Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 25, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show

51:26

Ep. 455 - The Democrats Have Nothing

A new poll shows Trump earning 34% support from black voters. Meanwhile, impeachment hearings wind down, Ruth Bader Ginsburg winds up in the hospital, and another 2020 Democrat enters the race. Then, Harvard and Yale students interrupt the big football game to protest climate change, and the NYT gives us the dumbest article on the Internet today. Date: 11-25-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	President Trump's support among black voters tops 34% in a new Emerson poll, a shocking number that shockingly fits in among several other polls, showing uncommonly high non-white support for the Republican president.
	This is bad news for Democrats as impeachment hearings wind down, liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg winds up in the hospital, and even more Democratic candidates Unbelievably, enter the 2020 presidential race.
	Despite the constant negative press, one thing seems clear going into 2020.
	The Democrats have nothing.
	Then, Harvard and Yale students interrupt the big football game to protest climate change or something.
	And Ta-Nehisi Coates, writing in the New York Times about Colin Kaepernick, gives us the dumbest article on the internet today.
	today.
	I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles show.
	A lot to get to and all of the stories back up and sort of prove things that I've been saying for weeks.
	So we have to get to them, because you know how much I hate to say I told you so.
	We will be saying that a lot today.
	Some very, very good news for conservatives on the political front.
	First, I've got to thank our friends over at Ring.
	You know how much I love Ring.
	Why?
	Two reasons.
	One, Ring makes me feel safe.
	Makes me feel like sweet little Elisa is safe.
	And two, Ring makes me feel like a real cool guy because I feel like I'm living in the future.
	This season can be a whirlwind of deliveries, visitors, and holiday travel.
	So it is the best time of the year to upgrade your doorbell and keep an eye on your home no matter where the holidays take you.
	Ring helps you stay connected to your home from anywhere.
	And I mean anywhere.
	So you can be in your bedroom and keep an eye on who's coming up to your door, who wants to get in, who wants to drop off a package or whatever.
	You can also be on a beach.
	You can also be at the office.
	You can also be on another continent.
	You can do it from anywhere.
	So if there is a package delivery or a surprise visitor, let's say your mother-in-law.
	You will be able to see, hear, and speak to them all from your phone.
	So if it's a delivery guy, you can say, okay, put the package down there.
	Alright, thanks very much.
	And if it's your mother-in-law, you can stay perfectly silent and hope that she doesn't think that you're home.
	If you're on the go this season, whether it's across town or across the country, you can check in any time for some much-needed holiday peace of mind.
	I really like it.
	You know, I travel a lot.
	I'm on the road going to a lot of different schools and colleges and speaking events.
	Sweet LaLise is a pretty good shot.
	I definitely wouldn't mess with her when she's got a firearm in her hands, but I want to feel extra safe.
	I want to know who is coming up to my door.
	And what's great is because of the two-way audio and video and because it uploads to the cloud, even if the burglar steals your ring, you'll be able to see the video and send it around to your neighbors and know...
	Who is coming to your house?
	As a listener, you have a special holiday offer on a Ring Starter Kit available right now.
	With a Ring video doorbell 2 and motion-activated floodlight camera, the Starter Kit has everything you need to start building a Ring of Security around your home, no matter what this holiday season brings.
	With Ring, you are always home.
	Just go to ring.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
	That is ring.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
	Additional terms may apply.
	All right.
	We've got a lot to get to here.
	Big, big polling news.
	And I think all of it combines the 30,000-foot takeaway.
	The Democrats have nothing.
	They've been blustering and blustering and blustering with impeachment, with the election, with everything, with the polling, with the demographics, with the suburban, with alt-right, and it just appears that they have nothing.
	I'm not saying that Democrats won't win in 2020.
	They might.
	But what I am saying is that the Democrats don't think that they're going to win in 2020.
	Why?
	Some really, really bad news came in yesterday for them.
	Trump is doing historically well among non-white voters, according to polls.
	Now, I want to remind you, some people said months and months ago, and now I guess years ago, Trump is doing well among black voters and Hispanic voters.
	I was one of those people.
