three days ago showed Brian Kemp up by 12 points and winning in Georgia.
	So we will see at the end of the night if that ends up being accurate.
	We also have about seven other states in the center of the country.
	God's country, flyover country, according to liberals in LA and New York.
	But I like to call it God's country.
	They are closing right now, so we'll be keeping an eye on those.
	But let's go to Texas real quick if we can.
	This is really close.
	This is freaking me out.
	I'm watching everything.
	I'm trying to keep calm.
	Once again, very little reporting right now.
	We're keeping track of multiple...
	So you're showing us U.S. Senate race in Texas at 52% O'Rourke over 47 for Cruz.
	Do we know what percentage of the vote is in over there?
	About 10% reporting.
	Yeah, that means nothing.
	So thanks, Alicia, for nothing.
	A lot of it is coming from Dallas.
	Thank you for your early results.
	They mean nothing to me.
	You know what?
	At least I'm not showing you guys exit polling, okay?
	We've got all the results from the Starbucks in the middle of Austin, and it looks like O'Rourke is up.
	Are we allowed to talk about how great Alicia is looking?
	We are not.
	Do you remember when we first...
	Do you remember when we first hit 50 employees and we had mandatory sexual harassment?
	I didn't show up with that.
	And you didn't show up?
	That's true.
	Also, the man who should have showed up, just for reference, Michael Knowles.
	Oh, I had to do an online training.
	It wasn't enough.
	It was, yeah.
	It was not enough.
	What are you talking about, doll?
	I think it was plenty.
	You look great, baby.
	You're looking terrific, baby.
	I love it.
	Was that covered?
	I'm sorry, did I miss that day?
	You look terrific, maybe.
	I mean, to be honest with you, Alicia, anyone under the age of 40 looks like a baby to play with.
	This is true.
	He is the grandpa of the office.
	Okay, so...
	So, Alicia, we're going to check back in with you here in just a couple of minutes.
	Ben, get us up to speed a little bit on what's going on.
	What's going on is absolute crazy towns!
	So according to 538, the real-time forecast says that right now, the Democrats have a less than 5% chance of winning the Senate, which means they are not going to win the Senate.
	That was kind of expected.
	They are saying right now that Democrats still have a 62% chance of winning the House.
	That is a significant downgrade.
	So it was 88 first.
	Then it was 75.
	It is now 66.
	I remember something a couple of years ago where the odds suddenly sort of changed.
	There have been a couple of key districts where it looks like Republicans are going to hold, including Dave Brat's district in Virginia, where it looked like he was really on the ropes.
	The theory going into the election is that the female suburban vote and the Republican kind of upper-income suburban vote It was going to turn drastically against Trump, or at least was going to stay home.
	So far, we are not seeing that in evidence.
	We are seeing increased Democratic turnout all over the place, but we are also seeing solid Republican turnout all over the place, and we are not seeing people defect.
	Again, I think that that...
	Now, I will say, I think that the lack of defections by people who are constitutionally not friendly to kind of President Trump's persona, that has less to do with them embracing the Trump persona and more to do with them looking at the other side of the aisle and going, ah!
	Yeah.
	But they are related, right?
	It does speak to Trump's strategy, too.
	The attack on Trump was that his strategy in going heavy on immigration was a mistake.
	It was playing to his base when he needed to play to the independents.
	His strategy, I believe, Trump's strategy, was that The same suburban women who were concerned about health care were also concerned about things like sanctuary cities.
	Security moms, just like in 2004.
	And that's what he was betting.
	And I think he was playing a very clever game.
	I think there's something else, too.
	And that is that Trump, I'm not sure he has ever played to his base.
	What I mean by that is what I think he actually plays to is his opposition.
	He actually plays to their worst fears, knowing that...
	And I'm giving him some credit for strategery here, right?
	Yeah, you are.
	I think that he...
	And I've talked to...
	There are a lot of folks at the White House who certainly believe this.
	That no matter what he does, the Democrats will find a way to do the worst thing in the world about it.
	And when it comes to the immigration thing...
	Look, I've said from the outset, pretty much...
	I think that all the alarmism about this particular caravan is overstated.
	I don't think 10,000 people are arriving at the borders, rifles in hand, ready to invade the United States.
	I think by the time it gets here, it's going to be what it was last year.
	It's going to be 500 people who show up at a border station, apply for asylum, four-fifths of them are rejected, and they go back to their home countries.
	But what Trump did by...
	Basically using alarmism and demagoguery here, is he got the Democrats to reveal what they actually believe about this, which is not illegal immigration is an important issue, but he's demagoguing the issue.
	Here are our solutions.
	He shouldn't be demagoguing the issue.
	That's wrong.
	Instead, it was open borders are great.
	And you know what?
	But everyone should be able to come in who should want to come in and abolish ICE.
	And a bunch of people in the middle of the country went, OK, so if I have a choice, if I now have a binary choice between illegal immigration is a crisis, send the military.
	And illegal immigration is a wonderful thing.
	Open up the border wide to accept anyone who wants to come in, regardless of who they are.
	That's not a choice.
	And the fact that Democrats have fallen into this trap of reacting to everything Trump does as though it's Hitlerian is such a mistake.
	Because the thing is that the soft version of what Trump says, he always says something with a grain of truth.
	This is where Scott Adams has it right.
	Scott Adams says that what Trump does very often, consciously or unconsciously, is he sells past the sale.
	There's a point where most people agree with him, and then he sells past that point.
	And in doing so, he allows the opposition to react to the point that he is now selling, which is way past the point of acceptability.
	And their reaction is also way past the point of acceptability.
	I just want to pause for a minute.
	Henry Olsen is calling Florida for DeSantis.
	Oh, thank God.
	Good, good, good.
	Unbelievable.
	And he's a very sharp observer and not, you know, very cool.
	So that's not an official call, but that's the ultimate call.
	He's not the only one who's been saying that, by the way.
	There's another, I think, from FiveThirtyEight, who's...
	No, it's Mark Caputo, who's the election analysis at ABC, saying that they're...
	He doesn't know where all these myths are coming from about magical votes showing up in Broward County to save Gillum.
	If Gillum loses, that is one of the biggest surprises of this election cycle.
	I want to bring in our friend Glenn Beck to jump in on the conversation.
	He's been on standby for a few minutes.
	Glenn Jimman, are you with us?
	I miss my California family.
	Where's my bong?
	I think we still have it in here somewhere.
	Glenn, we feel so underdressed.
	I know.
	This is an opportunity in California.
	You all should be high.
	With Gillum, I think Gillum is going to lose Florida.
	DeSantos is going to win.
	You could see the house.
	Maybe, maybe being lost by the Republicans and go into the hands of Nancy Pelosi, but if they do, I think it'll be under five.
	If they don't, oh my gosh, this is the worst part of me, but the worst part of me is about 99.8% right now.
	It's going to make me so happy just to watch the media and Spin completely.
	Isn't it beautiful?
	I mean, we're watching CNN right now on the other screen, Glenn.
	I gotta tell you, they are way more entertaining than you are because watching as they finally get that post-cocaine letdown is really exciting stuff.
	I mean, Wolf Blitzer looks like he may be suicidal.
	Seriously, what are they going to say?
	The only thing they can say, and you know they're saying it to each other, they may actually come out and say it on the air.
	My gosh, this country is even more racist.
	Yes, that's what they're going to say.
	By the way, they're now projecting that Marsha Blackburn wins Tennessee.
	Marsha Blackburn is going to win Tennessee over Phil Bredesen, which was supposed to be kind of the Republican outer wall.
	Tennessee, Texas are kind of the...
	That's the line, right?
	You've got to hold the line.
	Yep.
	So that capital thing worked out great for the Democrats, guys.
	I'd love to hear your guys' opinion on this.
	I've been saying this for a while, and Stu is such a...
	You know, a stat guy and a stick in the mud.
	He won't let me have my fun on this.
	I think with the amount of money that was spent and the amount of airtime that has been...
	Guys, Florida governor, it's looking like...
	...destroy Donald Trump and the right to blame for absolutely everything.
	This is almost a miracle.
	If they hold the House...
	It always goes to the other party in the midterm.
	Always.
	People like that balance of power.
	Consider, Glenn, the historic consequence of this.
	It didn't happen.
	George W. Bush was able to hold the House in 2002 months after, you know, a year after 9-11.
	But it happened to Obama.
	It happened to Clinton.
	It happened to Ronald Reagan.
	It's gone all the way back.
	Consider what that means for the state of the country, for the state of the culture, if the Republicans somehow hold on to the House.
	It's an absolute repudiation.
	They will not take it this way.
	I think the Democrats are going to go even farther left.
	It's an absolute repudiation of all of this socialist bullcrap.
	But you see what's happening on the streets now tonight in Portland.
	You know, the Portland mayor came out and said, oh, it's going to be great.
	We want everybody to celebrate and have a good time and remember, no violence.
	And now they're actually claiming, Antifa is now claiming, That, you know, these riots are only the ones that are responsible for it.
	Quote, is the police and the mayor because they are in bed with the alt-right.
	Glenn, when you mention the mayor of Portland, I assumed you were talking about Antifa.
	I thought they were the reigning civil authority now in the city of Portland.
	Actually, this is a serious question.
	The Democrats have basically been paving the way since Trump's election for demolishing actual institutions of American government.
	They've been saying since Trump's election that not only did he steal the election, but they've said we should get rid of the Electoral College.
	They said we should get rid of the Senate of the United States.
	Yesterday, Ezra Klein tweeted out that if the House popular vote...
	Somehow it was larger for Democrats and Republicans.
	He invented that concept, yeah.
	And then people would be so angry that they would be out in the streets.
	There are people right now who have been trying to claim that there's voter suppression going on at wide levels across the country and lying about it in order to do so.
	Like they gave an example in Georgia of voting machines that weren't plugged in.
	They said, ah, this is obviously, you know, Donald Trump's minions unplugging voting machines.
	There are white voters in that line, too.
	And they're keeping the polls open in Georgia for this.
	I'm wondering whether we are going to actually see things get really dangerous, like really dangerous in this country.
	Whether it's not just going to be Democrats moving to the left politically, but the sort of mob violence that we've seen from Democrats exacerbating and growing to the point where, for example, there's a serious assassination attempt against the president.
	I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility.
	Although I don't...
	I don't think that's impossible, but I also think that the professional political hands are going to be every bit against that.
	I mean, the guys like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are professional politicians.
	I don't think they're in control of the party anymore.
	I don't think they're in control.
	They're not in control anymore.
	They may not be in control of the party, but they're definitely in control of the actual professional politicians.
	I don't think Nancy Pelosi can even control Maxine Waters.
	I agree with this.
	Glenn, you're in Texas, so you're very close to one of the big concerns that we have out in this office, being kind of isolated by a giant desert from the rest of the country.
	Is all the talk about Texas becoming a purple state, becoming possibly even a blue state?
	What are you feeling on the ground there?
	Well, first of all, I would like to stop worrying about our southern border and put a western border on us.
	We have a thousand people a week moving from California into Texas, and California's doing a number on us, plus all of the millions of dollars that have been spent here to turn Texas blue.
	It is a different state, and I don't think Texans realize the efforts that are being taken by people like George Soros and others to turn us blue.
	I don't believe the Beto thing.
	I've never believed the Beto thing.
	You couldn't find a guy who is less qualified than Beto to run for anything in Texas statewide.
	Then, you know, Robert Francis or Bob Frank, as we like to call him.
	It's just not going to happen.
	And Ted Cruz is...
	I think in some ways this was an easy guy to beat right now.
	I hate to say that, but he blew it.
	You know, he stood against Donald Trump at the convention.
	And then after, he then pissed off all the other people.
	So he pissed off both sides.
	Texans are troubled with him both ways.
	And then you run somebody who's actually likable and doesn't seem like a robot against him.
	He should have been easier to beat.
	But I contend he's still going to pull this out.
	I really think it's going to be close to 10 points.
	Well, I hope so, because I have a well-known affinity for robots.
	Some of my best friends are highly intellectual robots.
	And I also have a real affinity for Senator Cruz.
	Glenn, we're going to let you get back to your broadcast.
	But one thing I did want to say is the worst aspects of your personality that were coming to the floor.
	I think I speak for all of us when I say that the worst character traits of Glenn Beck are my favorite.
	How does this work?
	I don't know how this works.
	Thank you, Glenn.
	Thank you.
	Jake Tapper just said, this is not a blue wave.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Jake being honest on CNN. I have to retweet that.
	Excuse me one second.
	The last honest man.
	I believe Blaze.com also has live coverage.
	And I'm sure that the reason that Glenn came over here and graced us with his presence was just to get Ben to come on.
	Because it's never really about me.
	No.
	But I will say that it's always great that Glenn makes time to come.
	Oh, yeah.
	That's fantastic.
	It's always great to see him.
	Yeah.
	Well, and it's great to see him on good nights.
	Like, how many good nights have we had?
	I love being a pessimist.
	I do, because every time I get to be pleasantly surprised by things.
	That's what I want to know.
	What I want to know is what 538 is saying is the odds that you're going to end up happy at the end of this year.
	Okay, so right now, so they're saying that the House odds, they're still saying the Democrats have a 56%, 54%.
	So they just downgrade a 54% chance of them winning the House.
	45%, 46% chance that Republicans Maintain control of the House.
	Insane.
	What was the number earlier today?
	Was 12% they said?
	Yes.
	12% earlier today.
	Now it's up to 46%.
	Now would be a good time to go over to Robinhood and start investing in stocks because if Donald Trump holds the House of Representatives, the economy is going to explode tomorrow.
	Speaking of, Vegas had their money on Republicans holding the House.
	Yeah, the betting markets have Republicans holding that.
	Vegas also has money on Ben Shapiro being the next president of the United States.
	But Robinhood is where I put my money.
	Robinhood, for those who don't know, is an investing app that lets you buy and sell stocks, ETFs, options, and cryptos, all commission-free.
	They strive to make financial services work for everyone, not just for wealthy folks.
	It's a non-intimidating way for stock market newcomers to invest for the first time with true confidence.
	We have a bunch of folks at the office, including...
	Two of my assistants, actually.
	I have like 83 assistants.
	Come on.
	I'm an important human being.
	And they all use Robinhood because they don't want to be working for me forever.
	They actually would like to invest their money, make some money, and grow out of this.
	And Robinhood may allow them to do that at some point because they have a commission fee that requires...
	There are no commission fees.
	Their cost structure is that they don't charge commission fees.
	You trade stocks, you keep all your profits.
	They're easy to understand.
	They have easy to understand charts, market data...
	You place a trade in just four taps on your smartphone.
	They will cultivate stock collections for you.
	They'll curate them for you.
	And you learn by doing.
	So if you don't know much about the stock market, this is a great way to dip your toe in and get more used to it.
	Robinhood right now is giving listeners a free stock like Apple, Ford, or Sprint to help build your portfolio.
	All you have to do is sign up at dailywire.robinhood.com.
	That is dailywire.robinhood.com.
	Go check it out right now.
	It's super easy to use.
	I've checked out the app myself.
	It's really great.
	dailywire.robinhood.com.
	And you can get that free stock like Apple, Ford, or Sprint.
	Go check it out and start getting into the markets because now's a great time, guys.
	I'll be honest with you.
	My stock strategy, by the way, is that I buy a certain amount of stock in the indices every month.
	And when the stock market goes down, I double it.
	Because I have, unlike Klavan, I have many years to live, I hope.
	And therefore, I can be risk-seeking.
	Well, Robinhood helps you do all of those things if you choose to mimic my stock buying strategy.
	Every time I come here, my life gets shorter.
	I know, it's really...
	Well, that's because it's later.
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	Ben, can you catch us up on what's going on out there?
	Well, Taylor Swift did not actually bring the Tennessee Senate race to Phil Bredesen.
	Believe it or not, Taylor Swift's attempt to weigh in.
	Sorry, Senya, my producer who loves Taylor Swift.
	There were two drops on my guitar.
	That's correct.
	I mean, there's just bad blood.
	I don't know a single song.
	I can't make one pun.
	I'm going to let you finish.
	But first, let's go.
	Let's kick it over to Alicia Krauss to get an election update here.
	Ooh, Cynthia says that you can shove it, and you guys are never, ever, ever getting back together.
	Well, if she doesn't come in and do the show tomorrow, she is fired.
	Oh, no.
	No, we have to keep her forever, mainly because she's one of the only people that will put up with you.
	Which is, I think, the biggest reason why Ben would never be a good politician, because feelings do not matter, but could be a reason why you'd be a pretty good one.
	That's why I wrote you in for Senate today.
	They said she voted for you for Senate.
	I did.
	Well, I mean, to be fair, like, a steaming pile of horse crap is better than our Senate ballot.
	That was her reasoning, actually.
	I mean, mine.
	Is there anything, you know, there are lots of things that are depressing in life, but in politics, is there anything more depressing than walking into a Los Angeles polling place, looking at the ballot, and realizing that it is just a giant bag of human feces?
	It is the worst.
	The one thing that would be worse is if you tuned into this show to figure out what's going on tonight, and we keep kicking it to Elisha's election headquarters, and then bailing before she can give us her update.
	Elisha, give it to Thank you for that, God King.
	I do have four updates.
	Ben just talked about one of them in Tennessee, but first let's get to Florida because we have 96% of the precincts reporting.
	It looks like they're Gillum.
	Ooh, so tight.
	Why, Florida?
	Why are you doing this to us?
	Gillum with 50% of the vote.
	DeSantis with 48.
	DeSantis, of course, that really pro-Trump candidate that did a lot of ads and a lot of door knocking trying to get all of those Donald Trump voters, but Gillum has had so much media support of Of course, former President Obama going down there for him as well.
	Moving along to the Florida Senate, we do have Rick Scott with 50% and Bill Nelson with 49%.
	Once again, that's 96% of the precincts reporting.
	Nail-biting.
	Lots of fun.
	Moving on to the Senate.
	It looks as if Taylor Swift was not able to make anything happen.
	People kind of expected Marsha Blackburn to win there.
	It looks like Marsha Blackburn has a very, very solid lead.
	And CNN and other networks are already calling that for her there.
	So good job, Republicans, on keeping that one.
	And then also, I've got to give a shout-out to Bill Lee.
	Really great candidate there.
	It looks like he's going to win.
	And some...
	GOP seats, we're maintaining our gubernatorial seats, which is really good.
	Part of the reason why there are so many toss-ups in the House this year, too, is there were a lot of people that retired.
	There were some Republicans that said, can't do it, don't want to do it, and were afraid that they were going to lose their re-elections.
	And so that cleared up something like 70 Republicans that decided to retire or not run for re-election, which then created those toss-ups in the House that you guys were talking about a little bit ago.
	Okay, so quick update on both DeSantis and Rick Scott, because I know Alicia's getting information from one direction.
	I'm getting information from the other.
	The live count with 97% in, so more than what Alicia was talking about.
	DeSantis is maintaining a one-point lead.
	He's got 49.9% over Gillum's 48.8.
	Rick Scott is maintaining a one-point lead over Bill Nelson, 50.3% to 49.6%.
	Florida.
	You know?
	You give us weird people and interesting votes.
	And I'm happy with you this evening.
	Florida man is out there.
	Wow.
	Alicia, do we have some questions, some Twitter reaction to the show, Twitter reaction to the election?
	Oh, yeah.
	And then let's hear from a few audience members.
	We do have some Twitter reaction.
	I think Cassie is like, cannot stop laughing because, of course, we make the Taylor Swift puns.
	That's what All of social media is doing right now, right, Cassie?
	Well, absolutely.
	Right now, conservative Twitter is having so much fun throwing shade at Taylor Swift.
	Sorry, Senya.
	Good for you, Ben.
	It looks like Katie Padlage tweeted, Sorry, Taylor Swift.
	Hope it was worth it.
	And Dana Lausch also said that Swift endorsement really paid off.
	Also, Cabot Phillips from Campus Reform posted his election sticker, which says, Own the Libs.
	So good job for voting Kavit over there.
	And then our very own Matt Walsh tweeted, man, Kavanaugh backfired on the Democrats spectacularly.
	So it seems there's a lot going on right now.
	Obviously, we still don't know what the results are going to say, but Twitter is a big pile of dog poop right now.
	That's on fire.
	That's all I have to say.
	I haven't seen it like this since 2016.
	Right now, a lot of fire is not necessary.
	I will say that Taylor did swift vote.
	You know what?
	There was a blank space baby, and it was not filled with Phil Bredesen's name.
	I have to say that we cannot talk enough about this Kavanaugh thing.
	This is exactly right.
	It is such a beautiful thing, A, that the Republicans stood up, that they stood up against the press, which was united against them, and that the people went with them.
	That, to me, is the blueprint for the future for Republicans.
	And a credit to women, by the way, because it was amazing.
	In those polls right afterward, Democrats thought it was going to boost their support among women.
	It decreased Democrat female voter enthusiasm.
	It increased Republican female voter enthusiasm.
	Because it speaks to the reality of women, which is that they like men and men like women.
	Of course.
	How dare you, sir?
	I know.
	How dare you?
	Some men are women.
	How dare you?
	Some men are women and all men hate women.
	That's what I believe.
	Some Republican men are Democrat women.
	No?
	No, I'm lost.
	Colton, give us some questions.
	Got a question from Dylan and he asks, is it worth it to vote if the outcome of the election in my area is already certain?
	Yes.
	Nah.
	I mean, okay, so as the cynic in the room, sure, it's worth it to vote so you can virtue signal and get one of these awesome stickers.
	Guys, look.
	I have a sticker.
	Not all heroes wear capes.
	Some people serve in Afghanistan.
	Some men brave IEDs.
	Some people go to their local elementary school, creep out at the children, and then punch a ballot.
	You are that man.
	The Democrats have been bragging about the fact that they won the popular vote for two years.
	Of course it matters if you vote.
	Of course it matters.
	You were part of the popular vote.
	I'm joking, of course.
	It matters, but let's say there's a sliding scale of mattering.
	If you live in a bellwether district in Ohio, it matters a lot.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Bellwether.
	And Ohio.
	And district.
	And polling.
	Go.
	Go.
	I'll tell you, the other reason why it matters, obviously, I was one of 20 Republicans in my district when I voted last time, and I went in there, and on the ticket stubs, it'll say 0-0-0-0-0-3.
	You know, if you're a Democrat, I mean, I literally was the...
	You're a point one.
	Yeah, and it was such a joy to see the look of horror on the poll worker's face when I said Republican.
	Republican ballot, please.
	She was so horrified.
	They actually didn't count my vote.
	They disfranchised me.
	That makes me feel better about our country vote.
	I have to say, I do love this.
	So the New York Times, you know, they were supposed to have their needle tonight.
	Yes, I know.
	And there's been a technical snafu.
	Okay.
	And the needle has not appeared.
	They are now saying, they delayed posting the needle.
	Finally, they said, okay, we're ready to post the needle.
	And then they said, we're not confident enough in our estimates to post the needle.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	Which suggests that things are good for Republicans.
	I promise you, if things were good for Democrats, that needle would be up like that.
	Of course.
	By definition, the needle is not about confidence, right?
	The needle just kind of moves.
	Unless you're the New York Times.
	I mean, I will say things are a lot tighter in Texas than they should be right now.
	Right now, there's 58% in, and they're basically tied.
	O'Rourke and Cruz are basically tied.
	And if you're a Democrat, you do have to think, if I could trade a majority house for Beto O'Rourke beating Ted Cruz in Texas, that might be worth it.
	Seriously, because now they have a 2020 candidate on their hands.
	Now they have a feeling that they've knocked out the Tea Party senator.
	But where are the non-reporting districts?
	Because it seems to me that, as I was watching the map on CNN, it seemed to me that the non-reporting districts were very Cruz-friendly.
	Yeah, I think Cruz is still going to win.
	But the fact that it's that close in Texas is obviously a bit...
	And we do have to wonder, you know, how much of that is Cruz and how much of that is just the national electorate.
	But if it's a good night for Republicans and not a good night for Cruz, it suggests that Cruz has some serious laws in Canada.
	You have to emphasize what a good candidate he was, how much bigger his political organization was, how much more money.
	He spent so much money.
	And that Ted Cruz is wounded coming out of 2016.
	Right now, 538 has the Democratic pickup line at 24, which means they would win the House by one vote.
	One vote, yeah.
	That'd be fantastic.
	Another thing that's fantastic, brushing your teeth.
	It's one of the most important things that we do.
	Absolutely.
	Every single day.
	And Quip makes it possible to do so.
	A silky smooth segue right there.
	Quip is another.
	I'm getting better.
	Shapiro-esque.
	This is another sponsor that I just love because I'm on the road.
	We're all on the road.
	Quip sponsors you.
	Yeah.
	They do.
	Because we're on the road all the time, and my dentist tells me again and again, you've got to have these electric toothbrushes, and the electric toothbrushes are the size of cannons.
	They're like bazookas.
	You can't put them in your dop kit.
	Quip just fits right in your dop kit.
	You pop it in there.
	You've got this electric toothbrush to travel on the road with you.
	You don't have to recharge.
	Let me tell you something.
	I'm not an Adonis of a man.
	I don't have a ton of advantages with the ladies.
	Having a nice smile, having a nice bright white teeth, that's what you can do, especially if you, you know, have a little too much of this and that.
	And a Quip is fabulous.
	It's so portable, it's super sleek, and it just looks really modern and nice.
	You're not ashamed to have it in your back.
	And it has a suction cup on it.
	I just stick it on my forehead and carry it with me wherever I go.
	It is spectacular.
	It also has all of these other great features like the sonic vibrations, a built-in two-minute timer that pulses every 30 seconds because, let's face it, you're not actually brushing your teeth for the amount of time you're supposed to be.
	You're just sort of glossing your toothbrush over your teeth for 15 seconds.
	You're like, ah, good enough.
	This allows you to know when exactly you have brushed your teeth enough for you to have cleansed your teeth properly.
	Also, most importantly, the brush heads are automatically delivered on a dentist-recommended schedule every three months for just five bucks.
	So very often, even if you have an electric toothbrush, you're not getting the brush heads that are new.
	You're just brushing your teeth with the same toothbrush head you've been using for the last seven years and that your two-year-old used on the toilet.
	Not saying that may have happened, but I will say that with Quip electric toothbrush, you know that the new brush head is arriving on a regular schedule.
	That's why I love Quip.
	They are backed by over 20,000 dental professionals.
	Quip starts at just $25.
	If you go to getquip.com backstage right now, you get your first refill pack for free with a Quip electric toothbrush.
	Again, first refill pack free at getquip.com/backstage.
	That's getquip.com slash backstage.
	And you get your first refill pack free with a Quip electric toothbrush.
	Alicia, I think you have a quick update for us.
	I do.
	So I heard Andrew Klavan's question there about, well, what are the percentages of the precincts reporting in Texas for that very contentious race between Ted Cruz and Beto O'Rourke?
	It turns out that only 23 percent are remaining.
	And the Dallas-Fort Worth area and the outside reaches of the borders of the state, you know, Texas where it meets the wonderful state of Louisiana, and to the west, which are typically more rural Republican areas, are still waiting for those results to come in.
	Ted Cruz has been known to have a really great grassroots game, but as you guys have noted before, Beto has spent a lot, a lot, a lot of money and has seen something like $35 million come in from outside of the state.
	Colton, do you have any more questions for us from our delightful Daily Wire subscribers?
	I do.
	Thank you, Jeremy.
	We got one from Matthew, and he asks, if Democrats take back the House and Republicans keep, if not make gains in the Senate, what will that mean for President Trump's 2020 optics?
	Well, so who wants to take this one first?
	My quick take is that the Democrats taking the House by even one seat is a problem because they take the chairmanships.
	Once they take the chairmanships, it's all investigations from here until the end of time.
	They're going to be focused on stopping Trump's agenda, but the truth is that there's only so much they can do to stop Trump's agenda because Trump's agenda is so much based on executive regulations and judges, all that Senate stuff.
	So what the House really can do is make his life miserable with endless investigations and then try and create this image that he is in ultimately a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad human in preparation for 2020.
	But again, I think the size of the blue wave matters here because it does provide a good early indicator as to Trump's electability in 2020.
	He's going to be just as toxic in two years as he is right now.
	And if he is able to somehow hold this below the normal margin in this kind of election cycle after winning a hotly contested election, which he lost the popular vote, I think that even a shift to control for the Democrats, it could theoretically cut in his favor because more conspiratorial thinking for the Democrats doesn't necessarily result in a worse state of affairs for President Trump. it could theoretically cut in his favor because more conspiratorial And by the way, he does thrive in adversarial positions.
	I mean, Donald Trump, when he's not fighting somebody, you know, he's floating, he's treading, that's fine.
	When he is fighting somebody, he is at his best.
	And so actually, as a sheer political matter, just for the Trump 2020 campaign, losing the House actually might give him a little bit of a campaign.
	And you can depend on the Democrats to overstep.
	Constantly.
	You can depend on them to talk about impeachment and the whole thing.
	So it's not like they're saying, hmm, maybe we'll negotiate and compromise.
	That's not what's going to be going on.
	This is my favorite thing in the world.
	So Bob Menendez, senator from New Jersey.
	Yeah, how's he doing?
	Deeply corrupt.
	He's going to win.
	Senator from the Dominican Republic.
	Correct.
	He's deeply corrupt.
	He will win.
	And he's been projected to win.
	Among the supporters tonight at his headquarters is a woman named Evelyn Arroyo Maltzby.
	She is a juror on his federal corruption trial.
	And she's at his victory party.
	Really?
	Senator Bob Menendez.
	I love New Jersey, man.
	It's all just right there.
	It's pretty great.
	Van Jones is already breaking out the weepy.
	He said on CNN, this is heartbreaking.
	You can look at Anderson Cooper, who looks like...
	Over time, he's turned...
	I mean, what is he turning into?
	A huddle?
	All the enthusiasm has gone out of the CNN crew.
	And we don't have to have the sound on to know what's going on.
	You can see their faces are sagging.
	It's like they're melting.
	Yeah, he's aging in real time.
	The CNN banner at 924, control of U.S. House too close to call.
	There's still some suburban districts that are coming out for Democrats.
	Henry Olsen is saying right now that in the Texas Senate, all the big Democratic counties have released their early vote.
	There's still some GOP areas out.
	He says that Cruz will end up winning that seat.
	Olsen also is calling the Ohio 12th district for Troy Balderson.
	He's already ahead.
	He's getting big on Election Day vote, just like he did in the special election.
	That was supposed to be one of those districts where Democrats had a possibility of picking up.
	And in Georgia, it looks as though Stacey Abrams is going to be out.
	Because in Georgia, the question isn't whether you win the plurality of the vote.
	You actually have to win a majority of the vote.
	And so the question there was going to be whether Brian Kemp, who's the Georgia Secretary of State, was going to win an outright majority.
	It looks like he will win an outright majority.
	So that means that we retain the governor's house in Georgia.
	This is all good news for Republicans.
	And again, how much of this is Trump is great at this?
	And how much of this is Democrats suck at this?
	And how much of this is it's the same thing?
	It's the same thing.
	It's just the coin.
	But it is important in what it says about this massive communication industry, which is governed by 8%, the progressive 8% of the country, which runs the academy, runs Hollywood, runs the news.
	I mean, this is an incredible amount of information that is coming into people's heads, and that people are saying, Eh, it's not true.
	You know, I think this is actually a crucial component here is that since 2004, what Dan Rather did to the mainstream media was you couldn't take it back.
	There was no way to take it back.
	And then they flexed their power during the Obama era by backing every move that Barack Obama ever made.
	And now you have a situation where the media have so completely blown every element of credibility that they ever had that when they say anything, The first reaction of anyone on the right is, I don't believe any of that.
	I don't believe the polls.
	So if you're trying to impress me from going out, I don't believe you.
	I don't believe the polls.
	I don't believe anything you have to say.
	In some ways, it upsets me as a data-driven person.
	In some ways, it's great because the media do shade the data.
	The media do change the narrative.
	The media do play defense for that.
	You and I have this continual debate about whether you can go back in time and say, oh, this was worth it or that wasn't worth it.
	I think a debate we can start having was, was it worth it to the press to protect Obama for eight years while he used the IRS to silence people, while he lied about health care?
	There were no scandals.
	No, it was scandal-free.
	Scandal-free, no drama Obama.
	And while he did all those things, and obviously he turned the federal government into a Chicago machine, a Chicago-style machine that covered for him.
	It's not what they do to Trump.
	It's what they didn't do to Obama.
	That goes to the gaslighting.
	If there were just aggressive coverage of Obama.
	Exactly.
	If they were attacking everybody, I'd say, good, good.
	Obama wrecked the left.
	I mean, this is the thing that nobody understands, is that Obama, the great savior of the Democratic Party.
	He destroyed them, yeah.
	He destroyed them because he, Harry Enten, who's the forecaster over at FiveThirtyEight, he said that the model that Democrats were using in Florida was there's an emerging Democratic minority majority that is going to change demographically the future of the state and they will just go from victory to victory.
	That's not happening in Florida.
	The reverse is happening in Florida.
	It turns out that human beings are actually malleable in their political point of view.
	They can change their mind.
	This is right.
	Yeah.
	And human beings are not going to think only on the basis of race and only on basis...
	And skin color is not directly connected to their brain, which is like one of the things I've been telling people for years, but the Democrats have not caught on to this.
	But look at the strategy.
	People can't think outside their race.
	You know, the strategy in these midterm elections is that President Trump nationalized it, made it about him personally.
	That was a risk, and he did it.
	He took three issues.
	One was he went after the media harder than...
	Attila the Hun, you know, he said, you're slime, you're fake news, you're liars.
	He doubled down on immigration, which is a big winner issue among Democrats and Republicans, even Democrats.
	And he doubled down on jobs and talked about the gains to the economy.
	That was the strategy here.
	I don't want to call it too early, but it certainly seems to be paying dividends.
	Whether it takes him the whole way, it's certainly paying dividends.
	And it did help that he was right about the press.
	They just destroyed themselves.
	I mean, as much as President Trump destroyed the press, the press destroyed themselves.
	Like, they were ripe for the picking.
	People forget that Newt Gingrich briefly led the race in 2012 in the primaries because he ripped on the press directly.
	That's right.
	Whenever he did that, he...
	It was the best thing in the entire primary race, right?
	I mean, Newt Gingrich, a guy with more skeletons in his closet than the entire cast of Pirates of the Caribbean.
	In the middle of that race, he went after John Harwood.
	He said, you're just totally full of it, and I'm not going to take this.
	And he won the South Carolina primary, specifically based on this.
	What's so funny about the folks on the left is they think that Donald Trump was the inception of all politics.
	There was like a big bang of politics when Trump came on the scene, and that changed everything.
	And he was so nice before Trump.
	What Donald Trump did was he effectively lassoed the passions that we all felt on the right, and then he hung on for dear life, and those passions, as much as he was whipping the passions, the passions were carrying him.
	It wasn't just him carrying the passions, right?
	Those things preexisted.
	This is what I said in my speech at CPAC. The Democrats think that we hate the media because Donald Trump tells us to hate the media.
	No.
	We are more friendly to Donald Trump because we hated the media before you even knew who Donald Trump was.
	And by the way, you guys were pushing Donald Trump way before we were, right?
	I mean, you guys made Donald Trump.
	And the thing, you know, I always say about Donald Trump that people talk about, oh, is he playing three-dimensional chess?
	And I say, no, what he is is a running back.
	He's a guy who sees where the daylight is, and he runs for it.
	I agree with this.
	He reacts.
	He reacts.
	And immediately, you can say like, oh, it was Hillary Clinton's fault that she lost the race.
	He knew who the candidate was going to be when he got into this race.
	He'd been saying, oh, I'd like to run for president and not really doing it for 20 years.
	He saw that daylight.
	And the daylight is us.
	The daylight is where we say, you know, the press lies, where we say, hey, you know, we're tired of this intersectionality.
	We're ready to let race go.
	This country, God bless it.
	It is ready to let race go.
	It is only the left that won't let us let it go.
	And what does that look like, to let race go?
	It means making jokes.
	It means teasing each other.
	It means not feeling that everything you say has to be looked at and isn't an insult.
	It means living together like human beings.
	People who live with, for instance, members of the opposite sex, You make jokes about that, right?
	You tease each other about that.
	People who live with different races make jokes about that.
	The left has been using that.
	Oh, it's a dog whistle.
	Oh, you said this, you're fired.
	You know, this is the daylight that Donald Trump saw, and he ran through it, and he's still running through it.
	Well, right now, it looks like DeSantis is pretty much confirmed as the governor of Florida.
	Dang!
	Bellweather, maybe.
	Bellweather, yeah.
	Bellweather.
	Good stuff.
	Not to drop a name, but Ron DeSantis is actually a very nice guy.
	Have you guys ever met Ron DeSantis?
	I call him Ronnie.
	He's an actual good human being.
	And he's got a really nice family.
	And it was one of the most frustrating things in the world to watch that race and watch as the media openly lied about Ron DeSantis, saying that he was a racist.
	Oh, yeah.
	After saying that the monkey of socialism on the back of Florida was a racist comment.
	Don't monkey it up, right?
	Don't monkey it up or something.
	It was so ridiculous.
	And Andrew Gillum going out there and calling him a racist every five seconds.
	And also saying that, you know, it's because I'm a black man, you're talking about my corruption.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Maybe that makes sense, but there it is.
	Okay, so here's Kristen Solstice-Anderson.
	She says, just a quick note on the world of polling accuracy.
	If Republicans win the Florida Senate and gubernatorial contest, that'll be a surprise to anyone who saw today's final NBC Marist poll.
	It had the Democrats winning each race by five points, although the polling averages were a bit closer.
	While pollsters can argue about margins of error and such, if a variety of other races break for Republicans, they expect these Florida elections to be held up as more proof the polls are missing out on undercover Republican voters.
	And this is part of the problem.
	If that isn't what she means by that, is...
	in Britain, what we call the Bradley effect here in the United States.
	Basically, people who are lying to pollsters, the pollsters call them up, and just to play with the pollsters, people just say, "No, I'm not gonna vote for the Republican," or, "I'm undecided," because they don't actually wanna tell the pollster that they're voting Republican.
	And the level of scorn that is heaped upon people who vote Republican may actually be screwing with the data inputs in a lot of these races.
	What do you think of the conspiracy theory?
	I'm always against these conspiracy theories that the polls are actually working for the Democrats.
	Some of them certainly are.
	I don't think that's right.
	I think pollsters still have a lot riding on whether they're accurate or not.
	But I do think that...
	In some of these areas, there's a temptation to statistically over-profile Democrats because people who tend to pick up the phone and talk to pollsters tend to be Democrats.
	Like, do you have time to talk to a pollster?
	I don't.
	I mean, if a pollster calls me, I hang up.
	Fox News, by the way, is projecting the Democrats to take the House.
	So is Henry Olsen.
	He's agreeing with me.
	So the question is going to be, by how much?
	The margin is unclear at this point.
	Basically, what we thought at the start of the night, it is still a good night for Republicans if they lose the House, but only by a little bit.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, of course.
	Sure.
	As I said before, my margin night, there's two ways of thinking about whether tonight was a good night.
	There's the what it means in terms of the momentum of the country.
	If the Democrats win the House by a handful of votes, it's not a blue wave.
	It's not an enormous shift in the momentum.
	The political winds of the country haven't really changed.
	If they win by a single vote, however, we lose the chairmanship.
	We're going to be subjected to two years of investigation after investigation, hearing after hearing, into Russian collusion and padding pockets and criminality.
	On the flip side, not to try to pull a silver lining out here, what they did over Brett Kavanaugh, that bloody, awful, despicable fight that was one of the worst fights I've ever seen in politics, is the reason why we're doing so well right now.
	Democrats being Democrats might not be bad for us.
	They've been doing the Russia collusion stuff for two years in the media.
	I'm not sure what changes.
	Adam Schiff now gets to set up I'm not sure what actually changes all that radically, except that the Democrats will be encouraged to think they did the right thing by going hard to the left.
	Well, no, the Democrats can't be...
	I mean, if they had won 30, say, or 40...
	I could see them being deluded into thinking, ah, this is a major victory for the resistance.
	But these guys are professional politicians.
	You have to remember this.
	Professional politicians, these are like the A-team, the major leagues of politicians.
	They're really good at what they do, and they've got to be looking at this and thinking...
	I actually don't agree with you.
	I just don't think congressmen are the major leagues.
	I think it is the nature of Congress.
	To ascend riff-raff in a way that the Senate doesn't ascend riff-raff.
	Well, of course, that's true.
	That's true.
	But somebody like Nancy Pelosi...
	I mean, you're saying Maxine Waters is the aid team major leagues in America politics.
	Someone like Nancy Pelosi is looking at this today and thinking, this resistance thing, not so good for us.
	And they're looking two years down the line, all of them are going to be on the ballot again.
	And the president.
	And they're thinking, maybe we need a new strategy.
	Well, the real question is, if they win by, let's say, three, four, sub-five votes tonight, is Nancy Pelosi the next speaker?
	Well, that's a really good question.
	Or is she just out of Congress?
	Yeah, that's a good question.
	I don't know.
	How long is her lease with Mephistopheles?
	I haven't read the parchment in a while, but that's unclear.
	But yeah, I think.
	So, okay, well, you know, the Fox News projections are obviously dampening spirits a little bit for us because you don't get the full across-the-board win.
	With that said, I just think that the Democrats have to be looking at all of this and thinking to themselves, we were supposed to wipe people out here.
	Right.
	They have to be thinking that, right?
	63, 54.
	Tomorrow you're going to get triumphalism from the Democrats, but it's going to feel a little bit forced.
	Because, again, Republicans in 2010 won 63 seats.
	63 seats on the back of a president who had won a huge landslide.
	And who won re-election.
	And who everybody loved.
	Right, exactly.
	And who won re-election.
	That's going to be their big concern.
	Here, they may not even reach the average number of seats lost off your election.
	It's, you know, again, it could be more than that.
	It could be 30, 31 seats, right?
	Because they have to win back, what, 25 in order to win back the House?
	It could be 30 seats.
	It could be 31 seats.
	But I think that if you are a Democrat, you have to be looking more at specific races in places like Florida and Ohio when you look forward to 2020.
	Right.
	And less at suburban votes in Virginia, for example.
	And the governorships matter, as we said at the beginning of the show.
	The governorships matter if they have not taken back.
	And as people know, I'm not the silver lining guy at all.
	I'm a pessimist by nature.
	But if I'm a Democrat tonight, you have to be disappointed.
	You have to be disappointed.
	Of course.
	You know, and by the way, I would like to just point out, 538, Nate Silver still has it at 5-9 chance Democrats win, 4-9 chance Republicans win.
	So, I mean, I'm not doubting Henry Olsen or Fox, but it's not over yet.
	It ain't over until if that lady sings.
	No, it ain't over.
	So, all of this is, you know...
	You know, the other takeaway...
	By the way, New Jersey...
	You remember...
	I just want to point out a point of media ridiculousness.
	So, you all remember a guy named Roy Moore?
	This drives me crazy, too.
	Okay, so you remember Roy Moore, right?
	A guy credibly accused multiple times of ephibophilia, right?
	A guy who was, like, hitting up the 14-year-olds.
	Like Elvis Presley in his heyday.
	Like, this was the thing.
	Jerry Lee Lewis going to town.
	And we were told, as Republicans, I was one of the people saying it, You can't vote for the guy, right?
	I mean, the guy is a credibly accused child molester, essentially.
	You cannot vote for Roy Moore.
	Was there an article written by anyone on the left about Bob Menendez?
	In fact, they said, suck it up and vote for him, which is what I said about Roy Moore.
	What I said about Roy Moore is vote for him, then censure him, get him out.
	But vote for him because we cannot lose that vote.
	It is a practical matter.
	And this thing that the morality, especially the sexual morality, is a scam.
	It is a scam...
	I want my guys in politics to be as good as I can possibly get them, but I'm not going to panic over every little sexual peccadillo that these people have and give the governor to these communists.
	For those who don't know, by the way, I don't know if people are as knowledgeable about this.
	Bob Menendez...
	Federal prosecutors believe that Bob Menendez paid underage hookers for sex.
	That's right.
	And it hasn't been reported.
	In order to do favors for a political donor, it was complete corruption.
	Whereas Roy Moore was just kind of wandering around the mall doing stuff that was kind of legal.
	Here's the thing.
	I'm not willing to grant the premise.
	That sex with underage girls by grown adult men, not guys on the bubble, not a 19-year-old guy with a 17-year-old girlfriend, is a sexual piccadillo.
	I'm willing to grant that.
	Roy Moore was within the law as we understand it, right?
	Everything they accused him of was, except for one girl.
	Except for one girl.
	Except for the 14-year-old when he was 32 or something.
	But it was 40 years ago.
	I mean, it was a long time ago, so we don't even know if it's true.
	We have learned that there was a lot more corroborating evidence in that case than there was in the right cabinet.
	I just want to say, I hated Roy Moore.
	I disliked him without that stuff.
	I know that, but the point that I'm making, we're making different points.
	The point that you're making is, they don't play by any rules.
	There are no rules for us either.
	There shouldn't be rules.
	No, that's not quite what I'm saying.
	Well, you kind of are.
	No, no, no.
	I'm not.
	I'm not.
	I did say that once he got in, we should have censured him.
	You know, we should have gotten rid of him by...
	But you don't give up that vote over panics, over kind of a sexual...
	See, and I think that at a certain point, you do actually have to make some sacrifices.
	There are points where I would, yeah.
	Right, and you and I have had this disagreement for a long time about what exactly that point looks like.
	But the bottom line is, for the Democrats, there is no point of sacrifice.
	Like, you and I may disagree on the margins here, but there is no disagreement among Democrats.
	The disagreement among Democrats is not whether Bob Menendez should have earned the vote, and it's not whether he should be censored.
	It's whether he should be enshrined as a saint.
	This is the actual argument that's going on on behalf of all these folks.
	It looks like the next governor of Colorado is going to be Jared Polis, I guess, a Democrat.
	So he's the first openly gay governor.
	So the media are going to celebrate that because that's deeply important.
	That's very important.
	Does Jim McReefe not count in New Jersey when he came?
	Remember that governor of New Jersey?
	Yeah, that's true.
	His wife next to him, he said, I'm a gay man.
	First elected.
	First elected gay governor of the state of Colorado.
	All of the modifiers, all of the caveats, every box must be checked.
	So that everything is historic, historic, historic.
	It's the first, yeah.
	Well, it says that the...
	Again, it looks like...
	If you're going to read trends tonight, what it looks like is that all of the trends in 2016 held and deepened.
	So, among women, Republicans failed.
	Among suburban voters, Republicans failed.
	Among blue-collar voters, they did well.
	In battleground states like Florida and Ohio, maybe Michigan, it looks like Republicans continue to do well.
	So...
	This looks more like a realignment than it does like a blip.
	Yeah.
	Right, which was one of the questions.
	Was 2016 a blip based on Hillary Clinton sucking and Donald Trump's unique candidacy?
	Or was this an actual cultural realignment?
	And it looks a lot more like a cultural realignment with Democrats taking the coasts and Republicans, except for Florida, apparently.
	Olsen is calling Florida for Rick Scott.
	Yeah.
	Wow.
	And it's, you know, it looks like Cruz is starting to pull ahead.
	Pennsylvania may be the one area that looks like an outlier because Democrats are picking up a bunch of house seats in Pennsylvania.
	So Pennsylvania...
	Yeah, that's right.
	But they're picking up a bunch of house seats right there.
	So, you know, it's really...
	It's fascinating stuff.
	It is fascinating stuff, and we're really going to have to rethink Trump.
	I mean, we're really going to have to look at him as, you know, forget about who he is as a man.
	Look at him as an expression of people who have been put down, insulted, dismissed, told that they were obsolete, who ain't over yet.
	I don't believe we have to re-look at Trump.
	Yeah, you hate him.
	No, no, no.
	It's just that this is consistent with my view of Trump.
	My view of Trump is that he is the id of the right.
	What I always object to is the argument that Trump is tapped into a policy, a new conservatism, a new political philosophy, and that that's the source of his strength, that he cracked the code of what people want policy-wise.
	I think what he has cracked is...
	We're tired of Paul Ryan being a gentleman.
	We're tired of Mitt Romney being a gentleman.
	We're tired of John McCain being a gentleman.
	We didn't like gentleman Lindsey Graham.
	We like fighter Lindsey Graham.
	And the two things are related.
	We're tired of being called names and then being gentlemen in response.
	That's correct.
	But you do have to understand that the human mind starts to shape things when it sees events going on.
	So it is fair for intellectuals to say...
	What is this guy doing by his gut?
	What is he stumbling into that makes sense as a future policy?
	It's not necessarily intellectualizing Trump to say, wait, there is a policy here.
	Trump may not know what it is, but I can sort of see what it is.
	I mean, we're seeing this with Walter Meade in the Wall Street Journal, where he's talking about what Trump is reacting to.
	He does have some good instincts.
	His nationalism, his idea that America has to put itself first in a world where Russia, Iran, and China, that's not a bad idea.
	He may not be thinking it through.
	I'll agree with that, but it doesn't mean it's not a policy.
	Here's where I think the debate is going to now lie, and it's been lying here for a couple of years, but it hasn't really broken out into the open.
	The debate is going to lie in Do you think that the wave for Republicans here is a response to the cultural mores of the left being forced on people in the middle of the country?
	Or do you think that it is a response to economic concerns?
	Do you think that it's...
	Like, this is Ross Dudehat has been trying to push this for a while.
	Obviously, we were discussing Oren Kass earlier.
	Oren thinks that he's been trying to push this for a while in his new book, The Once and Future Worker, which is well worth the read, although I disagree with large swaths of it.
	I think Tucker Carlson, to a much more loud extent and extreme extent...
	And a little different, I would say.
	I think it's more an extension of the same idea.
	This idea that the way that you win back all of these sort of purple states, places like Ohio, places like Florida, the way that you create permanent majorities there is to recognize that there are a bunch of people who have been left behind by the economy and that the way to appeal to those people is through government regulation of capitalism and And or redistribution of wealth.
	Because this is what Trump did make this pitch in 2016 about Bernie Sanders voters, right?
	He went to the Bernie Sanders voters.
	He said, listen, you and I agree on a lot of this stuff.
	We don't like trade with China.
	We don't like trade with Mexico.
	We're on the same page on all of this.
	I don't actually think that that is why voters in Ohio and Florida voted for Trump.
	I think the reason that voters in Ohio and Florida voted for Trump is specifically because they had been called racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.
	for eight years by the media.
	All the wars now are cultural wars.
	This is exactly right.
	Even the economic wars are cultural wars.
	Here's where these two things are related.
	You and I are probably closer on the same page than, for instance, Knowles on this.
	I rather like Oren Cass' book.
	Yeah, we both believe that the government should stay out of the economic world, that the economic world will take care of itself, that automation will not eliminate all jobs, that new jobs will come along.
	But here's where these two things are related.
	Trump is accused of starting a trade war with China.
	He is only joining a trade war with China.
	Exactly.
	China has been in a trade war with us.
	And the same thing is true of the press.
	He is accused of attacking the press and being uncivil.
	They have been uncivil to the American people for 30 years.
	When you call someone racist in this country, that's uncivil.
	When you call them sexist, that's uncivil.
	So Trump is just answering back.
	To the press.
	And in the same way, he's just answering back to China.
	If, in fact, what Trump is saying is, oh, I'm going to protect these industries.
	I'm not going to let them go by creating tariffs that will protect steel and the kind of things that Reagan briefly did.
	And George Bush.
	And George Bush.
	Then I think he's making a mistake.
	But so far, so far, what I've seen him do is say, hey, China's in a trade war with us.
	I'm shooting back.
	And I think that that's fair.
	I don't disagree that that's fair, but I think that what people like Cass, what people like even Henry Olsen, what these guys are doing to the extreme Tucker Carlson, what they're doing is trying to build a broad sort of theology, a broad American philosophy of national populism, and say that that's what Trump represents.
	And my argument, I've made it tonight, I'm going to keep making it, is the math doesn't support it.
	So a Tucker Carlson, a populist, will look at Trump's The support for Trump's immigration policies.
	And they'll say, see, this is proof that NAFTA failed.
	Americans don't want NAFTA. We want economic protectionism.
	But I think it's far more likely since we won the White House twice after NAFTA, since we won the House and the Senate after NAFTA, and NAFTA wasn't even...
	A point of consideration ever in that 20 years is that ain't nobody was thinking about NAFTA and that Trump's immigration appeal is successful because of the cultural issues surrounding immigration.
	That Americans are tired of being told by the right, it ain't your country anymore.
	They're tired of being told by the right, we're basically going to change the demographics of the country.
	By the left.
	I'm sorry, by the left.
	We're going to change the demographics of the country such that you, white American, or you, suburban American, or you, working middle class American, no longer have a dominant voice in this society.