	Candace Owens was one of those people.
	And the left and the independents and the really smart guys on TV in the jackets and ties who know everything better than we all do, they said that's a joke, that's a farce, there's no way Trump is gaining any support among minority voters, you're just imagining it, it's wishful thinking.
	And I kept an open mind, I said, okay, I guess we'll see how it plays out closer to the election.
	Turns out, according to multiple polls, Trump's support among non-white voters is terrible.
	Significant.
	I mean, much, much higher than usual.
	That's not to say he's even close to getting a majority of non-white support, because historically that's just not what happens for Republicans.
	But he's doing very well.
	So according to this new poll from Emerson, Trump has 34.5% support among black registered voters.
	During the Obama era, 90%, 92% voted for Barack Obama.
	And historically speaking, it's upwards of 90% that vote for the Democratic candidate.
	85-90% and then maybe 10% votes for the Republicans.
	This is in 2016.
	Compared to 2016, we've got 8% black support for Trump.
	Now it's up possibly to 34.5%.
	You should take the poll a little bit with a grain of salt.
	This was a poll of 1,092 registered voters, but it was taken just this month, November 17th to the 20th.
	The same poll taken last month showed that Trump's support was 17.8% among blacks.
	So it's increased pretty dramatically.
	Why could that have happened?
	Well, one, we've seen a lot of Trump in the impeachment hearings, and impeachment hasn't really shown any new information.
	It's the same phone call.
	You got a lot of people.
	The key witnesses were brought in front of Congress, and they said that there was no quid pro quo.
	Adam Schiff then interpreted that to mean that there was a quid pro quo.
	So not a lot has changed other than showing there's no real there there.
	Why else?
	There have been a lot of Democratic candidates who have come across the stage.
	We've had a number of debates, and they're pretty weak.
	It's a weak field.
	Don't take my word for it.
	You've got other candidates now getting into the race this late in the game because of how weak the field is.
	It is not just that I subjectively consider this Democratic field to be weak.
	It is objectively weak and the Democrats themselves are more or less admitting it.
	On this poll, the margin of error is 8.3%.
	Because if it's a poll of 1,000 or 1,100 registered voters, the subset of those voters who are black is much smaller.
	It increases the margin of error.
	Still, even, let's use the margin of error.
	You've got a 34.5% black support.
	Take eight points away from that.
	He's still doing incredibly well.
	26.2%.
	Historically very, very high and more than three times what he got in 2016.
	And it's not just black voters.
	It's also Hispanic voters.
	So the same poll showed that Trump is doing significantly higher among Hispanic voters than he was last month.
	His support among Hispanic voters looks like it's 38.2% in November compared to 26.2% the month earlier.
	Again, why could this be?
	Why is it possible that Democrats who have been pandering to non-white racial identity politics for the past 50 years, why would they be losing support?
	Well, it's because their candidates are appealing to not just white people primarily, but to an extraordinarily slim set of white people.
	Look at the pitches being made by Elizabeth Warren, for instance.
	Elizabeth Warren, the whitest woman ever there was, whiter than the newly driven snow, And she pretended to be a Native American for her career, for professional advancement.
	That's not going to play very well among even people who are typically receptive toward democratic racial identity politics because she's a race fraud and she's a race hustler.
	But even what she's pushing for are policies that appeal primarily to white, college-educated, suburban, metropolitan voters.
	So just her college plan, right?
	Basically have everybody in the country subsidize the college education of the majority of Americans who go to college.
	Only a third of Americans go to college and the people who do go to college and graduate skew disproportionately white.
	So you're now talking to people who are disproportionately non-white, disproportionately lower income, saying, hey, we're going to take your money and use that to pay for people who look like me.
	Not like Native American me, but white me, Elizabeth Warren.
	That doesn't play very well if you're playing the game of racial identity politics.
	How about Pete Buttigieg?
	I think his black support is about 0%.
	Even Saturday Night Live made fun of this the other day.
	They're appealing...
	Even though they sort of position themselves, the PR about the Democratic Party is that they're the party of racial diversity.