	They're tired of being told we can't protect our borders from crime, from potential terrorism.
	And they're rejecting that on sort of cultural grounds, not economic.
	I don't think that the average American sits around and says, they took my job, those unlawful immigrants took my job working, picking strawberries in California.
	Of course, that's not what people are thinking.
	But of course, as a wise man once said, politics is downstream of culture and it's hard to separate these things.
	And I will point out, there was a very long period of time, from the beginning of the Republican Party up through very recent memory, that the right spoke to labor.
	They weren't socialists, they weren't going to nationalize industries, but they protected labor.
	And when you have China violating World Trade Organization treaties, subsidizing steel and aluminum, stealing IP, and Donald Trump comes out and he says, You're making an argument that I'm not even talking about.
	What I'm saying is that Republicans won 1,000 nationwide elections during the era from Obama to today.
	1,000.
	The 1,001th.
	It's not that all of a sudden at 1001, everyone went, conservatism is a crap message.
	We don't need conservatism anymore.
	What we need is to go back to when Lincoln was a Republican and we had good tariffs in this country because we're in a trade war with China.
	Nonsense.
	I don't think Trump is saying that.
	I don't think Orrin Cass is saying that.
	What they're saying is you can protect the worker.
	And by the way, what I'm saying is we're only talking about this To make sense of the election.
	And what I'm saying is I think all the people who wanted to protect the worker in the way you're talking about wanted to before Trump will want to after Trump.
	I've not seen anyone who's been converted to, now I think we need to protect the worker because of Trump.
	But the reason I say this is that I think that the populist appeal to workers in these areas has typically been from the left, right?
	From FDR through Bernie Sanders.
	It has typically been from the progressive Robert La Follette left in places like Wisconsin.
	And what has happened and what's changed, the reason why the right is now making inroads there is not because the right has embraced that sort of progressivism.
	It is because the left decided that all those people who they used to believe were the hard-working heart of the country are a bunch of deplorables...
	of people who have broader multicultural values.
	And so what Trump did is he spoke to those people.
	Now, on the back of that, he may also believe some of this progressive economic stuff.
	But I don't actually think that the future of the country...
	Let me put it this way.
	If both parties embrace versions of the same argument, which is jobs must be protected, and that's the version of the argument, I think it's a very short ride from there to Norway.
	And I'm not saying from there to Venezuela.
	I'm saying from there to Norway.
	Because I think that everybody is...
	This is my objection to Orrin Cass's new book, which I look forward to talking with him about.
	And again, it's a good book.
	But he basically says that we shouldn't focus on consumers and the economy anymore.
	Because there's an inherent value to people of work.
	Labor is different.
	Okay, but it is a little bit much to ask of people that they understand policy at that level.
	To say, oh, these people did not embrace Donald Trump because of his policy.
	No politician wins in this country, or really any kind of thing.
	Right, so why are we trying to reinvent the policy?
	We're trying to figure out what the policy is that he's doing, what he's doing right.
	What I'm saying is that what he's doing right isn't policy.
	I think I can be the great reconciler here, which is this, that President Trump makes this cultural argument.
	He says, I'm going to fight China.
	I'm going to fight back against China, which is waging a war on us, and I'm going to fight back for you, the worker.
	That's a cultural argument, not an economic argument.
	Yes, and as a result, China comes out just today, I think, or within the last couple of days, and says, we are going to reduce our import tariffs.
	Basically in response to Donald Trump.
	When that happens, I don't see why the people who want to protect work, the people who are saying that work has a value that is greater than a consumer good, and the free traders can't all be happy with that.
	That seems like a big win.
	I'm fine with that, but I will say that the argument proves too much.
	What I mean by that is once you start making the pitch that China stole your jobs, Mexico stole your jobs, technology stole your jobs, somebody stole your job in a free market economy, It is a very short road to let's regulate the economy and let's chain the economy up and make it work for us.
	The economy will now be a tool for people.
	There's no question that the politicians will always protect the buggy whip industry.
	Exactly.
	This has always been true.
	We must protect our normal buggy whip.
	The point I'm making is I think that we are actually ignoring that the code that Trump may have cracked is the code where you get to keep, if you like your economic conservatism, you get to keep your economic conservatism because the code that he has cracked Even unknowingly, is the cultural code.
	I know, you and I are making the same argument.
	No, no, no.
	And the cultural code is not really China's screwing you, Mexico's screwing you.
	And it's not even really the elites are screwing you.
	It's that there is an entire side of this country who thinks that you are a valueless human.
	Correct.
	That you have no value.
	Or that you have anti-value.
	That you are.
	That you're deplorable.
	Exactly.
	Bitter clingers, deplorables.
	Bad people.
	There's no question about this.
	So what I'm saying is let's double down on that message because especially we know that message is going to work because Democrats are going to continue labeling these people racist sexist to horrible.
	Wait, this is ignoring the fact that there's also stuff that Trump is doing that's working.
	But most of that...
	Is more conservative and not his nationalist populist rhetoric.
	Oh, you're right.
	You're absolutely right.
	Most of what we've gotten from Trump isn't the stuff that Tucker or Henry Olsen or Cass or these guys are trying to move us toward.
	And I thought the stuff that Tucker said, and I love Tucker, he's a great guy.
	Yeah, for sure.
	But I thought that that stuff that he would save...
	Outlawing automated trucks.
	I also think that I don't think any American actually wants to go back in time to the pre-iPhone days.
	I think Americans, we like the things that globalization has brought us.
	It's not cheap crap from China.
	It's a better way of life for almost every single person in this country.
	We have the entire...
	This knowledge of all of humankind now lives in our pocket because of globalization.
	But there is a difference between globalization and free trade.
	There really is.
	Those are not the same.
	And what they're talking about, by the way, this argument that has broken out on the right, or this debate, is also saying, yes, our iPhones are great, but every cultural and social measure has cracked up, including families, especially in a lot of these places, that have been hit by unemployment.
	And now we've got virtually no unemployment.
	That's a wonderful benefit of the last two years.
	And in the same way that I say your economic prosperity in a free country is your responsibility, I also say your mental health, your spiritual health, the health of your family is your responsibility.
	There is social engineering on both sides.
	But I don't grant the argument that it's the government's job to make sure that you have a job so that you'll stay married to your wife, so that you'll be a good parent to your children, so that you'll continue going to church, so that you'll go to heaven.
	That's between you and God.
	It's not between you and Uncle Sam.
	I like all the stuff we get.
	I like that we have an on-demand economy.
	I like that Daily Wire subscribers can tune in right now and give us their 10 bucks.
	And I like Stamps.com.
	The reason you like Stamps.com.
	That was amazing.
	That was amazing.
	I know.
	He's so good.
	It's true.
	As we get more tired, his pictures get better.
	Stamps.com is the way that you are going to save time and save money.
	So the post offices are great.
	They have a lot of great services.
	But you don't actually want to spend the time driving down there and waiting in line.
	Instead, you can get all the great services of the post offices directly from your desk.
	You can buy and print real U.S. postage for any letter, any package, all available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
	Just click, print, mail, you're done.
	Stamps.com will even send you a digital scale.
	You can weigh your letters and packages, print the exact amounts of postage every time.
	We use stamps.com here at the Daily Wire offices.
	It does save us time.
	It saves us money.
	It means that our assistants don't have to actually go down to the post office and waste their day down there when they could be doing things like making sure that we are fed and well-kept.
	So go check us out.
	Laying out the carpet so that Ben can walk from one room to another.
	Exactly.
	I mean, I need my divan carried.
	And this is not something that's going to get done in itself.
	Well, you too can have that sort of privilege.
	If you go over to Stamps.com right now, use promo code Shapiro for a special offer, a four-week trial, including post-digit and a digital scale.
	Excuse me.
	Again, go to Stamps.com.
	And before you do anything else, click on that radio microphone at the top of the homepage.
	Type in promo code Shapiro.
	That is Stamps.com.
	Promo code Shapiro.
	Go check it out right now.
	It's important now that we plug ourselves.
	The Daily Wire subscribers tune into this show.
	They keep us up and running.
	They give us all the sweet, sweet mammon on which we all thrive.
	And we owe them a few questions.
	Colton, do you have a question or two for us?
	I do indeed.
	I have a question from Kyle.
	He asks, who will be the first mainstream media host to cry on camera after this election?
	No.
	You know, I would assume that it will probably be Rachel Maddow.
	The reason being that she actually pretty much broke down over things like the deportation policy at the border.
	Is she a mainstream media reporter?
	Yeah.
	Well, Jim Acosta, obviously.
	That's because Jim Acosta just wants screen time.
	He's actually in the back room like Pagliacci.
	He's a crying clown.
	His hair is out of place.
	What we're going to do right now is like a rapid-fire Q&A. I want to get to four questions.
	Colton, lay them on us.
	From Jim, how do you feel this midterm compares to others?
	Is this truly the most important election of our lifetime?
	I don't think it's the most important election of our lifetime, but I do think it is a tremendously significant election.
	What I mean by that is that the actual results may not be as important as what they tell us about where we're going.
	It may communicate more than other elections.
	It may communicate more than other elections without actually being important.
	And I think it is the most important election of our lifetime if Republicans win.
	And I'm not being coy there.
	It's that the election will mean something so profound if Republicans hold the House that that will evidence the importance of the election.
	If the Democrats win the election, it's just another midterm election.
	Okay, here's a better question.
	What do you think was the, not to insult the questioner, But what do you think was the most important election of our lifetime?
	Now, fair to say that Drew's lifetime goes back a lot.
	Yeah, it goes a lot.
	I think it was Lincoln.
	I think it was Lincoln.
	Maybe Adams Jefferson.
	Well, I mean, in my lifetime, it certainly was Reagan winning.
	That was a real turnaround, a real change, and it actually lasted for 25 years.
	I love the fact that people talk about bubbles.
	They say, oh, it was an economic bubble.
	You think 25 years, that's a third of a lifetime.
	I don't care if that's a bubble.
	Because, you know, I could be gone before the bubble pops.
	You know, so I think that was a really important election.
	I think Trump is the second most important.
	No question about it.
	So I will say that I think the most important election in my lifetime is an election that Republicans lost in 2012.
	I think 2012 did serious damage to the country, from which we are still going to see the after effects for decades to come.
	2012 did more damage than 2016 has done good.
	Correct.
	To date.
	Right.
	I think that 2016 is a symptom of 2012.
	I think that 2012, because when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, Even on the right, there was this kind of hopeful moment like, oh, look, here's a guy who's going to help us end the most cataclysmic conflict in the history of the United States.
	I mean, that's what he ran on.
	And then he got into office.
	He campaigned like a hard left liberal.
	He polarized the country by race, sex, sexual orientation.
	And then he defeated an overtly good man in Mitt Romney by slandering him.
	And then the right went, okay, well, screw all you guys.
	And so now we sort of do have this, as much as we can enjoy these elections, and when the results are good, we enjoy them, and when the results of policy are good, we enjoy them.
	The country is much worse off, just in terms of the social fabric today, than it was even in 2011.
	Because, like, we can't, people don't look their neighbors in the face over politics now.
	And I think that is almost directly a result of Barack Obama.
	That's just because you're a jerk.
	I actually don't agree with this.
	Something I'm observing out of all my friends and family in Texas, I won't name names, it's not all of them, is that people who didn't care about politics for most of my lifetime are unfriending lifelong friends on Facebook.
	Or is it right-wingers?
	Yeah, these are right-wingers.
	And what concerns me about it is that, to Ben's point about social fabric, that is, the social fabric phrase, as the internet moves us from having regional community to being able to find people who we don't even personally know them, but they agree with us, and we find a kind of affirmation in that, that you're now willing to unfriend a neighbor you've known for 20 years who watched after your children when they played in the front yard, who would have been there for you if...
	If you'd been injured or if your spouse had been injured and you're unfriending them off of this abstract called politics so that you can continue to find affirmation from people you will never lay eyes on about something that has very little immediate impact on your life.
	One of the things I want to ask all my Democrat friends who've been just Weeping and gnashing their teeth over the last two years is, in what measurable way is your life actually worse?
	I know, I always want to ask them that.
	Except, you feel worse.
	If we put that aside, how is your life worse?
	So I do think, you're looking at your neighbor because you are crowing a little bit, but there are a lot of people on the right who can't look their neighbors in the eye anymore.
	I do have to say, I do want to pull the age card here for just a minute.
	You've got it to play.
	I've got it to play.
	In space.
	But I do want to say that this is not as bad.
	It's not as bad as some of the times I've lived through.
	It is not like the 60s when the entire world turned over, when the entire culture turned over, when children turned on their parents and said, you stink, we reject it.
	In only one way, I will say that it's...
	In virtually every other way, it's not as bad.
	But in one way, it is as bad.
	The one way that it is as bad is that there were serious issues on the table in the 1960s.
	There are no serious issues on the table today, and we are beating each other's brains in.
	That's kind of fascinating.
	I mean, that tells you, first of all, what a great country this is, because we can actually sit around and think...
	Grown-up people who can tie their ties in the morning are going on and saying, this man is Adolf Hitler.
	And you go like, I'm sorry?
	Do you know what Adolf Hitler looked like?
	That's how spoiled we are.
	In a sense, that's what makes it a little bit scarier, is that there's a sort of body snatchers thing going on.
	Yeah, there is.
	Where it's like you go to the nicest restaurants in LA with people who are getting $100 bottles of wine for lunch and they're sitting to each other thinking the Reich is coming.
	I know.
	And it's like at least in the 1960s when people said things suck and I hate my neighbor, you're like, well, things kind of do suck and your neighbor does kind of blow.
	My favorite is that we're living through The Handmaid's Tale.
	Oh, my God.
	I love these girls who read The New Yorker, and they sit around with their Mai Tais, and they say, oh, my God, it's The Handmaid's Tale, darling.
	There's never been a single moment in human history in any country on Earth where women have been freer, had more opportunity, or been more prosperous.
	100% fact.
	And they're wailing over it.
	Hysterical, you might say.
	It's going to get me in trouble.
	It's the capacity to reason.
	That's right.
	The thing I will point out, too, is that when nothing really matters, when we're talking about trivial things, the stakes become so high.
	The most brutal elections are school board elections.
	The most brutal politics are in universities.
	Okay, so not to put a damper on the evening, but it's fun to kind of go up and down with all the information.
	The 538 estimate right now has Democrats at plus 36.
	In the house.
	What?
	Plus 36 in the house.
	Really?
	That's not going to be good.
	So all of the premature, you know...
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I'm getting kind of tired, guys.
	Again, you know...
	You think so?
	Plus 36, does that sound right to you?
	Well, I mean, it sounds righter than not to me since they have more information than I do.
	It's one vote off from where you thought the night would end.
	I did say it was going to be D plus 35.
	Now, because it was...
	And I said that that didn't constitute a blue wave as much as a solid blue move.
	But I was sort of assuming that if there was that sort of move, then Republicans were going to do less well in the Senate.
	And we're going to have to see where things end up.
	I mean, where their forecast is right now is D plus 34.
	It's moving from D plus 34 to D plus 36 in the House.
	And R plus 2 in the Senate.
	My early prediction was D plus 35, R plus 1 in the Senate.
	So I was relatively close.
	I said I don't think that that constitutes a blue wave.
	I do think that it does constitute a repudiation of President Trump in terms of persona.
	It is his persona.
	And so, you know, with that said, maybe that does reopen the question as to, you know, President Trump's given us a lot of good policy.
	Is it possible that, and it is also true that he has driven the left mad, which has led to some kickback in a lot of the swing states.
	Is it possible that his affect will be more damaging than we think?
	Well, I think, I don't see how it can not be damaging.
	You know, I think we've all agreed that this guy is a, he's a big personality.
	I think, at this point, he's almost a world historical figure.
	He's becoming an actual historical figure.
	He's a big personality with enormous flaws, with enormous flaws.
	And those flaws and the flaws in a personality of power are going to have an effect.
	And so what we have, we have this conversation in America where people are saying, if you say anything bad about Trump, you're a cuck and you're this and you're that.
	And then you have other people saying, oh my God, if you say anything good about Trump, you're a racist.
	Well, no, Trump is a complex figure.
	He may not be a complex person.
	You're a cuck and a racist.
	Exactly.
	No, but Trump may not be a complex person, but he's a complex figure in our politics.
	And of course there's going to be a price, as I've said from the beginning, there's going to be a price we pay for his personality, which is deeply flawed.
	That was a great answer to a question not asked by one of our Daily Wire subscribers.
	I want another one from Dan Colton.
	What do you got for it?
	All right, so we've got a question coming from Tommy.
	If Republicans hold both the House and the Senate, what do you think the first things Democrats will do?
	Well, they're not going to.
	The Republicans are going to lose the House.
	Next question.
	From Melissa.
	This is for Ben specifically, but I guess everyone else can answer.
	Considering how many people don't socialize with their neighbors anymore, do you think door knocking is still a viable campaign strategy for local or national candidates?
	I think that it is a viable strategy because you never knew the person really knocking on your door in the first place.
	There is something about face-to-face contact that does change the nature of things.
	There's a really interesting study that was done in the 1930s about an Asian couple that went around the United States.
	And they tried to register a bunch of bread and breakfasts all across the United States.
	And what they found is that they were able to register at bed and breakfasts everywhere.
	Like out of 100 places, they were able to register at 99 of them.
	Then they called up those places and they said, hey, we're Asian.
	Do you allow Asians to stay at your establishment?
	And all 100 said, no, we don't allow Asians to stay at our establishment.
	The point being that face-to-face contact does change people's perceptions of other people.
	And particularly in local races, when you feel like you know the person, it does give you more of a stake in voting for the person.
	So I do think that door knocking is actually a lot more effective than, for example, the phone calling, which I think is almost...
	I think phone banking is almost nearly useless.
	I think emailing is basically useless.
	But there is something special about face-to-face contact that still matters.
	By the way, quick update.
	It looks like Claire McCaskill may be toast.
	So Republicans, the split between Republicans and Democrats, that's good for Republicans.
	That's Josh Hawley.
	Oh, I'm not thinking of McCaskill.
	I was thinking of Arizona.
	So that is a big win.
	In bad news, Democrat Ilhan Omar, who married her brother, allegedly, and is a wild anti-Semite, is now the new Minnesota Congresswoman.
	From the 5th Congressional District.
	You remember this story?
	Yes, I do remember that.
	So, you know, blue getting blue and red getting redder.
	What is the story?
	It's too good to...
	Okay, so the story for Ilhan Omar is that she was already married, and she, in order to immigrate to the United States, She married her brother, legally married her brother, and then claimed that she had not legally married her brother or something.
	And then the documents came out, and it turns out that she basically scammed the immigration system, or at least that's the allegation.
	So she will be sitting in Congress because there is no bottom to what Democrats will elect.
	The question is, did she scam her brother?
	I don't even want to go there.
	Mitt Romney, by the way, is the new senator from Utah.
	No, Utah voted for Mitt Romney.
	Yeah, shocker.
	Who could have predicted such a thing?
	And John James is running neck and neck in Michigan, which would be a huge win for Republicans.
	So, Senate cutting for Republicans, House cutting strongly for Democrats.
	Kind of how the conventional wisdom suggested, right?
	So at the beginning of the night, it was like, everybody's got it wrong, and now it's like, everybody kind of had it right.
	It's the map working itself out.
	So yay data.
	Again, the nice thing about being a pessimist, I get to say yay data.
	Because there is a part of me, just as somebody who does this for a living, you know, where...
	I like more information.
	Of course.
	I kind of like that.
	It means that we can be more responsive.
	This is an interesting question, too, because the predictions were all right in 2012.
	Because that was a normal time.
	That was a normal election.
	All the predictions were wrong in 2016 because it was not a normal election at all.
	And you're seeing that in this House and Senate midterm elections...
	It's kind of returning to normal, if this is true, if 538 is going in right.
	What I think it's returning to, what I think we're seeing so far, is that things haven't changed since 2016.
	They're basically where they were before.
	And that's important because it means the entire...
	The entire arsenal of the left has unleashed upon us.
	And it really hasn't changed the matrix at all.
	Yeah, although some people who are very, very Trumpy are getting killed.
	Like Chris Kobach, who is running for Kansas governor, he's just getting destroyed by Laura Kelly right now.
	NBC has already called it for Laura Kelly in Kansas.
	So that's a big loss for Republicans in Kansas.
	Is there a way for Republicans to keep the best of Trump's aggressiveness and lose the worst parts?
	Well, that's my hope.
	That is exactly what I'm hoping for.
	What I'm hoping for is that his policies...
	That he is continually forced to the right so that his policies work and that his policies become represented by somebody who's more presentable.
	What I would not like to see, I would not like to see the Reagan-Bush handoff where Reagan hands off to a guy who really doesn't support and he says, oh, we're going to be kinder and gentler.
	I would like to see somebody who's kinder and gentler and affect but is as far right as Trump has been in policy.
	That would be a good thing.
	I used to think it was going to be Mike Pence.
	I wonder if Mike Pence has the kind of gumption to be...
	I think that basically the best candidates have the capacity to punch, but they also have the capacity to speak broadly.
	Trump definitely has the capacity to punch.
	He has very little capacity to speak broadly.
	Obama, as a politician, did have the capacity to do both of those things, which is why he was very good at his job.
	I think that on the right side of the aisle, the problem with Vice President Pence, who I like very much, is he has the capacity to speak broadly.
	I'm not sure he has the capacity to punch.
	And right now, the Republican base particularly values the capacity.
	If you have to pick one or the other, the Republican base values the capacity to punch the most.
	Other breaking news, Heidi Heitkamp is done in North Dakota, which was absolutely predicted.
	Basically, Kavanaugh broke that one wide open.
	She published the names of sexual assault survivors and not, without their permission.
	Her campaign was over three weeks ago.
	So right now, it looks like the path to the Senate majority and the path to the House majority, as Jim Antle says, we're running through absolutely different universes.
	Like the Senate and the House are just living in completely different universes.
	But that's the map, you know?
	I mean, it is the way the districts are divided and what districts were vulnerable and which ones weren't, and which states were vulnerable and which ones weren't.
	That is the map speaking, and that fact just means that nothing has really changed.
	And that speaks to the weakness of...
	The mainstream media and broader communications industry.
	We do have some breaking news from ABC. They're calling it for Cruz.
	I think.
	That's what they're...
	Moral victory.
	Moral victory.
	Hand for me.
	Moral victory.
	But what do we think that's going to be?
	Is it going to be 3%?
	Because it should be 10% at least.
	Right.
	I mean, they're calling it, but they're not giving any numbers.
	It's just as of two minutes ago, they're calling it.
	It's going to be relatively close.
	Henry Olsen was saying that it was like 3%, which in Texas is a hell of a scare.
	It's not a good thing.
	Although...
	Uniquely good candidate, uniquely...
	Difficult circumstances.
	Handicapped.
	A guy I like very much who I believe was wounded going into this.
	Cassie, you got another question for us over there?
	Yeah, so Katie wants to know why New England or the Northeast elects Republican governors but Democratic senators.
	That's an interesting question.
	Because...
	Sorry, go ahead.
	You spent time at Yale.
	It's because the Republicans are Democrats.
	That's why they elect them.
	I mean, the Northeast Republican is so different from what we think of as a national Republican that it doesn't really hold true.
	The New York Republican Party, the Massachusetts Republican Party is a different beast.
	Okay, so here's my answer.
	And it's the same answer as California, which only elects Democratic senators, but occasionally elects Republican governors.
	And that is that...
	Governors administer things better than Democrats, and the Senate is for virtue signaling.
	And so if you want a virtue signal, you virtue signal with the Senate, because the senators don't actually do anything.
	I mean, here's the dirty little secret of the Senate.
	The Senate advises and consents on judges.
	It has some input in terms of budgetary matters, but they're not really doing that much at the Senate, which is why everyone in the Senate is running for president.
	Like, there's been a suggestion that we should actually create a constitutional amendment to ban senators from running for president because it would make the Senate workable again.
	Mm-hmm.
	It's not the worst idea in the world, because basically all these people do is they get elected to the Senate, and as soon as they do, they're thinking, okay, I'm running for the White House.
	Now I'm going to get up here and grandstand for the rest of my time here.
	So I think that's why.
	The Senate is for virtue signaling.
	The governor's house is for actually running the state.
	Cassie, what's next?
	So Logan says, you guys hammer the left for hypocrisy and double standards, and they give it right back to the right.
	Is this the only rule that we as a country agree on?
	And do we even agree on this?
	What is that question again?
	Yeah, ask it one more time, Cassie.
	So you guys hammer the left for hypocrisy and double standards, and they give it right back, as in the left gives it right back to the right.
	Is this the only rule that we as a country agree on?
	Do we even agree on this?
	It's just a political ploy, basically, but on the left, it really is important to me that, I think Jeremy said this so well earlier in the evening, when he talked about the fact that you're racist but you're accusing people of racism, that you're sexist but accusing people of sexism, that you're doing all these things, that this projection game that the left continually plays is maddening and it makes people crazy.
	I do not think the right is doing the same thing.
	The hypocrisy on the right is that hypocrisy, the tribute that vice pays to virtue.
	It is the fact that we put forward good values and we don't always live by them.
	That is the human condition.
	That's a very different thing than accusing people of doing the things that you, in fact, are doing.
	Very different than projections.
	I agree, and I think that there's also points to be made here about whataboutism.
	Right now there's been this idea that if I point out the Luft does something bad, that's whataboutism.
	No, whataboutism is me saying it's okay when my side does something bad because your side did something bad.
	Whataboutism is not me saying, you're right, my side did something bad.
	Also, you guys did something bad.
	And this bad stuff is on both sides.
	But whataboutism originally was a Soviet ploy where we would say, you guys are killing people and putting them in gulags.
	And they would say, well, you had slaves.
	And you'd go like, yeah, 200 years ago, that's a different thing.
	You know, whataboutism was originally comparing apples and oranges.
	And to say, oh wait, you're doing the same thing or you've been doing the same thing is not whataboutism.
	It is actually accusing people of hypocrisy.
	And the reason that they focus on hypocrisy more so than we do, I think, on the left, is that we have standards.
	We have standards and we fail.
	Some of us have standards.
	And so when we try to hold ourselves to a standard and fail to hold ourselves to that standard, they say, ha, see, you're a hypocrite.
	But we can turn to them and say...
	You don't have any standards in the first place.
	At least we're trying.
	That's actually not the definition of hypocrisy.
	The definition of hypocrisy is living by standards that are not the standards you preach.
	It's not failing to live up to your own standards.
	We all fail to live up to your own standards.
	That's right.
	That's called being a human.
	That's right.
	Right now, it looks like, as you say, the race has been called for Ted Cruz.
	Doug Ducey was re-elected as governor of Arizona.
	That's cool.
	Which is a nice thing.
	Again, basically, all the polls were right and nobody knows what the hell's going on.
	Which is 2016.
	But still, there's a realignment taking place.
	Nobody fully understands the realignment.
	That's right.
	And, you know, is there a pathway to broader Republican victory?
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	You know, maybe not.
	I think there is.
	I think that now, I mean, it's going to be interesting.
	One of the things that I've maintained about Trump from the beginning, which I think has panned out, is that Trump is more flexible than the people who comment upon him.
	For Trump, possibly, in some ways, possibly because he has no ideology and he has no standards, he moves with the field.
	He moves where the field is going.
	He has that running back thing.
	And the question is going to be whether Trump looks at this and he says to himself, you know, in part, My personality has done badly here, but it's done well here and so forth, and whether he can modify that.
	I actually suspect he can.
	I think he's a very, very canny politician in this very gut, instinctive way.
	And I think he's going to look at these results and they're going to change the way he governs because it has been a problem.
	Everybody in America says this.
	When you go out and you actually talk to people, they don't say, oh, I love Donald Trump.
	What they say is, I love Donald Trump.
	Wish he'd stopped doing this.
	I wish he'd stopped doing that.
	They say it again and again.
	If he hasn't done it, this is where we disagree.
	If he hasn't done it by now, I don't think he's doing it.
	And I think that he thinks that he's...
	He's an incredibly flexible guy.
	See, I don't see that he's incredibly flexible.
	I think that he reacts to circumstance, but I think that in order for him to react to the circumstance, he has to take the advice of the circumstance.
	And when it comes to issues of character, he's been pretty inflexible.
	I mean, his character has not changed over time.
	I've not seen him become a more moderate character.
	He doesn't have the porn stars at the White House.
	Yeah, and they don't have the porn stars at the White House.
	Well, I mean...
	We wouldn't know.
	And the kind of things that he did against Ted Cruz, which really were egregious, they really were offensive and wrong.
	You know, I won't say he's gotten rid of that 100%, but he's dialed it back.
	There's no question that he's dialed it back.
	In what respect?
	Well, where has he done that kind of thing again?
	To the extent of calling a man's father the murderer of JFK? Yeah.
	Yeah, it turns out that that's rare.
	He was just...
	I don't think it was rare before.
	I think it was Donald Trump's way of being before, and he sees that it is not appropriate now, and he's dialed it down.
	And I think we don't give him credit for that.
	It's not a lot of credit to give him.
	And I also don't buy that either.
	He's attacked any number of people.
	Directly in the media in exactly the same way he attacked people during the campaign.
	He went after Mikko Brzezinski for what he faced while he was president.
	But still, as he's gone along...
	That was also pretty early on.
	We are early on.
	We're two years in, guys.
	I understand that every day here is seven years.
	Brett Kavanaugh happened when I was 18.
	Look, if you were able to cleanse that part of his personality and you were able to channel his aggression in positive directions, they had to be nearly unstoppable.
	But the question is...
	But let's see.
	He has changed and I don't think he's given credit.
	Instead of focusing so much on Trump, let's talk about what the Democrats have to do here.
	Because if you look at all of these races and how they're breaking down, what you are seeing is the Democrats are overperforming where they ran moderates and they're underperforming where they did not.
	Well, that's a really important point.
	Yes, that's a good point.
	Andrew Gillum lost in Florida because Andrew Gillum is not even close to a moderate.
	He's a radical.
	And the same thing is happening to Beto, even though Beto portrayed himself as a moderate.
	Beto was a Nancy Pelosi Democrat.
	Abolish ICE. Correct.
	All of the Democrats were winning across the country in these purple districts.
	Blue Dogs is a little bit strong, but closer to Blue Dogs than to radical San Francisco leftists.
	This is right.
	If the Democrats...
	If they run somebody quote-unquote moderate in 2020, it's going to provide Trump with much more of a problem than if they go full-scale intersectional in 2020.
	If they go full-scale intersectional in 2020, I think the presidential race looks a lot more like the Senate race.
	And if they run somebody moderate, I think that the presidential race looks like these House races.
	Do they have anybody moderate?
	Will their base allow them to ascend?
	Yes, that's a good question, too.
	You know, I think that they can dig somebody up.
	Literally do that.
	I'll give you an example.
	So right now, General Stanley McChrystal is going around making the rounds.
	You could see a world.
	I mean, because I remember they tried to do this in 2004 with Wesley Clark.
	He turned out to be nuts.
	Right, he turned out not to be a thing.
	But McChrystal is not.
	Let's say that in 2020 they run Stanley McChrystal, like a serious human.
	There's a world where Democrats wake themselves up from this stupor.
	And they learned the lesson.
	That's how we got Bill Clinton.
	Exactly.
	What 2020 is going to be about is who learned the lesson.
	Now the question is, does anyone think they learned a lesson?
	My fear among Republicans is going to be that the enthusiasm for what happened in Florida and what may be happening in Ohio and maybe it's happening in Indiana, that that enthusiasm is going to translate into we don't need to learn any lessons.
	The Democrats are going to shoot themselves right in the head and all we have to do is sit here and point and laugh at them.
	And of course, the other side of that is the Democrats saying we took the House.
	Correct.
	The Democrats are looking at the House and saying, we did great yeoman's work here.
	We won nearly 40 seats in the House.
	We won just above 30 seats in the House.
	And that means we won back the House.
	Right?
	That's good.
	And now we have a couple of years to just shout at Trump.
	And people don't like Trump.
	And obviously, us yelling at Trump meant that we won the House.
	I think that is the most likely outcome that nobody loses anything.
	Both parties are currently controlled by their base.
	Yep.
	To an extent that we have not seen in the last 30 years.
	We've seen...
	George W. Bush was not the base guy.
	Mitt Romney, not the base guy.
	John McCain, not the base guy.
	Donald Trump, the base guy.
	Barack Obama, the base guy.
	The base doesn't learn any lessons.
	The base is religious.
	The base is true believers.
	And so when the base is...
	Empower in both parties.
	I don't know if I've lived through a time when both bases were controlling their parties.
	How does it moderate in that situation?
	I know everyone decries the bases controlling the parties.
	I like it.
	I really like it.
	This was a big complaint among political scientists in the 30s and 40s and 50s.
	That the two parties were too similar.
	They weren't ideologically distinct.
	Now they're distinct.
	Barry Goldwater called for a choice, not an echo.
	I'd rather have an honest choice, even if it's run by the crazies of both parties.
	I'd rather see two clear visions for America than some fake blue dog coming in and pretending to be sort of conservative.
	Here's the issue, though.
	I don't think the base of each party...
	It's policy driven.
	I agree.
	I think that this is the problem.
	I would agree with you if it were like, okay, the Republican base is embracing Tea Party, small government principles, individual rights, and God-given liberties.
	If it's just...
	The Democrats are a-holes.
	And we want somebody who's just going to sock those effers right in the head, right?
	And the Democratic base's entire pitch is Donald Trump is Hitler.
	And we must go and stop him right now.
	I'm not sure how that is good for American politics.
	So if I thought that it were a policy fight, I would totally agree, obviously.
	I was a big Tea Party supporter.
	I am the base when it comes to...
	You know, I am the Senate.
	I am the base when it comes to a lot of these political concerns.
	But I'm concerned that...
	What the base is in love with right now is, in fact, the fight.
	It is the owning the cons, owning the libs thing.
	Sure.
	And because they're in love with that...
	The base is always in love with that.
	Right, exactly.
	And it used to be...
	I think that, again, Obama shifted the model in 2012.
	The model used to be that you lock down the base in the primaries and then you tack to the center in the general.
	And that was true not only with regard to policy, but with regard to affect.
	That when you're on your home turf, you speak like a rabble-rousing Robespierre.
	And then when you go out in public...
	Then you speak the language of unification.
	And now it's like, well, you know what?
	We all know the language of unification is bullshit.
	So we're just not gonna do that.
	We're just gonna do the rabble rousing thing on both sides everywhere.
	And the problem is that that does lead to the belief, when you see what these, when I see what the Democrats are saying, what they used to say behind closed doors, but now they're saying in public, I go, these people are insane. - Yeah. - Right?
	And I feel like Democrats say the same thing about us.
	There is something to the idea of the platonic noble lie to a certain extent in politics, which is that even if you believe the other guys are ill-motivated, we do have to have the veneer of civilization here, where you assume that the other people voting in the democracy don't actually want to tear out the democracy at its roots.
	I think this speaks, though, to something that has become dysfunctional in our legislature.
	The fact that they are not passing any law.
	You know, immigration is actually a great example of this.
	As a guy who doesn't really care, you know, wake up in the morning worried about immigration, I do worry about the rule of law.
	I do worry about, like, Chuck Schumer waving a pen in the air and saying, Donald Trump should pass a law.
	You know, His Highness Donald Trump should pass a law.
	Instead of saying, I'm going to go talk to Mitch McConnell and we're going to sit down and work out something that is going to appeal to this country where we say these are the rules, We'll all stick by them because we made them.
	We made them.
	That is the essence of democracy.
	That's the essence of a republic, is these guys doing that.
	They're not doing that.
	How is it that immigration law has stagnated where it is for so long?
	Since Teddy Kennedy.
	With everybody, with everybody saying that it's wrong.
	How is that possible?
	That, to me, is the problem that we're facing.
	It would solve the thing that Ben is talking about, this division that Ben is talking about.
	It would actually solve it on a cultural level if they could deal with it on a legislative level.
	I have an unpopular opinion here.
	No.
	But you?
	I want to carve out for a moment immigration because I actually think immigration is unique.
	The reason that everyone in the country says no to this completely free-flowing immigration system that we have but nothing is done about it is because the elites of both parties Have a vested interest in keeping our borders open.
	I agree.
	The Democrats believe they're importing new voters, and the Republicans believe that they're importing new cheap labor.
	I agree with you.
	So it doesn't matter.
	So they're constituents.
	So I don't think that immigration should be the one you ask about.
	The question, why isn't the legislature doing anything anywhere?
	Anything, yeah.
	I actually think is a...
	It's a byproduct of a sort of Tea Party populist, well-intentioned move that has had disastrous consequences.
	And that's doing away with earmarks.
	You've talked about this before, yeah.
	I've never talked about it on air, though.
	That's a great point.
	It's totally true.
	It's actually true.
	The earmarks are so distasteful.
	It's disgusting that some congressman and some senator from some state conspire, and you build a bridge to nowhere, and they spend $25 million on something that three people are ever going to drive on.
	And we rightly as conservatives, rightly as a Tea Party in that time period, despise it.
	It's like the worst excesses of political corruption.
	And we worked to get away from earmarks.
	The problem is, as soon as we did away with earmarks, we took away the only incentive for legislators to take political risks.
	So the day we did away with earmarks, we actually did away with Congress.
	Now they don't pass any laws.
	How many times does Congress vote and actually pass a bill in any given year?
	Seems almost not at all.
	Almost not at all.
	When they pass a budget, it's this giant, sprawling, omnibus budget package where there aren't individual committee recommendations for individual pieces of the budget, which seeds the legislative oversight power to the executive.
	It's how you get this supercharged federal bureaucracy, executive bureaucracy, making law through regulation with no congressional oversight.
	Because now, If you can't bring home the bacon for your constituents, why risk it?
	Then a vote can only be a potential negative.
	When you first put this theory forward, I thought, wow, that's a really weird theory, but I've given it a lot of thought.
	Every single legislator that I've ever talked to believes this is the case.
	Every single one.
	It does show the disconnect between what we do in the political class and what people actually have to do in Congress.
	Last time I was over in Congress interviewing Speaker Ryan, we had a couple of extra hours.
	Drops a lot on that.
	Let me pick that up.
	When I was talking to Julius Caesar...
	Well, only Drew has talked to Julius Caesar.
	To Andrew.
	This is the last thing you said to me.
	I don't know what to say.
	I don't speak Latin.
	I was supposed to be speaking at Georgetown, and it got snowed out.
	So we just had an impromptu congressional staff meeting.
	It was really fun.
	And what I said to them, and what I've said to many congresspeople over the years, is they start off as ideologues just the same as we are, right?
	They believe all the same things, many of these folks.
	And then they go into these halls of power, and it turns out that you actually do have to get things done.
	That's right.
	And when we try to destroy people for the fact on the ground, what we end up doing is sometimes counterproductive.
	So the earmark example is a perfect example of this.
	It's also true with regard to immigration and every other policy.
	Like, Donald Trump could have gotten a good trade for the wall.
	There are a couple of good trades that were on the table for the wall, right?
	He wanted the funding for the wall, and he wanted to end certain aspects of chain migration, and in return it was like legalization of 1.5 million Dreamers or something.
	And those folks are going to get legalized.
	I mean, sorry to break it to everybody, but they are.
	I mean, that's just the way this is going.
	And I may not like it, you may not like it, nobody may like it, nobody's doing anything about those folks.
	And to get some actual concrete gains in a situation in which There are no concrete gains to be had.
	Seems like a win to me.
	But in our world, purity pays in our world.
	Purity pays in our world.
	It doesn't pay in politics.
	And so what that means is that we are actually preaching to a group of people who become frustrated every time politics is what politics is.
	And so the reaction is a Trump, somebody from the outside who's going to shatter things.
	And then they're shocked when Trump goes in and he still has to live in that world.
	He's now living in the political world.
	Ben, I agree with every word you just said.
	I've always called this fist-to-palm politics where you go like this.
	You know, something must be done.
	And you think, you know, I always felt that Paul Ryan was the big victim of this.
	Yeah, this is right.
	A decent human being who actually did something brave.
	Courageous.
	Courageous.
	He was trying to reform the entitlement system, which somebody's going to have to do eventually.
	You know, and he tried to do that.
	And all we heard about this was, oh, Paul Ryan, he's the worst.
	He's not doing this and he's not doing that.
	And I just think it's not realistic, you know, hurting people.
	Cats in Congress is an incredibly difficult job.
	And I think that to have...
	And we're guilty of this.
	Talk radio is guilty of this.
	Now, I will say this.
	Here's where talk radio should be better.
	Here's what they do that's very good.
	And here's what they...
	Because talk radio takes it on the chin all the time from folks who are the political elitists.
	Right.
	What Talk Radio does and what's necessary is they do a public education about key issues.
	Yeah, no question.
	But what we ought to be doing, and I think it's important to say this, is we ought to say, listen, here's our principle.
	Here's where we're straying from that principle.
	Here are the political machinations that are leading us to stray from that principle.
	We would prefer that we not have to stray from the principle, but sometimes you get the best that's on the table.
	And maybe what we ought to be doing is trying to redesign the system itself so that we don't actually have to go for these bad deals, as opposed to...
	I'm sure that's possible in a world with human beings.
	No, but I think that it is possible in the sense that...
	So we'll take an example.
	So I talked with Prime Minister Stephen Harper from Canada the other day, and we were talking specifically about the auto bailout that he did in Canada...
	And he's a pretty free market guy.
	And he was talking up like, I had to do the auto bailout because it was going to save 500,000 jobs.
	And, you know, that's not political expedience.
	I said, well, it kind of is political expedience.
	I mean, that's sort of the definition of it.
	It's obviously political expedience.
	He said, right, but in the moment, I either lose 500,000 jobs or I don't lose 500,000 jobs.
	And they're either going to be sucked south of the border to the United States, which had just bailed out our auto industry, or it won't.
	Now, it seems to me that in that situation...
	There's a fair argument to be made that you shouldn't bail out the auto industry.
	It's an emergency.
	Fine.
	You have to do it.
	We get it.
	Right.
	But the problem is this.
	What the political class then does is they say, OK, well, we bailed out the auto industry.
	How about that little guy who right now is suffering?
	Why shouldn't we bail him out, too?
	How can we look at that guy and say, we're not going to bail you out after we bail out the auto industry?
	The moral cost.
	Right.
	And the answer to that is, you know, now in good times, that's when the purity matters.
	In bad times, purity sort of goes out the window because you just got to get through the day.
	But in an economic downturn, you got to do things you don't like.
	But in economic uptimes, like now is when Republicans...
	This is where I'm disappointed with Republicans, and this is where talk radio deserves to be disappointed in Republicans.
	You have a booming economy.
	You had a majority in the House that's now gone.
	You have a majority in the Senate.
	And you did nothing about many of the deepest, most pressing problems of the nation, specifically because you wanted to maintain your own political hopes for the future on things like entitlements.
	And because there's no incentive for you to vote.
	Right, this is right.
	This is where, you know, about 2008 is when this spending, pork barrel spending stuff came up, the earmarks, and it was a totally contrived issue at the time.
	It was contrived largely by John McCain, because John McCain was a big spending Republican, and he couldn't run on cutting the major government spending that he wanted to preserve, so he ran against this little thing, earmarks, which is none percent of the federal budget.
	Zero percent.
	And it really, you know, we, I won't say we fell for it, you know, I understand on principle, we don't like the pork barrel either.
	We fell for it.
	But we fell for it, you know.
	That's exactly right.
	And McCain, McCain got everything wrong like this.
	I mean, the McCain-Feingold Act, he was always, money, money.
	Medicare party.
	He did not understand money.
	He didn't understand what money was and how it affected things.
	Oh, he knew that money was that thing you marry.
	Wow.
	I'm going to take one more question.
	That's harsh but true.
	I'm going to take one more question from Cassie and then we're going to check in to Elisha election headquarters and get an update on all these races.
	Sure.
	Somebody wants to know what you think Nikki Haley is going to do now that she's no longer going to be the UN ambassador.
	Well, now that she no longer has a position as my spirit animal, I think that she'll take a couple of years off.
	I would be surprised if she doesn't run for office again.
	I would urge her to stay extremely active because I think that the shelf life for politicians who are out of office is about half a millisecond these days.
	I think if you're out of the public eye, you're basically not...
	You know, on the table for a lot of folks.
	Not for national office.
	I mean, she could pull up Mitt Romney and find her way into the Senate.
	Right.
	But I don't think that doesn't...
	No, I don't think that makes any sense for Nikki Haley.
	Look, I think that in 2024, she's a very viable live candidate.
	Yeah.
	And she absolutely should be.
	But, you know, 2024 is 1,000 years away.
	Hey, Ben, have you ever met Nikki Haley?
	You know, I have.
	And actually, I know someone else who's met Nikki Haley.
	Yeah.
	Oh, you're a friend of me?
	I never...
	That is true.
	But I never get...
	I never name...
	I don't get any credit for it.
	So I'll name drop for you.
	You've never talked about my friend Nikki Haley or anything like that.
	I will say this.
	I will say this.
	I will say, Nikki Haley is just a wonderful human being.
	You may have heard that I've met a lot of politicians.
	No, really?
	She is...
	Just spectacular.
	I mean, as good as she is on camera and at the UN, she's just as great in person.
	She's a genuine human being.
	I can say that about five politicians, maybe, that they're genuine human beings.
	She has a serious shot of being the first female president.
	She is fan-fricking-tastic.
	She is just great.
	I don't have enough good things to say about Nikki Haley.
	Elisha's election headquarters.
	Give us an update on what's going on out there.
	I am back, and unfortunately, I have not had the pleasure of meeting the amazing Nikki Haley, but I did meet her impersonator, our very own Cassie Dillon, on Halloween.
	That's the same name.
	That's exactly the same, Elisha.
	Pretty close, yeah.
	So we have this awesome election update for you guys.
	We have this great graphic of the Senate to kind of show you where things lie right now.
	And you go, oh, what is this yellow mark right here?
	Well, it turns out it's a senator that's an incumbent from the great state of Maine.
	I only know that because I love their lobsters up there.
	Angus King, he's the sole independent right there.
	It looks as if Republicans are okay.
	I think we're really on call.
	CNN, Fox News, and others are saying that we're good to maintain the majority in the Senate.
	If we had a live shot of Cocaine Mitch right now, I promise you I would go to him because that would just bring me so much joy, but we do not.
	Something that's really interesting, of course, is that we were able to pick up North Dakota.
	I don't think many people are surprised by that considering during the whole Kavanaugh debacle how awful Heidi Heitkamp was looking in that state.
	But Josh Hawley in Missouri is pretty impressive versus Claire McCaskill.
	That's right.
	There was an interesting primary battle there.
	And then this general election, of course, he had talk radio giants like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the great American, go out and campaign for him, along with President Trump just this last week.
	So that's fascinating as well.
	Moving on to some gubernatorial races.
	Guys, this race against...
	Between Scott Walker and his Democratic opponent there in Wisconsin is killing me.
	I mean, and this is insane, too, considering that Walker has been able to survive so many teachers' union attacks in the past, including numerous recalls.
	But we got Governor Walker with 49.6% there.
	It's really close.
	And then Tony Evers at 48.6%.
	That's with over 25% of the precincts reporting right now.
	Moving back to the Senate, though, I want to take a look at Michigan.
	Of course, Stabenow typically expected to win there, but it is really interesting that John James right now, 44%, that's with 57% of the precincts reporting.
	A lot of the areas around the metropolitan area of Detroit, which tends to be a lot of Democrat minority voters, of course are reporting there.
	Some of the rural areas of Michigan not quite reporting yet, so maybe some more could go to John James, but it's looking like it might be Debbie Stabenow.
	Now, we're starting to get the beginning results of a race that everyone in the nation is watching.
	Of course, that's Arizona Senate.
	And that's not looking too good.
	There's been a lot of talk about how, as awful as Kyrsten Sinema is, even saying things like that she doesn't know why she lives in Arizona and Arizonans are stupid and stuff.
	McSally hasn't run the best campaign.
	And this is for, you know, Senator Jeff Flake's open seat there in Arizona.
	We got Martha McSally, 48.4 percent.
	So, Kyrsten Sinema, 49.4 percent.
	That's with 52 percent of the precincts reporting.
	It's going to be really tight there.
	The polls just recently closed.
	We'll be continuing to keep an eye on that.
	And then finally...
	Last Senate update for you guys tonight.
	We have Montana.
	The numbers are just slowly starting to roll in.
	But this is one of the races that we have to watch because Republicans were hopeful.
	A lot of pollsters were calling this a toss-up.
	There's another drinking word for you tonight.
	Tester with 58% of the vote.
	Rosendale with 39.4.
	And that's about 18% of the precincts reporting.
	Well, that's a lot of information.
	A lot of information.
	Well, so I think that McSally wins that race against Sinema.
	You do?
	Yeah, I just, I have a hard time believing that somebody who said in 2003 they don't mind if Americans join the Taliban ends up in the Senate.
	Mitch McConnell is the best at what he does.
	I mean, like, what can you say about a guy who is going to end up in an election for Democrats picking up a bunch of seats?
	Republicans may end up with as many as 55 seats in the Senate after all of the Senate.
	And by the way, they're going to need that cushion because in 2020, the map really shifts.
	And suddenly a bunch of Republicans are up for reelection in blue slash purple states.
	Yeah.
	And that could get really ugly, which is when Trump's coattails really are going to have a major effect there.
	So we haven't talked about in terms of Trump.
	We haven't talked about race, and it's going to be really interesting.
	I do not know, I do not know if you can acquire this information of how many blacks and Hispanics have turned for Trump.
	And the reason I don't know this is because they have to self-report.
	There's no way for us to know unless they're willing to say, oh yeah, I voted for Donald Trump, and they may not be willing to say it.
	And yet, and yet, we keep saying, We keep seeing these numbers, these strange numbers, 36%, 40% of blacks supporting Trump.
	If that's true, he could really wipe the Democratic Party out once they start actually voting in those numbers.
	He could wipe the Democratic Party out in a re-election bid.
	There's two questions, actually.
	One is, has Trump actually moved Trump?
	A significant majority of those minority voters to a willingness to vote for him.
	The next question will be, does their willingness to vote for him translate into a willingness to vote for other Republicans down ticket?
	And again, I don't trust a lot of the polls that you're seeing about percentages because it's just not enough polls of black folks.
	I mean, like the numbers, the sheer number of black folks being polled is like, it'll be like a poll sample of 11 people.
	Right.
	And three of them are like, I kind of like Trump.
	And it's like, okay, well, that's 40% of black folks.
	It's just really hard to know.
	And it is hard to know, especially when they theoretically voted like 140% for Barack Obama, which was completely understandable to me.
	I would understand doing that.
	But was that loyalty to Democrats or was it just loyalty to Obama?
	We just don't know these things.
	You know, one of the questions here also, when it comes to Trump, which do you think Trump had more impact on, the Senate or the House?
	Because that really is a big question, meaning that we're going to lose the House, we're going to pick up in the Senate.
	Which one of those is more of a referendum on Trump or are both?
	Well, he campaigned more for Senate candidates.
	Yeah, he's almost entirely for Senate candidates.
	By the same token, Senate candidates have much more of independent personas as opposed to Trump, right?
	I mean, like, people actually know, like, name a House candidate.
	Right, of course.
	But I can tell you who, like, Ron DeSantis ran as a very Trumpy candidate in Florida, and McSally not as much in Arizona.
	So their independent personas kind of do make a difference in these particular races, which...
	Again, raises the question of whether Trump is a boon or is he a detriment?
	Or is he just...
	He may be a neutral.
	I mean, honestly, here's the most controversial proposition of the night.
	Yeah.
	What if Trump doesn't matter that much?
	Yeah.
	Like, really, this is a controversial proposition.
	Everybody is saying selection is about Trump.
	Everything's about Trump.
	Trump is the center of the universe.
	If Trump didn't exist, let's say that it were some other Republican, unnamed Republican, who were president of the United States.
	These results look basically what you would kind of expect, no?
	Except for one, except for turnout.
	And turnout, you know, congressional races are all about turnout because most people don't know who their congressman is.
	I agree with this.
	And so the fact that you're there, you start to poke your Democrat or Republican ticket at that point, and Trump has definitely affected turnout.
	There's no question.
	Look, look, this is true of everybody in this room.
	There's no question that politics are fascinating right now, and he is a fascinating character.
	Yeah, and I think that is the key for him.
	The question is going to be, in a presidential, can he continue to win with 45% of the vote, 46% of the vote?
	And how does he turn that into 49% of the vote?
	Is that what he really has?
	I mean, I don't know.
	Well, I mean, I think it's fair to say that, like, It'll be interesting.
	It actually will be sort of interesting, contra me making fun of Ezra Klein.
	It will be interesting to see what the popular vote totals look like tonight in terms of percentage.