	They're the party playing to non-white voters.
	In the reality, at least this election season, they're not doing that.
	Maybe that has something to do with these poll numbers.
	Other polls, by the way, just to temper your expectations, other polls say that Trump's support among non-white voters isn't that great.
	So there's an Economist YouGov poll around the same time that said that His support among non-white voters is about 16%.
	Morning Consult and Political say that it's about 18%.
	Gallup showed it's about 21%.
	So still not terrible numbers, but certainly not 34, 38%.
	However, there are other polls that agree with the Emerson poll.
	So according to a, an NPR PBS news hour Marist poll, this was in mid November around the same exact time.
	Trump had 33% approval among non-white adults.
	That's completely in line with the Emerson poll.
	poll.
	How do you explain that?
	NPR PBS NewsHour Marist is not some conservative poll.
	It's not some poll that skews disproportionately toward Republicans.
	Something is going on.
	There's another poll, Rasmussen, which generally does favor Republicans.
	Rasmussen has the same number as Emerson and as NPR PBS NewsHour Marist.
	Rasmussen has 34% support among likely black voters.
	If the Democrats only pick up 65% of black voters, they're done.
	They're done.
	They need to have huge, outrageous, and almost exclusive control over the black vote if they want to maintain anything near their current electoral dominance.
	If Democrats lose their non-white voters, they're finished.
	I hate to say I told you so.
	I was in Kentucky giving a speech a couple weeks ago, and there was a group of young, I guess right-wing, you know, ostensibly conservative, they're not really conservative, but they're definitely right-wing, young right-wing activists who call themselves the Groypers, who follow this guy Nick Fuentes, who, if you haven't been following it, it's kind of a sordid internet-y saga, but, you know, you can Google it, you can figure it out.
	These are guys who engage in white identity politics.
	So, especially the head of it, Nick Fuentes, is engaging in white identitarianism and suggesting that a conservative movement needs to appeal to white voters explicitly, primarily, if not exclusively, because of the demographics.
	This is a line that one of the Kruipers brought up to me in Kentucky, which is that demographics are destiny.
	Meaning that you will be able to predict how someone votes on the basis of race.
	And it doesn't just stop there.
	That one's voting patterns are ingrained in one's race.
	There's no hope to possibly change that.
	And so you've got to look at politics primarily through a racial lens rather than primarily through a philosophical or ideological lens.
	And I said this isn't true because while at any given moment you might be able to predict how people vote based on any sort of group characteristics, including race, this is not an eternal truth.
	What are some examples of this?
	In the 1930s, black people voted for Democrats and Republicans at about the same rate.
	This pattern persisted until about the mid-1940s, and then around 1947, 1948, right when President Truman, by the way, integrated the army, then you saw this shift that begins to go toward the Democratic Party.
	Then, throughout the 1960s, when Democratic presidents, JFK and LBJ, get credit for civil rights acts, We're good to go.
	Is that your voting habits are not ingrained in your race.
	They're not racially determined.
	Same thing is true of Hispanic voters.
	So, among Hispanic voters, the majority of them vote for Democrats, but among the subset of Cuban voters, the majority vote for Republicans.
	Why is this?
	It's obviously because of the Cuban experience of communism under Fidel Castro.
	Now, when they come to America, they identify as conservative, they vote for Republican.
	This persists Over successive generations, the bad news is that over recent generations, the children of these Cuban immigrants and the grandchildren have started to skew left.
	Again, that's bad news, even though they still do vote for Republicans generally.
	What does that tell us?
	It tells us that voting habits are not racially determined and they're not even determined by immigrant status because of this irony among Cuban Americans where the grandchildren who were born in America, they're American citizens, are more likely to vote left-wing than the immigrant grandfathers.
	Same race, right?
	So it's not racially determined, not even immigrant determined because the immigrants are more likely to be conservative.
	This is not to deny group characteristics in voting at any given point in time, but what it is showing you is that these things are not just in the DNA. And we're seeing that in these polls.
	President Trump has been making this pitch since 2016.
	When he made an explicit appeal to black voters, he said, what have you got to lose?