	Because if they mirror what it looked like in 2016, that suggests that Trump has some work to do on the ground in order to help himself for 2020.
	I mean, George Shelby Bush had to pick up like 11 million votes, 12 million votes between 2000 and 2004 to win re-election.
	Yeah.
	He barely did that in the middle of, you know, 9-11 and war in Afghanistan.
	Trump has a great economy.
	Which, by the way, brings up a whole other thing is, of course, events.
	You know, one of the things that makes every politics so interesting and so complicated is you don't know what's going to happen.
	The other issue, I mean, we are on the longest bull run in the last two millennia or something.
	I mean, at a certain point, the economy has to cool down a little bit.
	And, you know, right now we're two years out of a re-election.
	At what point, if the economy starts to dip, does he lose his motion?
	So I'm not a conspiracy theorist, largely...
	I tend to reject all conspiracy theories, but I have one pet conspiracy theory, which is that I think that there are big players in American finance and global finance who wage a kind of economic warfare around presidential elections against Republicans.
	And it's not that big a conspiracy theory, because we've seen...
	Watch yourself.
	We meet at the synagogues every Friday night.
	There's a certain banking community...
	I'm not referring to the Jews.
	I'm referring to the Democratic.
	I'm referring to the people of Israel.
	It's a Zionist.
	Not like practitioners of Judaism.
	It's completely different.
	No, I'm talking not about a religious or ethnic tribe.
	I'm talking about an ideological one.
	I'm talking about people like Soros and others who I think, plausibly, Wage a kind of economic warfare around presidential elections.
	I mean, the guy broke the Bank of England, you know.
	He did.
	It's the best thing that ever happened to me.
	I was living in England.
	Quick, quick note.
	NBC is now projecting Mike DeWine for Ohio governor.
	So a Republican wins the Ohio governor.
	Wow, wow, wow.
	Which is a shock.
	People were not expecting that.
	So, again, Republicans doing very well on the up-ballot races, not doing nearly as well in the House, which is a weird bifurcation.
	But, you know, the House is so...
	Those districts are so small and so...
	Quirky?
	Yeah.
	And more polarized.
	And more and more polarized.
	There are not as many purple districts.
	Like, this is one of the reasons why it's not a 60-vote majority for the Democrats.
	Redistricting has mattered.
	I mean, the fact is that these districts have now been polarized into red districts or blue districts, and the number of available purple districts is just much smaller.
	So, while it may be that this doesn't look like 2010, the map also doesn't look like 2010, which...
	Is not necessarily a terrible thing.
	I mean, swings of 30 seats are probably better for the country than swings of 60 seats every couple of years.
	But it'll be interesting.
	In some ways, there's a case to be made that this is maybe the best position for President Trump to find himself in for 2020.
	The case to be made for that is that President Trump, every time there's a failure, He's had to rip his own Congress, meaning he goes after Paul Ryan on Twitter.
	And everybody like me is like, dude, the hell?
	That's your guy.
	You're ripping on your own guy here, just like he rips on his own attorney general.
	If he has a bunch of Democrats in the House who look like they are out to get him, he now actually has the same case that Obama had in 2012, which is this do-nothing Congress that won't help me in any way.
	They're out to get me.
	They want me on a block.
	And meanwhile, we got a Senate.
	We're just going to keep pumping through judges.
	We're just going to keep pumping judges in there.
	So the key thing that gets Republicans out to vote, which is the judges, that is, if it is one issue, it is the judges.
	That keeps on trucking.
	And meanwhile, Trump gets to pummel the Democrats in the House over and over and over.
	I'm not sure it's terrible for Trump.
	We had a...
	A Daily Wire subscriber asked us a question earlier in the evening.
	Why do these governorships in states I don't live in matter?
	One reason is because they help determine the district maps within their states.
	So if you don't want Democrats trying to figure out how to keep Republicans from being able to elect congressmen in the future, you need Republican legislatures and you need Republican governorships.
	You know, this is one I've worked on a bunch of congressional campaigns around the Northeast and there are some where Well, redistricting just killed us.
	And we knew it.
	And we knew the second it happened, we're not winning re-election.
	And the other thing to remember about these House races is that out here, we don't know our congressmen.
	If you live in New York City or LA, you don't know your congressmen.
	But if you live in suburban, ex-urban, rural districts, you do.
	They show up to a lot of things.
	They're in the community.
	And there were districts that I knew this.
	I was looking at them last night where I just thought, That district, which did break for Trump, is going to re-elect its Democrat congressmen without question.
	Know the congressmen.
	Know the district.
	It's going to happen.
	And there is a personal element here that you can't nationalize all the time.
	And you know, we do talk about voters.
	In a very condescending way a lot of times, and I don't think it's actually accurate.
	I think the voters I talk to are always, you know, they have very sensible points of view.
	They know who the people are that they're voting for a lot of times.
	And they just say, you know, yeah, I like this and I don't like that, or I know him, he's a good guy, he does this.
	You know, all this stuff about he's a veteran and he's, you know, maneuvering this and that.
	People are awfully bright about this stuff.
	Much brighter than we give them credit for.
	One of the things that I'd like to see happen.
	And much more nuanced, by the way, than commentators.
	I want D.C. essentially dissolved.
	I think people should be able to vote from their district.
	I think that Congress people should spend 90% of their time in their home district, and they should spend 5% of their time in D.C. voting on a budget once every three months.
	I think one of the biggest mistakes that we do...
	That would be a nice new world, yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, then people actually have to answer to their constituents.
	Yeah.
	Do you think there's any chance of that happening?
	In the future, I could see that happening.
	When lazy millennials take over, we're like, you know what?
	Not getting on a plane.
	You know, you make that great point, too, on the voters being more sophisticated than the national commentators.
	I was in an Uber.
	I sound like I'm writing a Thomas Friedman column.
	I was in an Uber in Beirut.
	I was in an Uber in Alabama.
	Lovely woman, so sweet.
	You know, we were talking politics a little bit, and she's down home, Alabama.
	And then she proceeded to tell me exactly how the tax reform was benefiting her.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	To the line.
	I thought, God, I don't know that much about tax reform.
	No, I hear that all the time.
	I really do.
	When you talk, you do talk to cab drivers.
	You travel around, you talk to people in audiences who are, you know, just working class guys.
	And they tell you this stuff, and you think, like, wow, that's an actually sophisticated view.
	Listen, I'm a coastal guy.
	I grew up in New York and Long Island.
	And at one point in my life, I just traveled across the country for years.
	And I met all these people and I thought, wow, these people are smart.
	They're not educated.
	They may not be sophisticated.
	So I'm not from these coasts?
	Yeah.
	You're an exception.
	But it's also not, so for me, being in the middle of the country isn't like being in India and the food tastes different and there's these unique smells and that building's made of marble and people worship cows.
	Yeah, why are there dead bodies in the river?
	It's not like that for me.
	You do worship cows, though.
	So I don't see the people in the middle of the country as novel in any way.
	Right.
	They're not that smart.
	Gents, please raise your leftist tears, Tom.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Because we're about to imbibe the most delicious Leftist Tears agony of the evening.
	If you do not have a Leftist Tears Tumblr and are therefore unable to partake in the joy you're about to witness in us, you can go over and remedy that right now at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
	Give us $10 a month, we'll give you this beautiful Tumblr, and you get the shows that these guys produce on a daily basis.
	We're about to fill them with something so, so sweet.
	Cassie.
	As the Twitter reaction to Beto's loss in Texas.
	Guys, get the tumblers ready.
	It's not looking great.
	First, we have Alyssa Milano, the actress.
	She went to the Kavanaugh hearing.
	Here's her reaction.
	She says, Beto lost?
	That's okay.
	Now he can run for president.
	And it seems that most of Twitter is kind of echoing that.
	A lot of the blue check marks on the left are saying the same thing.
	Hold on, Cassie.
	Because you may not think that that's not an obvious tier.
	That is fighting back.
	The sweet, sweet.
	It's just a little mist.
	And then we also have another blue check mark on the leftist side.
	Katie Hoyt, who says, help me understand.
	You know how many cheeseburgers Beto ate?
	How many t-shirts he ruined with all that sweat?
	How many thoughtful answers he gave?
	How many miles he drove?
	And who the hell is Neil Dykeman?
	And why would you vote for him in a race like this?
	I'm bummed.
	So it seems we're mad at the third-party candidates now.
	Hang on, Cassie, I can't hear you over the tremors going through my body, coursing through my veins as I... When I drink the Robert Francis O'Rourke tears, I get a little drunk.
	Give us one more.
	We need one more to get us through the evening.
	We have one from a leftist comedian who used to write for The Daily Show, and he says, try it on free, and he says, Ted Cruz being re-elected when Beto was the other option says more about the quality of the people of Texas than it does about Beto.
	You're damn right.
	Here, here.
	The people of Texas.
	Hmm.
	Just delicious.
	Dan, what's going on out there in election land?
	Well, the McSally cinema race, which is one I'm most interested in, that thing is just too tight.
	It's too close.
	I mean, it's just too close for comfort.
	Right now, 56% of the vote in, they're separated by 9,000 votes.
	So 630,000 to 621,000 with McSally in the slight lead.
	We will see how that continues to break down.
	Right now, the final forecast or close to final forecast from 538 is Democrats plus 35.
	So somebody hit that right on the money.
	It's a little early to gloat.
	Well, okay.
	Never too early.
	Never, exactly.
	I mean, you've got to take advantage of the gloating when it's available.
	And Senate R plus 2 is where they have that forecast.
	So that would leave Republicans with, what, 54 seats in the Senate, which is a comfortable margin.
	And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 years old, which is, of course, what's on the back of everybody's mind here, right?
	Well, it's so important, too, because he's obviously— I mean, I think this is where Amy Barrett's going to come into play— And why he was holding her in reserve.
	And I think that that's going to be a very tough fight for the Democrats.
	Andrew Gillen, by the way, has officially conceded the race to Ron DeSantis.
	Say, gentlemen, I'm friends with the governor.
	So delicious.
	This is a genuine joy.
	Scott Walker running an extraordinarily...
	Scott Walker running a very, very close race in Wisconsin.
	He's running behind his old margin, so he's in trouble in Wisconsin.
	I have to say, I was just in Wisconsin.
	The economy is booming.
	Everybody's talking about how well things are.
	He's been around for a long time.
	He's just been there too long.
	This does happen over time.
	Claudia Tenney, who is a good Republican congresswoman from New York.
	I actually know Claudia Tenney.
	Unfortunately, her district was just called for the Democrats.
	Again, what it looks like is blue areas getting bluer, red areas getting redder.
	How does that continue?
	Where do we go from here?
	If red districts get redder, if the right gets more right, if blue districts get bluer and the left gets more left, what happens to a country?
	You know, I don't know that there is anything good that comes from us.
	Well, wait.
	I mean, after all, we do have to figure in policy and the results if the country continues to boom like this.
	I'm not sure you do, though.
	You just stated.
	Wisconsin's never been better than Wisconsin is right now.
	There's a real chance that Scott Walker gets thrown out.
	There's a cultural aspect to this too, but cultural opinions and cultural policies have results as well.
	And if we find that, for instance, one of the things about Donald Trump is when you look at how blacks have done under this administration, He's the worst racist who ever lived, right?
	If he's a racist, he's doing a really bad job.
	It's the only thing he's ever failed at.
	Least successful racist.
	So I think that is what affects people.
	People do start to turn around and say, you know, he doesn't talk the way I was told he's supposed to talk, and yet my life is getting better.
	It's going to have an effect over time.
	It takes time.
	The thing about culture that the right has never understood is they're always in a panic.
	They always think everything is going down the drain right this minute.
	They're always rushing off to stick their finger in the dike.
	And yet, culture eats away at things.
	And culture is also, reality is part of the culture.
	Martha McSally, according to Henry Olsen, is looking good in Arizona.
	He says that she's ahead with 1.3 million votes in.
	He says if the Election Day vote trends GOP as it has elsewhere, she'll win.
	He thinks that that means a three-seat pickup in the Senate for Republicans.
	He's only worried about Hawley, I noticed.
	He said that the St.
	Louis vote has been so big against Hawley.
	Yeah, although McCaskill is still behind fairly significantly.
	Here's one of the other things that's kind of odd about how this has gone.
	Democrats have been saying, well, what we really need here is we need a Republican Party that's going to check Trump.
	We need a Republican Party that changes from the inside and checks Trump.
	Well, what they've actually done Every single Republican who was kind of lukewarm on trunk in these peripheral districts, in the suburbs, who cares about those suburban voters and those growing demographic minorities, every one of those Congress people is losing tonight.
	So what you're getting is a more ideologically pure version of the Republican Party in terms of loyalty to Trump and more hard right.
	There's no question that Trump has changed the party.
	I mean, that goes without saying.
	Well, I agree.
	I think the question is how much of that change is a change of affect and how much of that change, which I'm not entirely against, and how much of that change is a change in actual policy.
	I think more affect than policy, if I had to put my finger on it.
	I think that's right.
	Today, Democrats are...
	Maybe there's hope for the country in this.
	Six of the Democrats who have picked up seats from Republicans are military veterans.
	That usually suggests a little bit more moderate on policy, just as a general rule.
	So that means that maybe you're seeing a little bit of that diversification in the Democratic Party.
	We don't talk a lot about what the Democratic Party could do to actually be better for the country because we think of them as a thing to be defeated.
	But the fact is that a Democratic Party that...
	It returns to the idea of having some ideological diversity more effectuated toward the right and the moderate center would be very good for the country.
	I mean, it would provide at least some sort of center for people to actually talk to.
	That was one of my hopes for the Republicans keeping the House, is that it would require a move to the middle by the Democrats.
	You know, has anybody been watching this Kansas race in the second congressional district?
	Steve Watkins was 21 percent, the Republican, was 21 percent behind, and now it's tied.
	It's in a virtual tie.
	I'm interested in talking about some House races.
	I think Elisha may have an update for us over at Elisha's election headquarters.
	Honestly, it's a mouthful.
	It is, but I mean, it's better than the Daily Wire backstage election coverage from election headquarters, right?
	I'm just saying.
	You guys were talking about those House races there, and I think you bring up some very good points, specifically that there seems to be some diversification within the Democratic Party when it comes to those congressional districts.
	Like Ben mentioned, you have some Democrats that are Iraq and Afghanistan vets that, you know, maybe they'll end up being like a Joe Manchin that sometimes votes with Donald Trump and sometimes votes with this party.
	We have an updated House of Representatives map here.
	It looks as if, of course, Democrats are going to be taking the House.
	That was the projection as well.
	House seats that Democrats currently need are four in order to take the majority and And Democrats are looking pretty good to take that majority because they are leading in 16 currently held GOP House races.
	So when you look at this map here, the Democrats are going to be really close.
	And once again, all they need right now, according to CNN, is they're saying four.
	Here, our graphic is lagging just a little bit.
	But you can see that it looks as if Democrats might take that up if they are leading in those 16 races.
	In addition to that, we have places like here in California, two districts, Rohrabacher and Hunter, that have had some issues that they typically have not had in the past.
	And typically, as goes California, specifically Orange County with Republicans, then goes the rest of the state with the Republican congressional seats.
	You guys briefly mentioned the Arizona Senate race.
	It looks as if McSally might be pulling through.
	This is really good news from Republicans in the Senate, of course.
	You know, tip your leftist tears tumblers to Cocaine Mitch, who is like my favorite guy of the year.
	I mean, how can you not love him?
	But the Arizona Senate race, we have McSally with 49.2% lead right now and Kyrsten Sinema at 48.5%.
	That's with almost 60% of the precincts reporting.
	And the rest of the precincts that we're remaining waiting for, guys, we're taking a close look at that when we're bringing you these reports because we know that certain precincts are going to lean more left and certain precincts are going to lean more right.
	But the remaining precincts that were waiting to come in for McSally are typically very GOP-friendly districts.
	Ben also mentioned the good governor, Scott Walker.
	I mean, this is really just unexpected tonight.
	I mean, people knew that this might be a tough race, but it is so incredibly close right now.
	We have Evans with 49.2% and Governor Walker with 48.9% with 64% reporting.
	What is interesting here is, once again, we're paying very close attention to specific precincts.
	The precincts in Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin areas, of course, are leaning very blue.
	That's standard for those areas.
	The rural areas are more red but have less voters in them.
	And the Green Bay area, I guess, thanks Packers.
	I don't know sports.
	It is tending to lean red.
	So those are our updates right now.
	Nevada and California are closing in just a couple of minutes, so we'll be continuing to bring in those updates as we get them.
	Thank you, Alicia.
	Green Bay is definitely one of my favorite basketball teams.
	Dean Heller in Nevada is going to be a really contested race.
	The current forecast from 538 is D plus 37 in the House, which is starting to look more like a wave.
	And in the Senate, R plus 3.
	So it's, you know, again, more of the same from the evening.
	But that's a significant move for the House Democrats.
	They've picked up pretty much everywhere.
	I mean, they're going to have a substantial majority going into the next couple of years.
	And, you know, for a second, we need to talk seriously about Beto.
	I know that we've been joking about him all night.
	He's going to lose by about three points in Texas.
	Which is amazing.
	That's absurd.
	That's a victory.
	That's absurd.
	Because the left made a huge deal out of Wendy Davis when she ran for governor against Greg Abbott, and then Greg Abbott beat her by more points than there are in the world, and in alternative worlds as well.
	Three points in Texas.
	Ted Cruz, who won his last race very, very widely, to win by three points, is that an indicator of a serious move On behalf of Democrats in the state, is that just going to feed Democrat pipe dreams of taking over Texas?
	Or is Texas beginning to actually kind of turn purple?
	Well, if what Glenn Beck said to us is true, and you've got a thousand people from California moving in there all the time, I think that it's got to have an effect.
	And the thing that would be interesting for us to start talking about publicly and maybe saying to our friends, the Democrats, is, hey, You're running away from California and you're going to Texas.
	Maybe you should start voting like Texans.
	Instead of bringing California to Texas, maybe you should start voting like Texas.
	And I think that's an argument that could be made.
	And if you'd like to stay in a place where the weather is great, what if you brought Texas values to California?
	No kidding.
	No kidding.
	That would be the wonderful thing if they started moving this way.
	I'll push back on the assumption a little bit.
	Again, my...
	Personal goodwill for Ted Cruz, I think, has been well stated.
	But Ted Cruz is a damaged candidate.
	Glenn Beck is right.
	He hurt himself with Trump's base, which is the dominant part of the party now, with his convention speech.
	And he hurt himself with his actual base.
	After the convention, when he endorsed Trump, Trump didn't rehab him very well.
	He's done a great job for Trump over the last two years.
	But Trump has not taken many opportunities to rehab him during that time.
	Last few weeks.
	Until the last couple of weeks.
	So, when you are in a presidential election...
	If Texas tilts blue in 2020, it will confirm the theory that Texas...
	The demographics and the voting...
	The makeup of the voters in Texas has fundamentally shifted.
	But I think that this...
	I think it is more likely that this is an anomalous event.
	Where you have this damaged guy versus...
	The most talented new politician on the scene today.
	More talented than anyone currently running for president on the Democrat side.
	So what do you think?
	Do you think that they tried to draft him for president?
	Because, you know, we were making fun of Alyssa Milano a little bit earlier.
	There's not a lot on the ticket.
	I think he's been saving his money to run for president.
	That's for sure.
	He actually hasn't been spending the kind of money that he has.
	So it's clearly in his mind.
	He hasn't been giving it to anybody else either.
	And he's not giving it to anybody else.
	That's right.
	So he's certainly planning on it.
	Yeah, he definitely runs first.
	And the question will be, did the loss in Texas set him up to be a frontrunner going into the primaries, or does the loss in Texas hurt his chances?
	Because the way that we typically see this now is you get elected to the Senate, two years later you're on the ballot to be president.
	I mean, that's the Obama model.
	It's what Ted Cruz was going for.
	Or Harris.
	Very quickly, as soon as you're in the Senate first term.
	But you are an actual Texan.
	I'm only an honorary Texan, as you may have heard.
	I've now been made an honorary Texan, which I appreciate.
	I'm genuine.
	You're a genuine Texan.
	Oh, did they do that for you, too?
	What's that?
	They did that for you, too.
	What is your sense of Texas, though?
	Just as a sense, do you think it's going left?
	Well, Texas is changing like everywhere is changing.
	Texas does suffer from the huge influx of Californians.
	I think there's no question about that.
	I think that Texas also is suffering from something that's happening writ large, but I think Texas is uniquely situated to suffer from it, and that is the growth of urban centers over rural populations.
	Texas is big enough that we have a lot of urban areas, and so that's a lot of area to suck in people who, as you live in a city, you very naturally become more liberal.
	So I do think Texas has real challenges.
	Anecdotally, my parents say that they've never seen more yard signs in any past election than they saw for Beto O'Rourke in this election.
	in Lubbock County, which is arguably one of the three most conservative counties in America.
	So I think there's no question that there is some shift taking place in Texas.
	Texas can shift a long way and still be red, which is why I think that we shouldn't read too much into this one moment where you have the most talented Democrat politician to come along, probably since Obama, running against a damaged Ted Cruz, who, while he has many gifts, running against a damaged Ted Cruz, who, while he has many gifts, being a great retail politician is not one I just think it's a perfect storm.
	Henry Olsen, by the way, says just update R plus 4 in the Senate for Republicans.
	So he's calling it for McCaskill.
	He's called it for Sinema.
	That was beyond his memo prediction.
	You could still wind up with 40 and 4.
	Right, which it is a bizarre outlier.
	We are in the weirdest political time in recent American history, by far.
	Part of a weird map, we knew from the beginning it was a weird map, so part of that may not speak directly into the culture.
	It means they have an uphill battle.
	It does mean that the Democrats do have a significant uphill battle in 2020 for the Senate.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Because they're going to have to pick up a lot of seats in 2020 to take the Senate.
	If Republicans walk away from tonight with 56 seats in the Senate...
	That's going to be a big shift, especially in a presidential year.
	I mean, this is the other thing to remember, is that Cruz won by 16 in 2012.
	That was a presidential year.
	Everybody in Texas showed up to vote for Mitt Romney.
	In an off-year election, a lot of Republicans don't show up.
	Trump wasn't on the ballot.
	Especially in places where they take for granted that the Republicans are going to win.
	And I'm going to give another answer to that Daily Wire subscriber who asked us at the beginning of the evening, why should I care about Republican governors in states in which I do not live?
	One of the reasons is because if there is a vacancy created in the Senate, guess who gets to fill it until you get a good election?
	It's the governors of those states.
	So you could, you know...
	A lot of good can be done by a Republican governor.
	You know, it is interesting, too, if the Republicans get these huge gains in the Senate, and the Democrats, it looks like 100% they have the House, that means that you're going to get more drama.
	And just like Russell Crowe in Gladiator, are you not entertained?
	Is this not why you were here?
	You know, President Trump does thrive on this drama to the joy and consternation of all of us.
	But what that means is there's no chance.
	If he gets impeached, there's no chance he gets convicted.
	Right, well, that's for sure.
	But this is what I've been saying, is that in some ways, for Trump, put aside for the country, for Trump, this is almost best-case scenario, he's got a punching bag.
	Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House, again.
	Will she...
	Yes.
	Yes.
	She's too much of a money...
	At 35.
	At plus 35, I think she is.
	If this drops down to plus 32, plus 30, I think she has a really tough time becoming speaker.
	I would...
	She is a money machine.
	She is a cash machine.
	And she's going to be able to say, I drove us back to victory after a few years in the wilderness here.
	And she will be the speaker again.
	Trump going to battle with Nancy Pelosi will be a thing.
	It'll heighten the gender gap for all the reasons that you know it's going to heighten the gender gap.
	And meanwhile, fine, if he wants to battle Nancy Pelosi while we push through the Heritage Foundation's judges, that's a bargain, I think, that we can live with.
	We can live with that.
	I know.
	I agree.
	And we're now Murkowski-proof.
	Right, exactly.
	We're far past Murkowski-proof.
	Plus three, we're Murkowski-proof.
	So, guys, while you enjoy your house victory, if we're going to sip a leftist tears mug, let's pour one out for Amy Coney Barrett, man.
	Future Justice Barrett.
	Future Justice Barrett.
	And if she's replacing RBG, I mean, that's a big win.
	Well, that's a historic win, right?
	At that point, you have a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.
	Roberts, at that point, isn't even a swing vote.
	Although, there is this interesting argument made by...
	For all the people who are saying, well, it's a Democratic wave, plus 37, plus 37, it's a Democratic wave.
	Okay, here's the headline.
	In off-year election, party out of power wins back House.
	That's right.
	That's exactly right.
	By a reasonable margin.
	Since 1968, no period of unified government control has lasted longer than four years.
	That's right.
	Since 1968.
	So this is how politics goes.
	The real wonder here is that Republicans...
	I mean, after Trump won in 2016, the general conventional wisdom was that 2018 was going to be a bloodbath across the board.
	And...
	It isn't.
	It's bad for Republicans in the House.
	It's good for Republicans in the Senate.
	That ain't a bloodbath.
	That's a bloodletting, but it's not a bloodbath.
	I want to go back to Amy Coney Barrett because I keep trying to say this thing.
	We're taking for granted that Amy Coney Barrett should be the next Supreme Court nominee if Trump gets another vacancy.
	Ann Coulter raised this great point this week that Trump shouldn't appoint Amy Coney Barrett, that he should appoint a man.
	That the Democrats have now demonstrated through Kavanaugh that they'll blow themselves up again.
	Well, that they have one argument, and we know exactly what the argument is, and we know that people don't care about that argument if it isn't true.
	We don't know what they throw at Amy Coney Barrett.
	Amy Coney Barrett, they're going to treat like Sarah Palin.
	Have we seen a Republican moment?
	No, they're not.
	They're going to do something different, and this is why they should nominate Amy Coney Barrett.
	Because Pennsylvania has a heavy Catholic population.
	And the attack on Amy Coney Barrett is not just going to be that she's a female.
	It's that she's a Catholic.
	Correct.
	She's a Catholic female.
	She's a religious Catholic female who had the temerity to have seven children, including two adopted ones.
	And that means that she is a bad person.
	That is a battle I would pay good money to see.
	I'm with you, Ben.
	And you think they'll actually do it?
	Yeah, that's right.
	They did it.
	When he appointed her to a district, when he appointed her to an appellate court, we had Dianne Weinstein saying, the dogma lives loudly within you.
	And that didn't get the press that it deserved because it was an appellate court.
	See, imagine them doing...
	Catholics can't be on the Supreme Court because they are pro-life.
	Good night, gang.
	She's part of a prayer group, and they actually, major Democrats accused her of being part of a cult.
	The cult of the Catholic Church?
	Is that a cult of the...
	I can get behind that.
	Ann Coulter's argument, I love Ann and she's brilliant, but that's too clever by half for me.
	I think Ben's got it exactly right.
	Bring it on.
	Bring it on.
	Let him come and get her for being a religious person.
	Whatever, you know, she's a mainstream Christian.
	You know, happens to be Catholic, but it's a mainstream Christian.
	Law professor, federal judge.
	Let him come.
	Let him come.
	Unless they can prove, like I said, that she raped Brett Kavanaugh.
	That would be funny.
	Julie Swetnick swears she saw her.
	She raped her.
	They were lined up.
	Well, the other thing is that the headline tonight, while it's going to be, you know, Dems take over the house, they are missing the, this is a point that is, it's being made by Chuck Todd, actually, and he's right.
	He says there's no signature one.
	There's nobody that they can point to and they can go, ah, that's the future.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And they were looking for that.
	That's what they would have gotten with Beto.
	With Beto or Gillum.
	Oh, sure.
	That's right.
	If they got Beto or Gillum, that would have been the case.
	Even with Sinema, you know, that probably would have been the case.
	They were going to push for who's the future candidate.
	Now they're stuck with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	I mean, like, who's the face of the victory?
	And the answer is that there are some actual faces of the victory, but they're all in the house and no one cares about the house.
	Yeah.
	When it comes to establishing the future of the party, what they were hoping for was tonight was going to crown the 2020 contender who was going to be in the battle against Trump for the next couple of years.
	They were looking for Obama circa 2006.
	And they didn't get it.
	They didn't get it.
	And that's a big hit for them because it means we have to go back to the same old tired crop of candidates that we've been talking about for the last couple of years.
	Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris and Cory Booker and all the rest of this clown show.
	And if it had been Beto, He's very formidable.
	Yeah, that's right.
	But I think that's right.
	I also just think that it shows, you know, this has been unprecedented in its degree, the attack on Donald Trump.
	The attack on Donald Trump has not been, it has been like the attack on Mitt Romney, like the attack on George W. Bush, but incredibly amped up.
	Oh, yeah.
	And it just hasn't had the effect.
	It hasn't had any effect, really.
	Because, I mean, unless you could say, oh, he's done so well policy-wise that the only reason he's lost any seats at all is because of this attack.
	But I don't think that's true.
	I think Trump is to some degree responsible for that for himself.
	And the map, again, it is the map.
	You know, the map, my soul, oh, the map.
	You know, I think this is something that is just really interesting, that all of this effort...
	All this sweat, all this blood, all this shedding of responsibility and shedding of credibility has given them nothing.
	It's given them absolutely nothing.
	Dave Brat, by the way, in a loss for the Republicans, has lost his district.
	Again, a lot of the suburban districts are experiencing serious trouble.
	President Trump just signed on to Twitter.
	Cassie wants to tell us this.
	She's waiting right now.
	Cassie, Ben's about to steal your punchline.
	Give it to us.
	Sure.
	So you guys have been speculating a lot about how President Trump's going to spin this.
	Well, he just tweeted.
	He said, tremendous success tonight.
	Thank you to all.
	So he's claiming an early victory on this, even though we're still waiting for more results to come in.
	Cassie, are we sure he is referring to the midterm election?
	I mean, we don't know.
	Maybe he's watching Fox News.
	He likes their coverage.
	He's calling it tremendous success.
	We'll see what he says later on.
	I'm sure this is not going to be the only tweet from him tonight.
	Thank you, Cass.
	I just won my game of Yahtzee.
	Tremendous success.
	Thank you.
	You know, he has been playing this now for probably two weeks, saying, we're going to win the Senate, and we're going to do very well in the House.
	The minute he said that, you really had to think, all right, they really don't think that they're going to win the House.
	And then he gets to pull out that tweet.
	Tremendous success.
	He is a once-in-a-generation political figure, isn't he?
	He's so entertaining.
	I mean, I am here to be entertained, and he is an entertaining guy.
	You've got to admit, this has been amusing.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, the perspective horrific downsides have not met any reality, and so it's turned from...
	Sort of tragedy to bemusement, to befuddlement, to amusement.
	And now I'm basically in amusement.
	And I'll stay in amusement until amusement is no longer possible to maintain.
	The laughs have been fast and furious.
	And we're going to get a better show now.
	I mean, we're going to get a better show for the next two years.
	We might lose out on more tax reform.
	We're going to lose that now.
	We might lose out on entitlement reform, which we were never, ever going to get.
	But...
	We're going to get a better show.
	Gavin Newsom is now governor of California.
	Honestly, our state is just toast.
	We're just toast.
	But who is the choice?
	John Cox is fine, but that was never a thing.
	That was never a thing.
	By the way, bad news for Alicia from Oklahoma.
	Apparently...
	Representative Steve Russell just lost his seat in Oklahoma.
	That's a big Democratic pickup.
	They're doing what they need to do in the House.
	They are doing what they need to do in the House.
	That was an upset.
	In the end, it will be right around what some of us predicted earlier in the evening.
	So I want to say something that we haven't...
	We've talked about President Trump's successes and failures.
	We've talked about Republican Party successes and failures.
	Democratic Party successes and failures.
	We haven't bragged on ourselves near enough.
	Oh, really?
	We have had tonight, at almost every moment of this infinity-long broadcast...
	Yeah, yeah.
	Infinity War is part eight.
	Yeah, part 18, yeah.
	We've had at least 60,000 people watching in real time on YouTube the entire evening.
	That's amazing.
	And so we want to say thank you to everyone who's tuning in live on social media.
	We want to especially say thank you to the people tuning in live at thedailywire.com.
	It's a bargain, I think, at $10.
	If you want to become a subscriber, we'd love to have you.
	We'll send you out our...
	Leftist Tears Tumblr if you become an annual subscriber.
	And you get this kind of commentary from Ben and from Drew and from Michael every day.
	We actually don't let Michael broadcast on Fridays.
	That's for the good of the people.
	But you also get to ask us questions, and I think now is a good time for us to kick it back to Colton and see if there's anything else that our Daily Wire subscribers want to ask us.
	It's going to be a little bit of a late night.
	I'm not exactly sure how long we're going to go this evening, but we do still have...
	A few races we want to stick around for before we call it a night, so we thank you for sticking with us for so long.
	I'm not going to say we're here all night.
	I'm not going to say we're in it for the long haul, but we're in it for a little bit longer.
	I've still got more of this bottle left.
	Colton, what are people wanting to know?
	We're going to get through three questions, so help me.
	Sounds good.
	So we got a question from...
	She says, Ben has said Joe Biden could be a real challenge for Trump in 2020.
	Do you think the Democrats could put up Biden in 2020 with any shred of legitimacy, considering he's an old white dude?
	So yes, because the Democrats have no standards whatsoever.
	So, of course.
	I've always disagreed with you about this.
	I just don't think Biden is a true presidential candidate.
	I mean, that may very well be the case.
	I mean, he's got a bad record in prior races.
	He does have more blue-collar appeal than any of the other Democrats they're talking about right now.
	He does have a history of being clubbed over the head and surviving, which does mean something.
	It makes him a baby seal, I think.
	Except that he survives, right?
	And that really is a thing.
	He's associated with the Obama glamour.
	That's the thing he has going for.
	Well, I think there's something else that he has going for him, too, and that is that President Trump has one particular specialty, and that is he can drag any human being down into the mud with him.
	If you are already covered in mud, it's actually a benefit.
	If people think that you're clean as the driven snow, you're Kamala Harris or something, and then Trump starts throwing mud all over you, suddenly your image plummets.
	And it's that directional plummet in image that actually damages in a presidential race.
	Everybody knows Joe Biden.
	Everybody has an opinion about Joe Biden.
	Those opinions aren't probably really going to change about Joe Biden.
	If it turns into a poop fight with Joe Biden, that is what it is.
	I still think that he is...
	I think he's more of a threat than Kamala Harris.
	I think he's more of a threat than Elizabeth Warren in some ways.
	Certainly more of a threat than Elizabeth Warren.
	Kamala Harris worries me a little bit.
	She worries me.
	I'm more worried about Warren than Harris.
	Really?
	Yeah, I don't believe that you can put the Obama coalition back together.
	I think they may run Kamala Harris because they think that you can.
	But I just don't think it floats.
	Whereas I think Elizabeth Warren, who is pretty...
	Can he?
	Well, I think she will tack to the Bernie Sanders populist position in the party.
	And I think that that can be very successful for her.
	I mean, I think Bernie Sanders may have been elected president if Hillary Clinton hadn't literally stolen the election.
	And I don't think Harris can make this credible a play for that sort of populist wing of the Democrat Party.
	I think we're seeing something else, too, and that is the intersectional schtick.
	Does not work in Ohio.
	It doesn't work in Florida.
	It doesn't work in a lot of the states that are actual battleground states.
	I think it's getting old, too.
	I think it's had its shot.
	I mean, and that's, again, if Democrats are smart, what they're going to learn from tonight is that the districts they're winning are moderate districts with moderate candidates.
	They're not winning with these radical left crazies.
	Well, they keep doing this, though.
	They keep running these moderate candidates and then soiling them by forcing them to follow the Nancy Pelosi trail.
	That's what happened to the blue dogs.
	All the blue dogs were excised from Congress when people realized that blue as they were, they were voting the radical left line.
	And that's the thing.
	So you put these guys up and then you destroy them by not letting them vote their conscience.
	If they started to vote their conscience, the whole tenor of Congress would...
	If you say that too many times, Donald Trump literally walks out Stands in the back of the room and causes you to be booed and almost lose a race in Texas.
	Colton, give us another question.
	So we've got another question from Eli, and you guys might have talked about this a little bit earlier.
	He says, do you think Beto O'Rourke remains a threat after this loss, or does he fade into obscurity by the time he can run again?
	I think we've basically covered it, so I don't want to spend too much time on it, but Beto O'Rourke is a talented and gifted politician.
	He is a threat.
	I don't think that he disappears.
	I don't think any of us think that he disappears.
	Is he a contender for the presidency?
	I mean, we'll see.
	They're going to start running people in about six minutes from now.
	There's a lot of political future for a guy like Beto because the other thing that Democrats do, that Republicans don't do, is that you can run for office from one state, disappear for a few years, show up from an entirely different state and run for office again.
	But worth noting, MSNBC already saying the House Democrats are calling for President Trump to release his taxes.
	So really, it has begun.
	It's on, yeah.
	Next question.
	Question for Matthew.
	Question for Ben.
	Who do we need to elect to see judicial review changed?
	Honestly, I think that the incentive structure is all wrong to see judicial review changed.
	So my perspective has always been that you actually need to limit the power of the judiciary to overturn acts of the legislature because the judiciary has a rotten record of actually protecting the Constitution of the United States.
	I'd rather that the people who are screwing with the Constitution be accountable to the public than that they be in robes for their entire life, capable of just doing whatever it is that they want.
	Look, I think that Republicans should have done that in the last couple of years.
	I think that, you know, restricting the jurisdiction of the courts would have been a good move because at the same time they're stacking the courts, they're restricting the jurisdiction of the courts.
	With that said, I think that judicial review is too well embedded in the fabric of the way that things work for it to really be restricted in any serious way.
	I think there's something else too, which is I agree with you conceptually about judicial review, but I worry that it's a little bit like getting rid of the earmarks.
	It's kind of my gripe a little bit with our friends like Mark Meckler over at Article 5.
	The status quo is a conservative position.
	There is something to, like, I don't agree with everything the founders did, right?
	Taking the extreme things that we have to caveat out.
	Even judicial review and some other things that came along.
	You're speaking to my traditionalist tendencies.
	And yet, I'm not sure that we've been ill-served by some of the structures that they had the wisdom to sort of Create along the way.
	They didn't create all of them like judicial review at the point of the inception of the Constitution, but they got to it pretty fast, you know, once we had a functioning government.
	I don't know.
	I'm not as radical, even in my conservatism, as I was 10 years ago.
	By the way, even the Democrats, they're already getting it wrong.
	So the Democrats are looking at tonight's House races, and they're already announcing that the big win was for women, because 10 women won in these House races, and so it was women that put them over the top.
	And it's like...
	No.
	What put you over the top is that you ran better candidates in contested districts.
	You're idiots.
	Like, the sex had nothing to do with it.
	No, that's true.
	It's that you ran better candidates and they happened to be women, which is fine.
	Good.
	Like, cool.
	But if their solution is, okay, we're going to run a bunch of women just to run women, This intersectional trap is going to be...
	Let's go all the way.
	Let's run Hillary again.
	Nominator Hillary 2020.
	Be careful.
	I so want Hillary to run again.
	No, I so want her to run again.
	I can't wait.
	I don't know.
	Ben has this great point that he makes all the time about President Trump.
	President Trump has to pick up 10 million new votes.
	Yeah, I know.
	To be re-elected.
	I don't know where President Trump gets 10 million new votes, but I know exactly where Hillary Clinton gets 4 million more votes.
	I know where she gets 100,000 votes in these swing states.
	In these swing states.
	Hillary Clinton...
	When you want something as bad as Hillary Clinton wants to be president...
	And also, when you think that you can pick your opponent and win...
	Hillary Clinton learned the hard way.
	You can't do that.
	Yeah, that's right.
	She's done it twice, by the way.
	Hillary Clinton picked Barack Obama to be her opponent in the primaries, and it blew up.
	And then she picked Donald Trump to be her opponent.
	She isn't incompetent.
	This is the one thing nobody...
	We talk about how corrupt she is, but she also is incredibly incompetent.
	You know, she was a lousy secretary of state.
	That's exactly right.
	We're not highly competent, because I swore we would get through three questions.
	We've done two.
	Colton, question number three.
	Nicole asks, if this midterm was a leftover piece of Halloween candy, what would it be and why?
	It would be a piece of candy corn.
	One, because I kind of like it.
	I kind of like it.
	It endures.
	It's a very historical election in that...
	In the way that you could bury a piece of candy corn for 28 years and you could get up in the backyard.
	I mean, it follows historical trends.
	It's basically enjoyable.
	Half of the country absolutely detests it, but they're wrong.
	LAUGHTER That's a good answer.
	I was going to go Milk Duds because at the beginning you're like, ah, this is great candy.
	And then as it gets stuck to your teeth, you're like, this candy is not quite...
	I was going to say dark chocolate for the same reason.
	Good in theory.
	Good early.
	Good in theory.
	Colton, bonus question.
	Question from Chris.
	He says, do you think the left has any credible grievances when it comes to accusations of voter suppression vis-a-vis district mapping or voter ID laws?
	Certainly not voter ID laws, no.
	I think generally the answer is no.
	And when it comes to redistricting, one of the things that I always find hilarious is that the question of redistricting completely exits the table when Democrats are in control.
	When Republicans are in control, then it's like, we need fairer redistricting practices.
	I've yet to see an actual procedure that has been proposed that looks anything better than simply letting the legislature and the governor basically set it because the problem is when you set up these nonpartisan panels that create these these redistricting areas, they simply don't do any better they end up just as partisan as the as they simply don't do any better they end up just as partisan as the And also I have yet.
	have yet to see the evidence that redistricting has actually prohibited the party that has the momentum from winning.
	Like Republicans redistricted, Democrats are gonna win somewhere between 32 and 38 seats tonight.
	They were able to do that despite redistricting.
	They retake the House.
	That is not a...
	Paul Krugman said that if Republicans won this election, it was the end of democracy on the basis of redistricting.
	It's just asinine.
	It's just asinine.
	Redistricting has never been as much of a problem as people want to make it out to be.
	And is he going to write the column tomorrow and say, oh, I guess redistricting is fine.
	I'll stop writing this column in two years?
	I want to know what column he's going to write tomorrow.
	It's going to be the same.
	Well, now that he's told us that no Republican can have a conscience, if you are a Republican, you do not have a conscience, what is he going to say now?
	Well, do we have more questions?
	Because, frankly, I'm out of steam.
	We're in the lull here.
	I think that...
	We need to get a couple of races called here, and then we'll probably call it a night.
	But let's talk a little bit more to our Daily Wire subscribers.
	They don't get to ask us enough questions on the average backstage, and they, like I say, they pay all of our rent, which I, for one, am grateful for.
	It's really great, yeah.
	Colton and Cassie, why don't you guys rapid fire a few at us?
	Sounds good.
	So we got one from Paul, and he asks, is there any foreseeable redemption for American politics?
	This is American politics.
	It's redemption.
	This is American politics.
	This is what it's like.
	It's noisy.
	It's chaotic.
	It's crazy.
	It's revolutionary.
	This is what this country is like.
	You know, this whole idea that this is a stately country, that a civics class come to life, is absolutely ridiculous.
	Donald Trump is an American figure.
	He may be an outlying American figure, but he's not unlike other American figures, Andrew Jackson comes to mind, who have risen up in our politics before This is what America's like.
	We're a nutty country.
	We're an invented country.
	There's never been a country like this before.
	I think we should just be grateful.
	You know, one of the things, one of my favorite documents in American history is Antonin Scalia's dissent in Obergefell, where he talks about the fact that before the Supreme Court took from the people their right to make these decisions, America was working as it's supposed to work, which was A brilliant insight.
	What were you doing?
	We were screaming at each other.
	We were yelling, we were arguing, we were fighting, we were having debates, we were having elections.
	That's the way America is supposed to work.
	Trump is a big character, an outline character, but he is a typical American figure, the kind of outline big American businessman.
	This is it.
	This is what it's like to live here.
	If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
	People associate, because Trump's retail politics is like Huey Long's retail politics, they associate his actual politics with Huey Long's politics.
	And that's not accurate.
	It's not accurate.
	He's got the affect of Huey Long without the actual policy of Huey Long.
	He looks like a tyrant and he's not.
	Right, exactly.
	He says bloviating ridiculous things, and that is what it is.
	And then he governs well.
	You know, I just went to a lecture on the 1868 election.
	How much does anybody know?
	Nobody knows about him.
	But if you look at those elections, 1868, 1872, 1880, 1880, the Republican ticket published a blank book about the political achievements of the Democrats.
	Does it sound familiar?
	This man has been alive forever.
	I know, yeah, it's true.
	I'm always channeling James Garfield.
	Well, I do have a feeling that For some odd reason, Knowles and Clavin, it's like a picture of Dorian Gray.
	Every sin that Michael Knowles commits makes Drew a day older.
	I'd be dead by now.
	If that were true, I'd be gone by now.
	But every sin is written across your face.
	Yeah, so I guess we're still waiting for the results from Dean Heller in Nevada.
	That's really the kind of big outstanding.
	Yeah, I think we should see it through.
	Cassie, give us some more questions and remind us how people get to ask questions.
	Sure, you guys can ask questions.
	If you're a subscriber, go right into the website and you can ask questions right in the chat box.
	We have one right here from Brendan.
	He says, in your opinion, has President Trump campaigning for Republicans helped boost the Republican turnout, or has it pushed anti-Trumpers away from voting for Republicans?
	Well, it's boosted Republican turnout overall, no question, because there are many more pro-Trump people than anti-Trump people.
	It's also boosted Democratic turnout.
	I mean, the fact is that Democrats turned out in droves, particularly in blue areas, because they hate President Trump.
	And Republicans turned out in red areas, specifically not only because they like President Trump, but they also hate the people who are showing up to hate President Trump, which I think is actually more important.
	I really think that when people say that Trump is beloved of the Republican base, there's truth to that.
	I also think that there's more truth to the fact that the Republican base despises the people who despise Trump.
	Yes.
	Like, it's not like when this is why the Kavanaugh hearing was so big, because even folks like me or Trump skeptics, I looked at that and I was like, I you guys are just freaking worse.
	And this is actually fascinating.
	So there's a poll analysis being done right now in Nevada, except in North Dakota, rather.
	North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp just got swamped.
	I mean, just destroyed.
	This was not a close election.
	It's not like Sinema losing narrowly in Arizona, which it looks like is going to happen, or even McCaskill losing by a couple of points or anything.
	What this looks a lot more like in North Dakota is an actual swamping wave.
	The exit polls showed that of the people who mentioned Kavanaugh as a factor in their voting, on a two-to-one basis, they thought the Democrats had completely botched the situation with Kavanaugh, two-to-one.
	So the Democrats were saying, oh, Kavanaugh didn't make any difference at the end of the day.
	In the Senate races, Kavanaugh made a Made a serious difference.
	Made a serious difference.
	You know, in this election, Democrat turnout was a foregone conclusion.
	Massive Democrat turnout.
	That was the foregone conclusion.
	The anomaly is that Republicans turned out in such high numbers.
	So it seems to be you've got to give credit to Trump for that.
	Partly Trump and the Kavanaugh thing.
	I mean, that was a decision.
	It was a wake-up point.
	I will give, you know...
	This still fits within my general take on 2016, which is that Republicans in 2016 showed up to vote against Hillary Clinton.
	They showed up today to vote against Democrats, particularly Senate Democrats, which makes perfect sense.
	It's the Senate Democrats who are making a mess of themselves and experiencing verbal diarrhea and salmonella, oral salmonella, in the process.
	And so I think that that...
	That made a big difference.
	I will give Trump 30% of credit in terms of that he has a unique capacity to warm his way under their skin and make them behave in the worst possible way.
	I don't want to do a split.
	I don't think any one of us two years ago would be sitting here talking about the courage of Mitch McConnell.
	Or Lindsey Graham.
	Or Lindsey Graham.
	I've always thought that maybe John McCain's death had something to do with making Lindsey Graham up.
	Again, I think that that has something to do with Trump and it has something to do with...
	The vile response of the left to Trump.
	So I don't think that it's that Mitch McConnell suddenly grew spine of steel because he loves Trump and Trump...
	Give me a break.
	Like, that's not how Mitch McConnell operates.
	I know Senator McConnell that is not...
	I think Mitch McConnell...
	I know him.
	But it's it, but it's it, but it's it.
	No, I think what Mitch McConnell does is he looks for the main chance.
	He's a total politician, and he saw in Trump somebody who was going to do certain things, and he went with it.
	And enabled it.
	And enabled it, yeah.
	And I think that it was excellent politicking.
	I think the Democrats are going to take this too far, too, because they're going to say, our job here is to check President Trump.
	And by check, they mean just stop everything done.
	And that is not going to work out well for them.
	The American people still want some things to get done.
	They still do.
	And tell them to go for it.
	What legislation are we actually pushing through right now?
	Nothing.
	I mean, the truth is, and this is a point David French is making tonight, he's exactly correct.
	The Republicans have a judicial agenda.
	They have no legislative agenda.
	Literally, I was asking people in the House, what are you going to do next?
	And they're like, I'll make the tax cuts permanent.
	Okay, whatevs.
	That's nice.
	And then it'll be made unpermanent the minute Democrats take control of Congress again.
	So that's not a thing.
	But the actual agenda for the Democrats, and now there is a question.
	So here's the question.
	Democrats are going to launch, it's the group that launched a thousand investigations.
	Do any of them turn up anything meaningful?
	They'll turn up plenty of things.
	They'll turn up, but meaningful, like meaningful.
	But pretty hard to get Donald Trump unless there's an actual human body buried in the base of Trump Tower.
	Pretty hard to get him because the American public has already calculated The fact that he is what he is.
	No, this is my strong market sufficiency theory.
	Everything is calculated in for President Trump.
	But let's say that they get his tax returns, and it turns out there's something nefarious in the tax returns.
	Nobody cares.
	Well, it depends what's in them, I would assume.
	Also, what we've seen from Trump's tax returns probably tells us what there is, which is that he pays as little taxes as he makes, and he has less money than he says he does.
	Mm-hmm.
	I will point out...
	I will say that there are some areas of potential concern in the corruption direction.
	In the layman's kind of stuff?
	Exactly.
	That's the stuff that has worried me from day one.
	Yeah.
	Self-enrichment.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Through the office.
	Yeah, that's a possibility.
	Also...
	Also, it's hilarious.
	Today, sustaining my point that I made very early on tonight in my National Review column this week with regard to Barry Weiss saying that we are going to vote Democrat across the board in order to provide some sort of...
	Rebuke to President Trump and anti-Semitism, two candidates who were just elected to Congress in the Democratic Party are openly anti-Semitic.
	Rashida Tlaib, who is in Illinois, she is pretty much openly anti-Semitic as far as what I've seen.
	And the woman that I mentioned earlier, whose name escapes me, from Minnesota.
	Look, the Democratic Party is the party that has embraced Anti-Semitism.
	Like, openly embraced anti-Semitism.
	That logic was so weird to me, always.
	It was like, okay, well, we don't like Nigel Farage in U-Kype, so let's elect Jeremy Corbyn.
	Oh, great idea.
	Let's think that one through.
	I did think that...
	I thought we let the press get away with this a little too much, this attack on Trump as an anti-Semite.
	I just think it has no basis in fact.
	I think the attack on the Republicans...
	As anti-Semites has no basis.
	In fact, the idea that by attacking George Soros, one of the most anti-Israel forces on the planet, or somehow being anti-Semitic.
	George Soros!
	Hey, nasty!
	A guy who went out around the collections.
	Yep, that's right.
	I mean, to be fair to George Soros, you know.
	No, I agree with you.
	But it's fun to say.
	And Roy Moore never once hit on him.
	Let's just get that completely out of the open.
	There is no proof.
	So, you know, I think that the argument that was made about Pittsburgh was basically that Trump went and nodded at the alt-right.
	The alt-right was warm toward Trump.
	And that Trump, by focusing inordinately on the dangers of the migrant caravan, You know, played up this stuff to the extent that this guy basically went crazy.
	Again, I have very little truck for a politician drove somebody crazy.
	I just don't like those arguments as a general matter.
	I think you can condemn somebody's rhetoric, but this is what I don't understand.
	What math fundamentally changed about what Trump had said because somebody who is evil and or crazy did an evil and or crazy thing?
	Like, I condemned Trump when he said bad stuff at the time.
	Just as I condemn Bernie Sanders when he says bad stuff at the time, this weird re-evaluation that goes on where it's like, something bad happened.
	Now that means that his rhetoric a year ago was worse than it actually was when he said it.
	No, it was as bad as it was when he said it.
	It's a bizarre argument.
	Politics is, after all, ultimately a game of realities.
	You know, when people talk about Donald Trump and forget the fact that Hillary Clinton was openly against the First Amendment, would have appointed judges, swore to appoint judges who were going to damage the First Amendment and the Second Amendment...
	And so when people answer me and they say, well, Trump said he was going to make more libel laws and Trump attacked the press.