	You've been voting for Democrats for 50 years.
	What's it gotten you?
	Vote for me.
	Give it a try.
	What have you got to lose?
	He was mocked for this, he was called all sorts of names for this, and it would appear from at least these multiple polls that it's working.
	Will that last into 2020?
	I guess we'll have to wait and see.
	I think the Democrats are worried that it's going to last into 2020 because they are scurrying now to find a new candidate.
	Their current candidates are insufficient.
	They are inadequate.
	I think you could nominate any of these candidates that they have up there today.
	Joe Biden, Liz Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and I think Donald Trump would win 57 states.
	I think it would be, he would win Greenland, okay?
	So they're worried about this.
	You've got new candidates who are Maybe going to get into the race.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	Even Saturday Night Live, which is as left-wing and establishment as it gets, is willing to admit at this point that the candidates aren't that great.
	There was a pretty funny send-up that they did, and SNL doesn't do very funny stuff these days, but it was pretty funny.
	It was pretty fair.
	Here is the SNL take on Buttigieg and Bernie.
	Mayor Pete, you're looking adorable tonight in your little suit.
	Yes, it's from my first communion.
	You're polling at zero with black voters.
	Any idea why?
	Maybe just because of, like, this?
	I did have a heart attack-ack-ack-ack-ack.
	But you ought to know by now, I'm doing better than ever.
	And I'm very proud of the fact that I was the first heart attack patient to show up to the emergency room in a city bus.
	Alright, so what are the two weaknesses that SNL's identifying in their own candidates?
	We're talking about their own left-wing candidates.
	Pete Buttigieg looks like he's five years old and he has no black support.
	So, this isn't a devastating attack from them.
	It's not like they hate Pete Buttigieg and they want to wreck his candidacy like they would for some other candidates.
	But it is acknowledging this guy's a little bit weak.
	And it's acknowledging, actually, that racial issue, which...
	We were talking about with regard to Trump, not five minutes ago.
	They're recognizing that as a major weakness.
	So they're not trying to kill him.
	They're not saying he's an evil candidate or he's a bad candidate.
	We've got to get rid of him.
	But they are saying he's weak, he's young, he's probably not going to make it over the finish line.
	What are they making fun of with Bernie Sanders?
	They're making fun of the fact that Bernie Sanders is extremely old and just had a heart attack, but he's still a hardcore leftist.
	Okay, pretty mild attacks.
	Then they move on to Kamala Harris and Cory Booker.
	Here they are.
	Tonight, I'm not going to worry about the polling numbers.
	I'm just going to have fun and see if I can get some viral moments.
	Mama needs a gif.
	I'm going to tell my kids this was Michelle Obama.
	What I want you to know is you should be scared because I'm always one second away from calling Cory Booker Barack Obama.
	Okay, I'd like to respond, but first, because this is the only time I'll be talking, I just want to say black church, barbershop, greens, beans, tomatoes, potatoes.
	Especially the Booker hit.
	It's pretty tough.
	A little tougher than they were going on the other candidates.
	So Kamala Harris, they're basically discarding.
	They're saying she's not a serious candidate.
	She needs a gif to break away.
	She needs a viral loan, otherwise she's going nowhere.
	Then Joe Biden, they say he's just kind of losing his marbles and he's saying things that are considered offensive.
	He's old.
	He's past his prime, not just in terms of his age, but also ideologically.
	Cory Booker, same thing that Cory Booker is this sort of race pandering candidate who is trying a little too hard.
	He's always bringing up black churches.
	He's always he's really trying to harp on that aspect of his candidacy, but it's not really playing well.
	It's coming off as disingenuous.
	He's not at his heart of hearts and identity politics candidate.
	If he were really running to be the sort of candidate that would give him the best chance of becoming a nominee, it would be more unifying.
	It would be more moderate.
	It would be more honest.
	It would be more earnest.
	Then they get to Joe Biden and Tulsi Gabbard.
	The attacks get even harsher.
	I was with a buddy of mine who got so whacked on the sticky-ish, icky kush, he says, I have a great idea.
	We ought to go to White Castle.