	I just think, yeah, it's not the same thing.
	I disagree with him.
	I don't disagree.
	I don't agree with you that it's not the same thing in 2016 when we were making decisions.
	I agree with you that in 2018, we're no longer having to make decisions based on Trump's rhetoric.
	No, I don't agree.
	We're able to use Trump's record.
	I don't agree.
	I don't agree.
	There was no point.
	There was no point in which Donald Trump was threatening to appoint Supreme Court justices who would be unfavorable to the First Amendment.
	It is a different thing to be a loud mouth and say stupid stuff.
	And after all, we are adults.
	We can't calibrate the degree to which Donald Trump says stupid stuff.
	There was no point in which I felt Donald Trump's policies We're anti-free speech.
	There were points where I thought this is a guy who's never read the First Amendment.
	Doesn't know what the courts do.
	I don't know.
	I think that's a little revisionist.
	I'm willing to revise my 2016 position and say that based on the new evidence, which is the voting record of Donald Trump, my worst fears were misfounded.
	You could have had worse fears about...
	But my fears about Donald Trump at the time were based on the only evidence available to me, which was the things that he said.
	And he said things during that election that were deeply troubling on the First Amendment.
	He said troubling things on the Second Amendment.
	He said troubling things...
	No, that was the thing that he said that I really...
	All that was on the table in 2016.
	Punch protesters, you know, like he said some stuff.
	No, he did, but he...
	Was not as functionally equipped to damage the First Amendment.
	Well, that's the thing, too, is you had to calibrate the actual threat.
	But your answer to that in 2016 was, he doesn't have the sort of architecture around him.
	Even if he is bad the way you think he might be, he doesn't have the architecture of state around him.
	That's not fair.
	In 2016, my answer to that was, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, he's better, I've only got two choices, I make this choice.
	That was my answer.
	But my fear in 2016 was, Yes, he doesn't have the structures around him to affect at the same level that Hillary does.
	But if he moves the right to an embrace of those policies, then there is no firewall anymore against those things happening.
	If Donald Trump governed like he speaks, I would be saying to you, oh my God, I've made a terrible thing.
	That's right.
	But what I'm saying is that I am saying that I was wrong in my conclusion in 2016.
	I think what you're saying is I had no basis to arrive at that conclusion in 2016.
	That's what I object to.
	What I said when I voted for Donald Trump was I have 5% fear he's as bad as I think he is.
	That was my 5% fear.
	I had to take that chance because Hillary Clinton was openly as bad as I knew she was.
	But no one's...
	I'm not second-guessing your decision to vote for Trump.
	Right.
	He's saying that there is a rational basis for his own decision.
	Correct.
	And since I made the same decision, I think that there is a rational basis, and the evidence changes, and then you change your position.
	I have never thought that you guys made an irrational decision.
	I always thought you made the wrong decision.
	Right.
	But I don't think it was an irrational decision.
	And that's totally understandable.
	You know, I'm very pleased that I voted for Trump because I was waffling.
	You know, I really was.
	And they kicked me off the voter rolls.
	That was one of the deciding factors.
	Seriously, I was at the polling place and I said, okay, I gotta do it.
	So I'm very pleased that I did vote for him.
	But I know plenty of people.
	Plenty of rock-robed conservatives.
	Who just were on this side and they just couldn't quite do it.
	But when you look at 2020, looking now, even talking to everybody here.
	Of course.
	I mean, I've said this openly.
	But what votes has he lost among Republicans?
	But he doesn't have to lose votes.
	He has to gain them.
	That's the problem.
	So Nancy Pelosi, it should be noted, was just speaking, obviously making conciliatory speech.
	Yeah, I saw her.
	She was jabbering on the new Speaker of the House.
	I do love when politicians say stuff like this.
	She said, thanks to you, tomorrow will be a new day in America.
	It will.
	It'll be Wednesday.
	I tweeted out, like, what if tomorrow was the same day?
	That would be, like, really, like, then we'd have a crisis on our heads.
	That would be really bad.
	Because of you, tomorrow will also be Tuesday.
	Tomorrow is yesterday.
	Forward to yesterday.
	It'll be Tuesday again, by golly.
	Arizona is being called for McSally.
	There you go.
	Hey!
	All right.
	I'm going to have a little bit of both on this one.
	I'll go with the whiskey myself.
	It's getting late.
	So all of that is good news.
	And Nancy Pelosi also, being Nancy Pelosi, she just said, quote, let's hear it more for pre-existing medical conditions.
	Weird thing to say?
	Emphysema.
	I'm for it.
	I will not drink to pre-existing medical conditions.
	I'd like to see fewer pre-existing medical conditions in America today.
	Pretty spectacular.
	Yeah, Sam Stein over at Huffington Post, he's saying, Trump's enduring strength in Ohio and Florida are, shall we say, problematic for Dems in 2020.
	There you go.
	Yeah, that is right.
	Scott Walker is now trailing statewide by less than 3,000 votes in Wisconsin.
	Oh, come on, Walker.
	What triggers an automatic recount?
	That's what they're looking up right now.
	Wow.
	So it looks like the Wisconsin governor is going to go to a recount.
	Walker is down 300 votes with 78% of precincts reporting.
	Whoa.
	So we will see, you know.
	300?
	Yeah, that's, yeah.
	Whoa.
	So they're projecting it'll be about 3,000 by the time it's over, but that may be within recount.
	Territory.
	The Real Clear Politics in Missouri had Hawley up.6.
	He's winning by 10.
	So that was a mess, the polls that were just wrong.
	And Indiana had Joe Donnelly up by 1.3.
	Mike Braun winning by 10.
	So the polls were just wrong there.
	Again, very difficult to do state polls.
	State polls are very difficult.
	Much more difficult than doing national polling.
	Again, the national polling seems like it's pretty much right on.
	It looks, again, like the state polling is very, very difficult to model.
	So...
	That is the current status of your election.
	So, hope you've enjoyed that.
	Hey Ben, why don't you tell people that they should become subscribers and then let's answer some questions.
	Okay, sounds good.
	So, you should subscribe.
	Why?
	Because we've been here with you since your birth.
	Just today.
	Since I have been here, my children have celebrated no less than four birthdays when I go home.
	No.
	It will be as though I have come home from war.
	For that sort of sacrifice.
	Well, not really.
	I'm not going to do that.
	I'm not Pete Davidson.
	No stolen valor.
	No stolen valor.
	But it will be as though I went to the moon and came back and my children...
	I hope my wife is still married to me.
	You went on a long vacation.
	I went on a long vacation and I came back.
	All I can say is I hope that my wife has not had me legally declared dead.
	So, for all of that, you should pay us.
	If you wish to help pay for my wife's medical education and or the rest of the deplorable folks on this panel, particularly Knowles, who legitimately just sits around the office with like a tin can.
	And a hat out in front of him while playing his ukulele.
	Then you really ought to pay us...
	He plays a ukulele.
	Ben, I want some more!
	$9.99 a month will help you support shows like this one, God help us.
	And ensure...
	And for $99 a year, you get all of those...
	$99 a year.
	For those of you who don't know math, that is less than $9.99 a month.
	I know.
	Elections analysis.
	We bring it to you.
	Numbers.
	We break down the hard stats.
	$99 a year is less than $9.99 a month.
	Incredible.
	And you get the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr, which is being so frequently used these days.
	It has all sorts of incredible powers.
	It infuses you with the strength of the gods and the knowledge of the wise men.
	It gives you freedom from sin.
	We keep trying to use it enough on Knowles.
	It's getting late.
	It must be getting late around here.
	I don't know.
	I think we've lost Ben, guys.
	You lost me long ago, my friends.
	All I can say is I'm vamping at this point until we get some Dean Heller results.
	I am not kicking it to a question right now.
	The reason is that hearing Ben slur his words and talk about how long we've been here reminds me of those heady days of yesteryear.
	Some two years ago this very evening.
	When we were assembled, you three and I, along with our good friend Bill Whittle, and we were first confronting the reality that the President of the United States was a man who had once, in the recent past, bought steaks, written his name in Sharpie on the front, held a press conference, and said that he does, in fact, make Trump steaks.
	And we have some clips from that evening.
	Oh, my gosh.
	I want to remind you of three things.
	First, we'll take this in order.
	First, how long that night was.
	Oh, my God.
	And note how temperate we've been tonight, how little drinking and how little smoking.
	We did not accurately pace ourselves, if you'll recall.
	Who's this we, Jeremy?
	I think we have an example of how I collapsed into drunken stupor as the night went on.
	Can we see that?
	Could you guys throw that up?
	This is...
	You may recall by the end of the night, I was slouched over in my chair.
	It almost looked like I was listening to my shoe, like I was on the phone with someone.
	And I had a shoe phone like on a spy movie, but I didn't go to the trouble of taking the shoe phone off of my foot.
	I just couldn't.
	Collapsed into ruin.
	Not long after this came the moment that Bill Whittle declared, sort of like a preacher at the end of a wedding, I now pronounce it, ladies and gentlemen, please join me, Mr.
	and Mrs.
	Bill Whittle proclaimed the President of the United States with Donald Trump, and it led to this beautiful moment.
	Grace towards Hillary Clinton.
	He's the President.
	He's not trying to get it anymore.
	- Sorry, you're just like.
	- Oh my god, I was in this country. - Oh man.
	- Look how young we were. - I'm really just full of hope and promise. - I actually think Bill was a little offended.
	A little?
	He's not laughing.
	A little?
	No, she's never come back.
	That was 25 years ago today?
	Yeah.
	That was one million news cycles ago.
	In Trump years.
	You remember when that happened?
	There was a guy named Barack Obama who was president of the United States.
	Do you remember a time when there was a guy?
	You might recall.
	He was a black gentleman.
	Like a block?
	Of obsidian.
	You could not scale.
	You could not scale that block.
	No joke could be made.
	And he was, you know, a guy who was president for like eight years.
	Yeah.
	A historic president.
	President of America?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	It's right.
	And then a bunch of shit happened.
	And suddenly, Donald Trump, a host of a show called The Apprentice, was president of the United States.
	And celebrity apprentice.
	And celebrity apprentice.
	He was president of the United States, and he proceeded to spend the next two years obliterating any memory that we all have of this, like men in black.
	It is amazing.
	Like he just went around with the little gun, like with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, just erasing our memories of any time that existed before President Trump It was president, making himself so ubiquitous that folks on the left would see Trump everywhere, like the Virgin Mary in toast.
	They would just see him randomly in clouds, in objects, at night, a shadow on the ceiling.
	There was President Trump.
	And every time they thought about him, his image and his power grew.
	And as that image and that power grew, time warped around the very mass of his manly image.
	And the left began to slowly but surely lose their minds.
	Slowly but surely, things that had heretofore been normal were seen as decadent and terrible.
	Heretofore, things that normal political language was seen as totally off the wall.
	And folks did not remember a time when a man named Barack Obama had done these exact same things and said these exact same things.
	Times had changed.
	Things were different.
	It was as though the universe had collapsed into a small mass, smaller than we could possibly conceive of, and then expanded forth in a burst of bright light, filling up possible universes with a scale of events Too difficult to imagine.
	I remember this, too.
	Yeah, it was this.
	And now here we are.
	Here we are.
	250 years later.
	Thinking back on that time.
	And we haven't aged five days.
	We haven't aged one bit.
	Because this is all a simulation.
	Mm-hmm.
	Can I have the bong, please?
	I think you already had the bong.
	How much do you guys want me to vamp here?
	My god, where are they?
	We are seven minutes from the polls closing in Nevada.
	I feel like that's a good time for a question from a Daily Wire subscriber.
	Colton and or Cassie.
	I can vamp like that all night.
	It's basically like a Rand Paul filibuster.
	Let's talk about drones for 18 hours.
	How's that, guys?
	So we have a question from a subscriber named Dallas.
	He asks...
	You guys hear these questions?
	Yeah.
	I don't hear anything anymore.
	Oh, no.
	What was the question?
	Because you went deaf from aging.
	I'm sorry to tell you about that.
	We'll repeat the question to you.
	So Dallas asks, why is it that Democrats won't separate themselves from anti-Semitic people like Louis Farrakhan?
	How do they benefit from associating with people like him?
	Ah!
	Why won't Democrats separate from anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan?
	Yeah.
	Oh yeah, because Democrats, as Ben said, there is no bottom of the barrel for them.
	The Democrats believe that any group which they might be able to call disenfranchised is a potential voter, and anti-Semites need somebody to vote for too, those poor anti-Semites.
	Now this is the gutter of intersectionality.
	As the only officials you left in the room.
	Yeah.
	The answer to this is that Democrats have a different view of anti-Semitism than what is actually anti-Semitism.
	So anti-Semitism is a giant conspiracy theory about how Jews run the world.
	Sure it's true, but the giant conspiracy theory is that behind every rock and tree lurks a Jew who is running your life and ruining your life in some way or another.
	They're the globalists, but they're also the nationalists in Israel.
	They are the capitalists, but they are also the communists.
	They are legitimately responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened in the history of humanity.
	It's a giant conspiracy theory.
	What is the conspiracy?
	Michael, if this conspiracy were true, you would be out of work so fast it would make your head happen.
	I can't even control my own office.
	I can't even control the company that I run.
	This is why I left Judy.
	Big disappointment.
	I mean, phenomenal cosmic power, itty-bitty living space.
	But the way that Democrats view the problem of anti-Semitism is they see anti-Semitism as just one classification in a broader category called bigotry.
	And because of that, they don't think that anti-Semitism is a conspiracy so much as it is just people don't like Jews in the same way that people don't like blacks or people don't like Hispanics or people don't like women.
	It's just a form of bigotry among all the other bigotries.
	Well, what that really suggests, and their view of bigotry is that bigotry is only power combined with racism.
	The problem with that is once you start saying that racism is in itself, bigotry is in itself, dependent on power hierarchies, which is what the left says.
	They say that racism is dependent on power hierarchies, that racism is a result of imbalances of power that have existed over time.
	People hate black folks because white folks were in charge of the system and therefore directed people to hate blacks.
	People aren't fond of women because it was the patriarchy in charge.
	Well, once you start seeing every bigoted, Sort of phenomenon as a hierarchical structure of power.
	The problem is that Jews are inordinately successful.
	And so this means that anti-Semitism only exists when Jews are also victims.
	It does not exist when Jews are not victims.
	Which is to say in most scenarios.
	Because Jews are not...
	Except when they are victimized.
	Until they are.
	Right?
	So what that means is that the conspiracy theories, which is what anti-Semitism actually is, is actually the mainstream left view of what Jews are in many cases.
	Because Israel is powerful in its region.
	That means that it is a hierarchical power structure that is cramming down on lower down intersectional groups.
	Now that is the exact case that is made by conspiracists.
	The exact case made by anti-Semitic conspiracists is that powerful Jews are in control of less powerful minority groups.
	The left believes that.
	They actually believe that because Jews are the victimizers in the intersectional hierarchy as opposed to other minority groups.
	And so when they look at Muslims, who in this particular case, they've endorsed people like Keith Ellison or Louis Farrakhan, they say those people are victimized by the Jews in exactly the same way that anti-Semites would say that those people are victimized by the Jews.
	So the crossover is actually an identity.
	It's not even a crossover.
	It's an identity in certain belief systems based on a faulty understanding of what anti-Semitism is.
	And, by the way, a faulty understanding of what bigotry is.
	That is an amazing explanation and far better than any I've ever heard articulated.
	I actually think there is a different reason, though.
	We don't often get into this kind of territory rightly in our programming, but since the question's on the table, I think people hate the Jews because God drew a box around them.
	And I think that for this reason, anti-Semitism, unlike other forms of bigotry, exists in a sort of spiritual way among all people.
	So all people who...
	their faith in the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.
	If you reject God, you reject God's peoples.
	I think God drew a box around the Jews to say, not to say you're special, therefore I choose you.
	He said, I choose you, therefore you're special.
	He drew a box, and you're special because of how unspecial you are.
	I'm not saying that God could have drawn a box around any random group of people as an ultimate statement because God did exactly what he did But for the sake of argument, God could have drawn a box around anyone and said, the fact that I'm drawing the box around you makes you an example to everyone of what everyone is.
	So in the Jews you see...
	I think tribalism that in some ways has beauty and merit and in some ways at various times in history can be ugly.
	In the Jews you see great success, especially right now we think of the Jews very successful, the State of Israel, one of the most...
	More venture capital per capita flows into Israel.
	Great inventions in Israel.
	At various times, the most dispossessed people in many places on earth have been Jewish.
	Some of the most religious and pious people have been Jewish.
	Some of the most hateful and rotten people.
	Atheistic people in human history have been Jewish.
	God selected them to teach the whole world about what we are.
	So it's almost like they're the...
	The human example of humans.
	And because we hate everything God tries to teach us, we hate all the lessons that God tries to show us, we reject his people.
	We reject the Jews.
	And the reason that the Democrats in particular struggle with a virulent stream of anti-Semitism in the modern era is because very slowly, since Roe v.
	Wade, the Democrats have deliberately separated themselves as a party from God.
	Very tangibly so.
	They boo God at their national convention.
	They have made a selection after Roe v.
	Wade that they did not want to be the party of people who actively believed in God.
	And so over time, the people who like God's examples all moved over to one party.
	The people who reject God's examples all moved over to one party.
	Am I saying the Republican Party is the party of God?
	No.
	I'm saying that the Republican Party became the bastion Of people who were the people of God over time because the Democrats sort of forced them into that box.
	I think that there were a lot of religious Democrats before Roe v.
	Wade, but after Roe v.
	Wade, it started a process in which it's believing religious people We're sort of pushed out.
	It's particularly, I mean, first of all, there's absolutely no disparity between what you both are saying.
	I agree with both of those entirely.
	The conspiracy is basically the form that this hatred takes.
	That's right.
	There's absolutely no question that even if you took the supernatural out of it, even if you just eliminated the supernatural, there's no question What's fascinating to me and what is so disturbing is that so many of the people preaching materialism,
	preaching, you know, what's the word I want to use, where you can destroy human life because it's It's getting in your way.
	It's not effectual.
	So many of them are Jewish now.
	I've read one book after another of materialist, anti-moral, anti-God books, and every one of them is by a secular Jew, not a Jewish Jew.
	Since the Jews are God's example.
	That's neither a pro or a con.
	They're God's good example at times and God's bad example.
	And I think that speaks also to the fact that if the Jews aren't special, I don't know who is.
	I don't even believe in race as an actual physical manifestation, but the Jews have been formed by history into a unit that That you can't escape, and you can't escape the profundity of what they mean to this culture.
	It is, look, you only have to read Nietzsche to hear Nietzsche say, you know, he's Jews, it's all the problem.
	I would agree with you that you can remove spirituality and still come to the same conclusions about why people hate the Jews.
	That's right.
	But it evidences spirituality to me.
	I think all the proofs of God are negative proofs.
	This is sort of one of them.
	The fact that everyone hates the Jews evidences a spiritual reality to the calling of the Jews, in my estimation.
	And it's also evidence that man rejects...
	We think of man as rational, but man is profoundly irrational.
	The party that prides itself on being the party of reason.
	Isn't trying to emulate the success of the Jewish people in the world, just like they're not trying to emulate the success of free markets in the world.
	The party of reason sees poor people and sees wealthy people and doesn't say we should create systems to help the poor people become wealthy people.
	They say, we should destroy all the processes that led...
	Also, everybody's got to serve somebody, and Vox.com, a mainstream, perhaps the mainstream, left-wing wonky outlet, ran a piece about three weeks ago on why Democrats should practice witchcraft to recover from the Trump phenomenon.
	Everybody's got to serve somebody, and the Jews get singled out because they're the people of God.
	Alicia, over at Alicia's election headquarters, do you have some info for us?
	We do have some info.
	Democrats, of course, as you guys have referenced numerous times, have taken the House, and Nancy Pelosi is super-duper excited about it.
	Races that we are watching here in California, though, to make sure, you know, hopefully the Republicans are able to maintain a couple of seats.
	Specifically, Dana Warbacher and Duncan Hunter.
	The problem with Hunter is, you know, he had allegedly stolen all of that money from his campaign and then he went on Fox News and blamed it on his wife and it was real awkward.
	So, we are waiting on that race and Warbacher down in Orange County is...
	Incredibly close.
	Too close to call right now.
	Overall, places like ABC News and CNN are saying that the Democrats could pick up as many as 35 House seats.
	As you guys referenced earlier, Nancy Pelosi did indeed talk about that, and in her speech she said some pretty interesting things.
	I'm going to toss it to Cassie to give us some interesting quotes.
	So Nancy Pelosi, obviously somebody who doesn't like President Trump, I think she realizes that his messages work.
	So in a speech that she just gave, you know, talking about how the Democrats are taking over the House right now, she actually said that they're going to drain the swamp.
	So Nancy Pelosi says that the Democrats will drain the swamp.
	Very interesting coming from her.
	Yeah.
	And then moving along to the Senate, we have Kathy Griffin freaking out over Beto Herbe.
	Yeah, Kathy Griffin, honestly, her entire timeline is filling this Tumblr right here.
	I'm going to need another one.
	So let's just read a few things coming from her.
	So she actually quote tweeted the tweet I read earlier from President Trump where he said it was a tremendous success.
	Thank you all.
	She quote tweeted it and she said, you are such a delusional...
	And then the C word that makes women uncomfortable that I don't think I should say on air...
	She also said that the Green Party is screwing over democracy again, so she's not happy with you third-party voters.
	She also had a tweet about an hour ago saying F Ted Cruz, so not happy with Ted Cruz either.
	And she's also calling for a recount in Florida.
	So Kathy Griffin's not doing too great right now.
	We'll see how she is later on, considering the Democrats are looking like they're getting the House.
	But as of now, her Twitter feed is pretty ridiculous.
	But I thought all of those celebrities telling us to get out and vote was supposed to mean something.
	I mean, Taylor Swift helped in Tennessee, right?
	I mean, I think they lost, what, 20%?
	Yeah.
	We'll have to wait and see.
	Speaking of recounts, it looks as if the Wisconsin gubernatorial race there might end up going to a recount.
	We have 88% reporting.
	Ben mentioned this briefly earlier.
	22% left.
	The 22%, though, some strategists and pollsters within the state are saying that those precincts within the state of Wisconsin, they think actually might go to Scott Walker, Evers right now 49.3%, to Walker's 48%.
	All in all, they're saying that maybe Walker could be up 3,000 votes, but this is going to go to a recount, which is just fascinating because I think everyone expected this lull and this wait and this back and forth for the great state of Georgia, but we did not expect this for Wisconsin tonight.
	Some people were saying Evers was in it for an easy win, but Scott Walker, much like many of the times he's been recalled and gone against the teachers' unions and left his...
	He's putting up a fight.
	And he's hanging on for dear life there.
	That guy has been through so many races.
	So here in California, fortunately, as Michael Knowles and many of us other conservatives call him, we have Governor Moonbeam.
	Jerry Brown, he's not the greatest.
	And we also have some interesting propositions.
	But we're not the only state with interesting propositions.
	A lot of other states have had some interesting propositions.
	Some good, some bad.
	And our very own Colton Haas is going to tell us about those.
	One of the most exciting ones has to be, the one that has actually passed, we've got the numbers in, it's passed by 59.5%, and with 811,000 votes, that's with 85 reporting.
	It is Alabama Amendment 2, which recognizes fetal rights.
	So what that means is an amendment to the Alabama Constitution that declares the state's policy to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life, which is a huge move to actually enshrine that in a state's constitution.
	Sounds like they're going to take advantage of us having a conservative Supreme Court justice and try bringing Roe v.
	Wade back to the court.
	Well, and so does it actually give a point of viability or what is the specificity of the proposition?
	I'm not 100% sure on the specificity, but it states including the right to life, all manners and measures appropriate and lawful.
	It may go into more specifics when they actually hash it out, but as far as I can tell from here, it's sort of a broad statement.
	So, big debate in our office earlier today for us California voters was to vote or not to vote for daylight savings time changes.
	How did you guys vote?
	Well, I sent an absentee ballot in Massachusetts, so I didn't get to vote on this, but I got to vote against Elizabeth Warren, and it was probably the best vote I've ever casted.
	Honestly, I'm fine how it is.
	I mean, I don't like the change of it.
	I don't want to be like Arizona.
	There's lots of things I love about Arizona, including your new senator.
	But I don't know.
	It's so confusing.
	Let's just stick with everybody else.
	In addition to that, if the proposition did pass, it just means that it's going to go to the state legislature and they need to pass two-thirds in order for this to continue.
	And Congress has to vote on it too, people.
	So all of you anti-daylight savings time people...
	Even if this proposition passes, which we will find out in the next couple of hours, sorry, I don't know that Congress is going to be okay with this.
	And we will be updating you guys on those California races, and we're still waiting with bated breath for that Senate race in Nevada.
	The polls are trickling in, but we've only got about 8% to 9% reporting right now.
	The government doesn't get to make up what time it is.
	Well, they ruined my week.
	So earlier, I suggested that looking at the popular vote could be an indicator for Trump 2020.
	If you do look at the popular vote across the nation in the House races, what you see is that the Democrats have won 37 million votes thus far.
	That does not count all the California votes which are going to come in, and those are going to break heavy for Democrat.
	Republicans have about 30 million.
	So, you know, the Republicans have some strength in places like Florida and Ohio, and to underestimate, that's a mistake.
	With that said, they have some real challenges in a presidential race.
	I mean, the Democrats are showing up in large numbers.
	They're showing up largely outside.
	There's a world where...
	The results of 2016 become a non-outlier, where you do see these huge gaps between popular vote totals and electoral vote totals.
	You could see a situation where Trump wins again Florida and Ohio very, very narrowly, and presumably he'd have to win Iowa and Texas and all those states.
	And Democrats just clean up on the coast.
	And it's not a three-point gap.
	It's a seven-point gap.
	And Trump is still pulling out the race.
	I think it's safe to say that no matter what Trump does, because of his personality, that it's still going to depend on who the Democrat is and what the Democrat Party is doing.
	It's not going to be a race.
	He does have a ceiling.
	He has a ceiling of support.
	But Democrats are going to be careful here.
	So Nancy Pelosi is already saying that she is not in favor of impeachment.
	So she is actually acting more like a responsible party than you would have thought that she would.
	But then the issue you brought up before, does she have control of her party, and will she be able to keep them?
	Well, I mean, she'll be able to keep them from actually flooring an impeachment vote.
	It's going to, I mean, the majority ain't that large.
	They can lose enough votes off of that.
	She says, of course, a lot depends on what happens in the Mueller investigation, but, you know, that's...
	That's the next big thing, right?
	That's supposed to happen this month.
	This month.
	Because the news cycle does not end.
	It just doesn't.
	We haven't talked much about Mueller.
	He rightly held off.
	He didn't follow the Comey playbook.
	He held off.
	Did you see him knocking on doors, James Comey?
	Worst trick-or-treating ever.
	We don't want any.
	There's a man dressed up as James Comey.
	As a corrupt FBI agent.
	But no, I think that Mueller did the right thing.
	He held off, and now we're going to find out.
	I cannot imagine, I cannot imagine him bringing in any kind of real-life verdict that says that Trump colluded with the Russians.
	I can imagine him pushing an obstruction of justice charge, but it would be a stretch.
	I can imagine...
	The possibility of him bringing a charge that someone colluded with the Russians, though.
	The rumor is DJT, right?
	DJT Jr.
	Okay.
	Is the rumor.
	The hot rumor is basically that Donald Trump Jr.
	is going to be the one who's caught up in all of this because of the Trump Tower meeting.
	And because of his associations with folks like Roger Stone.
	But, you know, we'll have to see what comes out from all this.
	Again, I think that unless you have just a clear, clear smoking gun, then none of this matters.
	It's all baked in.
	Oh my God.
	I said this on my show.
	Which is because his Justice Department was so corrupt.
	Corrupt, exactly.
	It's because Eric Holder called himself your wingman and because he was held in contempt by Congress and you used executive privilege to shield him.
	Exactly.
	That Lois Werner wasn't indicted.
	His argument should be, we were so corrupt.
	Well, this is the part...
	This is the part that's really insulting, is the Democrats saying we have to restore oversight to Donald Trump.
	His own DOJ, Jeff Sessions, he's at war with his own DOJ, but he has not fired his attorney general.
	Jeff Sessions is an honest man.
	For all the crap that Jeff Sessions has taken, that dude is honest, and he has gone after people inside the Republican Party.
	That is something that no Democrat would do.
	And I've been so sick over the last couple of years of hearing Democrats rant on and on about how Republicans have no standards because they elected Donald Trump.
	We lost the seat in Alabama because we had standards.
	A bunch of us stayed home in 2016 because we didn't like Trump.
	And the fact is that it is Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump's appointee, who has not done anything to stop the Rod Rosenstein investigation and the Mueller investigation.
	And Trump hasn't fired him.
	And Trump hasn't fired him.
	So all of this is just a bunch of garbage.
	The idea that government is in the hands of corrupt cronies who are twisting it to their nefarious ends, the evidence of that is just not there.
	It's just not there.
	And, you know, it is interesting.
	I do think that sessions may quietly slip away after this election, but still.
	Well, since we kept the Senate, I think we'll see over the next three months quite a lot of turnover in the administration.
	Sure, of course.
	But that's kind of typical.
	If we had lost the Senate, it would have been much more difficult for people to go home.
	Right.
	By the way, I just got the most important election update.
	I know some people care because the Republicans gained in the Senate.
	Drumroll.
	Yeah, some people care.
	You know, Democrats won the House.
	None of that matters.
	My Aunt Tricia, Tricia Fidrich, just won a seat on the Beaufort County School Board.
	There you go.
	Congratulations, Aunt Tricia.
	All right.
	That's the only...
	I mean, I'm glad.
	If we had lost the Senate, maybe, then I... The future of the Republican state.
	I know, that's right.
	Everything is good.
	We're fine.
	This is fine, dog, Jeff.
	So, again, Nancy Pelosi, target of opportunity for President Trump.
	It's not going to be bad for him.
	It's not going to be bad for him.
	No.
	So I want to look again at the electoral map in in 2016, because I'm curious to see which states Trump could still lose and maintain.
	Right.
	Because Obama did that.
	Right.
	Obama lost a bunch of states in 2012 that he had won in 2008.
	And he still maintained his majority because he had won so broadly in 2008.
	So if you he won 306 electoral votes.
	What is it, 272 to win?
	270 to win.
	So let's assume for a second that he loses the states that he lost tonight, which would be Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
	So that would be 36 seats, 46 seats.
	You know, he still pulls it off.
	So if he only loses those three states and he pulls off Ohio and Florida, then he is fine.
	The Florida win was big.
	I mean, that was really big tonight.
	I think a lot of us were not expecting it.
	I was not expecting it.
	I thought we were touched in Florida.
	In Florida.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Oh, it's huge.
	Yeah, that's right.
	So it would be even tighter, though.
	I mean, if he loses 46 seats off that total, then he wins with...
	Well, let's see.
	If he loses 46 seats off of 306, then he loses re-election.
	That's 260 total.
	Right?
	So that means as the night progresses, my math skills deplete.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So Trump is going to need to win one of Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania in order to maintain the presidency.
	That's a problem.
	Michigan's possible.
	Michigan is...
	Possible, but unlikely, given the results of tonight's race.
	He did not maintain Senate seats in Michigan.
	He lost House seats in Michigan.
	Pennsylvania is a big boo-boo, right?
	I mean, Pennsylvania started to fall apart for him, and Wisconsin is a problem for him.
	So, as things stand, yes, Ohio and Florida are good for Trump, but there is a world where that's not good enough.
	He needs to win one of Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin.
	well, we can celebrate a lot of these big wins.
	He's not holding enough of the firewall necessary to win re-election if you were to take the races tonight as a bellwether indicator.
	And you've got to just think of the prospective candidates against him in those exact places, in Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin.
	You know, the Wisconsin, I mean, we'll see what happens in that governor's race, but there are other factors here.
	Scott Walker's been around for a long time.
	Trump wasn't on the ballot.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	But when you put another Democrat candidate, Kamala Harris or somebody, up against it, maybe the calculation changes.
	And that's why I say that Joe Biden still has a lot of weight.
	Because Joe Biden is the guy, of all the people we've mentioned, who is most likely to do damage in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.
	Elizabeth Warren could often do damage there.
	He's also inauthentic.
	He plays authentic on TV. Democrats don't find him inauthentic.
	We find him inauthentic because we have brains.
	But Democrats find him inauthentic.
	That's the other thing.
	He's a dope.
	Yeah, it's...
	2020 is going to be a dogfight, man.
	It's going to be really interesting.
	And the presidential election starts literally tomorrow.
	That's right.
	Get your rest tonight and prepare because tomorrow they'll launch their campaigns.
	Kasich's saying he's going to run independent.
	I don't think anybody primary is Trump.
	You don't think Egg McMuffin?
	Who cares?
	Who cares?
	That's how I feel about him and the Hamburglar.
	I mean, like, whatever.
	Will Kasich get one single vote?
	I mean, does anybody?
	Is there a draft Kasich campaign?
	Kasich is living in his imagination.
	But here's where he could do damage, right?
	Kasich runs third party.
	He's in Ohio.
	He takes away just enough votes that Trump loses Ohio.
	Election over.
	Yeah.
	And that's Kasich's job, right?
	I mean, Kasich literally spent the last election cycle making Trump the nominee by refusing to get out of the race and splitting the vote at Cruz.
	So he has no problem doing that.
	This is why I say that while I am very happy about the wins in places like Florida and Georgia and Texas and Ohio tonight, I'm very happy about all of those.
	The warning signals are out there.
	I mean, the writing is on the wall a little bit here.
	Something has to change between now and 2020 for Trump to—we can't keep going and playing the same playbook.
	Something actually does have to change between now and 2020, unless the Democrats make a huge boo-boo and just nominate somebody completely unpalatable.
	But again, the question isn't will they nominate somebody completely unpalatable.
	The question is, is there a human being as unpalatable as Hillary Clinton in a world where no one thought that Donald Trump was going to win?
	There were two factors that played in 2016.
	Hillary Clinton was a garbage candidate and also literally no one, including Donald Trump, except for Scott Adams, thought that Donald Trump was going to win that election.
	And that meant that Democrats didn't show up to vote.
	Democrats will show up to vote next time because he's on the ballot and he won last time.
	And so they are not going to stay home.
	There's two years to go and two years for Democrats to do the kinds of things that they've been doing.
	If they learn their lesson and they moderate, It's going to be a different world.
	But if they learn their lesson to moderate, it's literally going to be a different world.
	It's not going to be the world that we live in.
	They may legitimately suppress their own voter turnout by not impeaching the president.
	This is what happens when your party is enslaved to its base.
	People get disenchanted.
	We gave you guys the House.
	You didn't do anything with it.
	Yeah, that's right.
	It's, again, you know, I think that we on the right have gotten used to being a little bit sanguine because the last couple of years have been pretty good.
	But, you know, I'm old enough to remember in 2004 when I thought Republicans were never going to lose again.
	Because I was so ecstatic about, I mean, we'd won three straight elections.
	I figured the Democrats were on the ropes.
	It was the middle of a war and Democrats were saying borderline unpatriotic things about the war.
	And in 2006, they swept back in, and in 2008, they wiped us out.
	So I'm not sanguine at all.
	No, no, no.
	Well, you know, who is it who said there's two kinds of races?
	You run scared or you run unopposed.
	And I think that's right.
	You know, that's right.
	It's always like this in America.
	It really is.
	It goes back and forth.
	Nobody is ever secure.
	Whenever I hear somebody say, is this the end of the Democrat Party?
	I always think, no.
	Is this the end of the Republican Party?
	No.
	But the one, you know...
	They were promising us a wave election.
	Yeah.
	We got a weird election.
	We got a pretty weird election.
	It's not a wave election.
	But you cannot call it a wave election.
	Yeah.
	Even in the House.
	No, no, no.
	Maybe 34, 32 to whatever seats.
	Can't call that a wave.
	It's not a wave.
	It is the map.
	And that, you know, this matters.
	It matters because of all the stuff that's been said about Donald Trump, the incredible united effort of, just think how much of the communication network the left owns, the united effort by that communication network, Hollywood, the Academy, the news media, to portray Trump as Adolf Hitler, and the map one.
	They voted the map.
	And that's just telling you something, that this voice that's out there, which I believe has a long-term effect and I believe is really destructive, I believe has created most of the dissension and division in America.
	People have caught on, and Trump has won that battle to some extent.
	And you're absolutely right.
	Has he won the electoral battle?
	That's still up in the air.
	But he has won the cultural battle in a big way.
	Something interesting that no one's talked about yet.
	Is there anything left?
	Yeah, I was just going to say the same thing.
	How could there be anything?
	Steve Bannon.
	Steve Bannon's doing election coverage tonight with Gateway Pundit over at the site.
	And listen, obviously the internet's a big deal.
	We make internet all day.
	I like the internet.
	So I'm not poo-pooing another man's website.
	But isn't it interesting that the guy who was sort of...
	Two years ago, if you go back just a little bit in time, the guy who was sort of being heralded as this mastermind, this new, the Karl Rove for the new era, chief strategist to the president, CEO of the campaign, if you'd ever even heard of that.
	That the very next election, after running a campaign that saw his guy elected president of the United States, isn't even phoning in coverage to Fox News.
	Has there been a political collapse like that?
	But this is, again, evidence that the gap between Trump not president and Trump president is massive.
	Yeah.
	This is why when Jeremy was saying earlier, our decision in 2016 was based on the evidence at hand.
	The evidence at hand was Steve Bannon was the campaign chairman.
	That's right.
	But I mean, one of the things you have to remember about Trump, and this is, again, to his credit, as far as I'm concerned, is that the establishment Republicans would not join his campaign.
	He gathered together the people who would come with him, and then he got rid of them.
	I agree with this.
	Like Michael Corleone.
	This is the point that I'm making, is that Trump, as president, In policy terms and in staffing terms has not been Trump as candidate.
	That's right.
	It is a different human.
	It's night and day.
	The upgrades in the administration, every step of the way, the administration has gotten better.
	In voting for Donald Trump, I was absolutely convinced that he was better than Hillary Clinton.
	I in no way expected him to be as good as he's been.
	And to some degree, he's been forced into that corner by the resistance.
	That's true.
	But I know very few people who predicted that President Trump would be this good in office.
	Ridiculous, yeah.
	No one did.
	I was hemming and hawing.
	Yeah, no.
	I was, like, hoping he wasn't Hitler.
	That was my vote.
	I hope you're not Hitler.
	I vote for you.
	Also, one of the real concerns about him, personality-wise, was that the rumor was that he was a real micromanager.
	And it turns out that he's a micromanager about the things he cares about, like his Twitter.
	When it comes to, you know, national policy, then he is far from a national...
	But this is, you know, promises made, promises kept.
	One of the things he said is, you know, yeah, I don't know how to be president, but I'm going to appoint the best people.
	Ultimately, he did.
	He did appoint some of the best people.
	And he keeps picking better people.
	I mean, to be fair, after all the worst people quit or got indicted, but yes.
	Michael Cohen was a member of his administration.
	No, but truly, that's exactly right.
	He got it wrong, and then he got it right.
	He was the personal lawyer who was also the head of the RNC Finance.
	He was one of the co-chairmen.
	It was like, there were three RNC Finance chairpeople, and two of them ended up indicted.
	It's not great.
	It wasn't the best.
	I have to say, I heard a comedian at the comedy store a few weeks ago.
	She was not fond of our president.
	But she had a great line about how Donald Trump promised he was going to pick all the best people.
	But so far, the only one who seems qualified for their job is Stormy Daniels.
	Yeah, there's the best people.
	That was good casting.
	But I mean, when you think about who's in there now, Mike Pompeo, great job.
	John Bolton.
	John Bolton, you know.
	Mattis.
	Certainly Mattis.
	He's been there from the beginning, too.
	Yeah, that's right.
	He's my favorite.
	I mean, he's the guy who bites the heads off chickens.
	If chickens are Muslim, he bites them.
	Oh, that's no good.
	Can we at least say radical Muslim?
	Radical Muslim.
	That's what I meant.
	Radical.
	I don't know, radical.
	The guy who surprises me the most, though, is Kelly.
	Oh, yeah.
	Three days don't go by in a row where there isn't some story about John Kelly hates the president.
	John Kelly punches a guy in the Oval Office.
	Secret Service called.
	Secret Service punched in the Oval Office.
	Basically, John Kelly's tenure is like the end of this broadcast.
	It's like running out of steam.
	What do I have to do to get some Dean Heller results around here?
	I can't believe there's nothing yet coming out of the box.
	What the actual F, man.
	Like, some results.
	Please.
	I mean, this is...
	We've run out of all the topics.
	So, what are you guys watching on Netflix?
	Oh, Fauda.
	Are you watching Fauda?
	No.
	Fauda is, oh, it's an amazing show.
	It's about...
	It's an Israeli show.
	It's an Israeli show.
	The Yudin.
	Oh, it's amazing, though, about the Israeli intelligence services.
	It's great.
	It's 24, but with Israelis and Palestinian terrorists.
	Yeah, it's fabulous.
	Although I will say that they do make kind of the modern TV writer's mistake, which is they keep trying to humanize terrorists in a way that I find off-putting.
	But then they kill them.
	That's fair.
	Spoiler alert.
	When they do that, they always make it our fault that they're terrorists.
	They never humanize them.
	They never humanize them by saying, oh, they have motives and a philosophy.
	They side with the good guys.
	Yeah, but they do this routine where it's like, This person's a really good person, except that her husband got killed by Israelis in a firefight.
	I will say that you recommended this Tom Clancy show, and I'm really enjoying it.
	Yeah, Jack Ryan, it's good.
	Is it really?
	It's not like the most intelligent show, but it's fun.
	In fact, once you get through the verbiage that they use, the plots are basically like, I have some intelligence on a computer, let's go blow up the fourth arrondissement in Paris.
	That's right.
	They have a little bit of plot and then they just blow things up.
	It is reminiscent of 24 just without the ticking clock.
	That's a fun show.
	He's good, the actor.
	I have to say I was disappointed by the last season of Man in the High Castle.
	I don't know if you guys have watched it.
	It's gotten very slow.
	And it's not...
	There's basically only one interesting storyline, which is irritating, which is about the head Nazi guy who was an American soldier and then ends up being kind of recruited in.
	So watch that.
	Billions...
	Oh, I've seen every episode.
	Billions is enjoyable.
	It got worse in season two, and then it got better again in season three.
	And after a while, it gets very self-aware and lots of fun.
	I mean, it's just like the writers start to sort of wink at the audience, and it really is fun.
	Have you guys seen South Side with you on Netflix?
	Barack Obama and Michelle.
	You know, the show the bodyguard isn't bad.
	It's politics are all messed up.
	And I'm not sure if the plot's going to make sense.
	It's one of those things where I think, like, this is either going to be a great, they're going to turn this around and it's going to work.
	But the actor is great and the setup is great, which is basically this guy with this veteran...
	It's a British show.
	This veteran with PTSD is assigned to guard this hawkish politician, this hawkish MP. So he hates her, but she's attractive and he likes her too.
	It's kind of fun.
	Apparently Beto O'Rourke just dropped an F-bomb on national TV. I saw that, yeah.
	I'm so effing proud of you guys.
	That's how you know that they're really serious.
	That's right.
	That's when it was an affing big deal.
	All those podcasters on the left.
	Henry also says he's calling Governor Scott Walker.
	He says Scott Walker's going to win.
	Calling it on what basis?
	He says, I'm going to bet out on a limb, but I'm calling Wisconsin Governor for Scott Walker.
	Well, that would be a good thing.
	Everett has been averaging a bit over 600 votes lead per precinct in Dane, Madison, but there are only 11 left.
	Walker has lots of votes yet to report in rural areas in the Fox River Valley.
	He's predicting Walker by 12,000 to 25,000 votes.
	Wow.
	Well, that is a big thing because Wisconsin obviously is crucial.
	And what would that set up?
	What would that set up, guys?
	That would set up a 270 win for President Trump.
	That's right.
	That would mean that he would finish with 200.
	If he wins Wisconsin, but he loses Pennsylvania and Michigan, he wins with 270 electoral votes.
	Because that's the only way this can go.
	That's the only way this can go, right?
	The only way this can go is that he wins the presidency.
	If you had to have 271, I would have gotten 271.
	I just want to...
	I don't want a second backstage in a row to go by where I don't say the show that I like.
	Because you guys remember favorite western episode and I never got to talk about my favorite western.
	Because you guys suck.
	I have been watching a show not on Netflix.
	I've been watching an actual network television show.
	I have not watched a network television show and enjoyed it.
	I mean, I have some guilty pleasures that are like TNT. I like to watch Last Ship.
	And it's not that Last Ship's a great show, but like Adam Baldwin's there.
	There's an American flag.
	But there's a show on CBS in its second season right now called Seal Team with David Boreanaz.
	And I have to say, it's the best show on network TV that I've seen in 10 years.
	It portrays these special operators.
	It's unflinching for a network show.
	It's so masculine, but it doesn't glorify...
	It's not rah-rah.
	It's not...
	What was that great movie where they used actual bullets and actual Navy SEALs?
	Yeah, yeah.
	What was that called?
	I saw that.
	It was actually pretty good.
	It was enjoyable, but it was also like...
	Bleeding red meat.
	And SEAL Team isn't that.
	It's trying to take a pretty honest look at these guys, what motivates them, the toll it takes on their family, the difficulty of their situation, but while honoring them.
	So it's not like you don't get to the end of an episode and it's like, oh, but they're just cogs of the evil man.
	In fact, at the end of season one, you thought maybe it was going that way.
	It really seemed like they were setting up this story arc where, oh yeah, but the Americans are really the bad guys.
	And then it doesn't.
	Because it's just a subtle, complex show.
	And David Boreanaz, who's been on TV since Drew was a kid, and still looks...
	He's the guy from, what should we call him?
	Bones, Angel, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
	I mean, he's literally been on TV forever.
	But he always plays these characters who are flawed but masculine, flawed but male.
	And they have the kind of strength of classic male characters.
	It's a lot like watching...
	An old western, a real old western as opposed to a modern interpretation of an old western, where the masculine character is hard to like sometimes.
	And I feel like in all of his roles, he does that.
	He brings this real masculinity.
	He makes hard calls.
	You don't always like him.
	He's not always friendly.
	He's not always nice.
	But you wish you were a lot more like him.
	And so it's rare to recommend a...
	A network TV show.
	It's rare to recommend a CBS TV show.
	But if you guys haven't watched this, I think it's the best thing.
	I'm going to give you the worst case scenario because this is now fun for me.
	The worst case scenario for 2020.
	Are you ready for this?
	Because this is actually realistic.
	President Trump wins Wisconsin, loses Pennsylvania and Michigan, which I think at this point is maybe the most likely scenario, right?
	And he loses all four electoral votes in Maine.
	Remember, he split those three one. - That's right. - And then you have a 269, 269 electoral tie.
	- Oh, great. - And then it is kicked to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, to select the President of the United States.
	And get payback for Bush v.
	Gore 2000.
	That's how they'll frame it.
	They will go back in time.
	Yep.
	That's true.
	Yep.
	Well...
	I want President Pelosi.
	In that case, I want...
	You have a demented imagination.
	So I operate under the rule.
	What is the most chaotic thing?
	That could happen.
	Whatever's the most chaotic thing that could happen, that's what's actually going to happen.
	And so far, this has served me well ever since 2016, because that has been actually what has basically happened.
	Do we have any returns from Nevada?
	No, everybody in Nevada went to sleep.
	They're like, we're going to punk the rest of the country.
	We're going to sleep.
	They'll count them tomorrow.
	In what is going to be a headline for sure, NBC News projects Steve King wins re-election in Iowa.
	Obviously, they're going to play that up, because King has made some pretty...
	Significantly ridiculous comments in a variety of settings.
	But he did win.
	He did win.
	Very, very slim.
	Very slim.
	Part of it though is because the people who know Steve King know that he's not a racist.
	And because it's a local race, it's a congressional district race, the people there probably know him.
	And they probably feel the same way that we feel when King has some of these moments where you're like, Buddy, why do you make it so hard to convince people of what we know, which is that you are not a racist?
	That you're not only racially insensitive, but he's situationally insensitive?
	He's cloddish.
	I honestly think he'd probably do the country a favor if he found some way to retire and let that seat kick to...
	He is not what they accuse him of being, but he is a liability.
	So, so far, my forecast looks the best, right?
	House D plus 35.
	So I hit that one spot on.
	Yeah.
	But our victory in the Senate is...
	R plus 4 is bigger than I thought it would be.
	I said R plus 1.
	Is this thing R plus 4 right now?
	That is what Henry Olsen is saying.
	He's saying R plus 4.
	Fox News is projecting R plus 4.
	So, that is a good thing.
	Keith Ellison won the Minnesota Attorney General race, which is just perfect.
	Because what you want a dude in charge of your law enforcement agencies in Minnesota, whose ex-girlfriend alleges that he beat her up, and also who is a rabid anti-Semite associated with Louis Farrakhan.
	If it were just one, I would say no, but since it's both, I think.
	Best headline of the night.
	Once again, Keith Ellison beat someone.
	Solid headline.
	That's Jim Garrity over at National Review.
	Here's what we're going to do because the evening has waned upon us.
	We're going to take one last question because I want to let the evening end with the people who paid us to be here.
	That's the people who are paying $99 a year or $10 a month.
	To be subscribers over at DailyWire.com.
	If we happen to get a Nevada result while we're answering this question, we'll be glad to bring that to you.
	If not, you can tune in tomorrow morning to the Ben Shapiro Show, the Andrew Klavan Show, the Michael Knowles Show, or stop by DailyWire.com, and we will have this information.
	But believe me, the version of us that is still here 30 minutes from now, you do not want to tune in to.
	Colton, serve up one last fabulous question.
	Sure thing.
	So this question is from Garrett, and he asks, if the Democratic Party became the best version of itself, what would that look like?
	The Libertarian Party.
	To a certain extent, that's kind of right.
	On social issues, the Democrats were always saying, get people out of your bedroom.
	And I'm pretty much on board with that.
	And if they could get over the fact that they despise unborn children, then that would be helpful as well.
	The truth is, the Democratic Party's best version of itself was basically JFK 1960.
	Which is the Republican Party today, basically.
	Right.
	And I think the Republican Party's best version of itself is not the Democratic Party of 1960.
	I think that it's something that we haven't actually seen yet, which suggests that the entire spectrum needs to shift radically in a different direction.
	I mean, I think, look, I think the Democrats have served a purpose, which is to point out problems.
	There's one thing that the Republicans do not do, is they won't move until they're forced to move by Democrats making a stupid mistake.
	We're finally talking about health care because Obama destroyed the health care system.
	But the health care system was suffering.
	It didn't need reform.
	And so now the Republicans are tasked with the problem of how do you make free market reforms?
	Without the House of Representatives.
	Well, that we're not going to do, yeah.
	Even though we didn't have that, I mean, without even being able to access the House of Representatives, because we've had it for two years, and they didn't have the balls to do anything with health care.
	Well, I mean, John McCain, may he rest in peace, you know, like, provided that vote that made it impossible to get rid of Obamacare, at which point they would have had to start instituting reforms because of the old system.
	I just don't think so.
	I am not a fan of the current nature of the legislature.
	I don't think they go near healthcare.
	I don't think that Republicans will make it better for fear of making it worse.
	I don't think they'll make entitlements better for fear of making it worse.
	These are all third rails.
	And healthcare is now an entitlement.
	Republicans have just ceded that ground.
	They don't like Obamacare because they don't like Obama.
	But the question of what would a good Democrat party look like, it is a party that says, you know, here's a problem, there's a problem, now fix it.
	It also, it needs to stop being so anti-patriotic and so anti-God.
	Oh, God.
	Those two things are really so toxic about the Democrats.
	They can be liberal.
	They can be on the left.
	They were liberal and on the left for a very long time.
	But it's that anti-protesting the flag, booing God.
	There's something so toxic and wicked about that that you end up at this bizarre farce with Fox.com suggesting witchcraft.
	And that is radical and really bad for the country because they start hating their fellow countries.
	It's who they really are.
	It is who they are.
	Yeah.
	So here's where we are and where we're going to end.
	We have the Republicans have certainly held on to the Senate.
	The question is, did they pick up three seats or did they pick up four?
	The Democrats have flipped the House of Representatives, not in a complete blue wave of historic proportion.
	But certainly in a meaningful way, the question is, will they get 32, 33, 34, as many as 35 seats?
	We will have the answers to those questions tomorrow and to the bigger questions.
	What does this mean for the future of Donald Trump's agenda?
	And let's not forget, if you think that the excitement is over, the 2020 presidential election officially starts by the time we all wake up tomorrow.
	So come see us over at thedailywire.com and thank you for sticking it out with us this evening.

▲