	Next thing you know, Kumar and I are driving around.
	High as kites with Neil Patrick Harris, and that's before he was gay.
	And let's introduce underdog candidate and tonight's villain, Tulsi Gabbard.
	Thank you, Rachel.
	What an honor it is to be on this stage with my fellow candidates.
	I want you to know that I smell your fear and it makes me stronger.
	Alright, so with Joe Biden, they're going after him harder than they have in the past.
	That he's not just losing it, that he's not just past his prime ideologically and physically, but that he's also a liar, too.
	He's a liar.
	He's making up stories.
	He made up the story about Corn Pop, and the way that they're satirizing this is by saying that he's one half of Harold and Kumar going to White Castle.
	Now, It's not a fatal attack.
	It's not a devastating attack because they still make him likable while he's telling the story.
	They're kind of hedging their bets on whether or not Joe Biden's going to get the nomination.
	Frankly, I am too.
	They reserve their real twist the knife attack for Tulsi Gabbard.
	They're saying explicitly she's a villain.
	She's a bad person.
	She gains strength on the weakness and fear of her victims.
	So they really don't like Tulsi Gabbard.
	Okay.
	Other than the Tulsi hit, they're all sort of light little jabs, but they're not exalting any of the left-wing candidates as they have done in the past.
	SNL, historically, picks a candidate and doesn't get any real attack in on them.
	I mean, think about how they satirized Hillary Clinton in 2016.
	The only thing even nearing an attack they made on her was that she should have endorsed redefining marriage earlier.
	Other than that, it was all really light stuff.
	And then when she lost, Kate McKinnon, who played Hillary Clinton, cried at a piano.
	I think she was playing Hallelujah.
	It's just so sad and so pathetic.
	But what's strange in this election cycle is they're now starting to tell jokes about all of the candidates.
	Early on, the candidate they really weren't going after, they were exalting her in almost exactly the same way that they did to Hillary Clinton, was Elizabeth Warren.
	But after Elizabeth Warren's debate performance, they actually got in the real hit on her.
	They made a joke about how she lied about her Native American ancestry.
	Here it is.
	I want to start the debate with the question on everyone's mind.
	Who can beat Donald Trump?
	That's not how it works, but go ahead.
	Look, I know in past debates I've been accused of being overambitious, right?
	I got mom hosting Thanksgiving energy.
	I'm a little overwhelmed because I thought 10 people were coming and now there's 30 million.
	I promise dinner will be ready if you just get out of the kitchen and stop asking questions.
	This Thanksgiving, I'll be cooking my specialty.
	Maybe don't say it.
	The food of my ancestors.
	Should I say it?
	I'm going to say maize.
	Okay.
	This hit still has a lot of the elements of the typical Saturday Night Live's favorite candidate hit, but it's got a little twist at the end.
	So, before the Mays comment, before the Native American comment, what are they making fun of her for?
	They're making fun of her for being over-ambitious.
	Oh yeah, that's a good one.
	They're making fun of her for being too prepared.
	Yeah, okay, that's a good one.
	They're making fun of her for being kind of like Mom at Thanksgiving.
	She's kind of like mom.
	That's supposed to be an attack.
	I mean, it's like in a job interview when you go in and they say, what's your biggest weakness?
	And you say, I work too hard.
	As though that's a weakness.
	I'm too dedicated to my job.
	Yeah, that's a weakness.
	So that's how SNL typically attacks their favorite candidate.
	They say, she's too good.
	She's too smart.
	She's too prepared.
	And they're still doing that because Liz Warren is still their favorite candidate.
	But now they're willing to actually make the joke.
	Sort of.
	The joke is she's a total race-hustling liar, the whitest woman on planet Earth who's pretending to be Satchmo.
	Not Satchmo.
	Different kind of race-hustling that would be.
	She's pretending to be Squanto.
	And she's not.
	She's obviously not.
	How do they get the attack in?
	They get the attack in because they set up the Thanksgiving joke.
	They are so uncomfortable to make this attack that she says, I'm going to make my old Native American ancestry.
	Should I say it?
	I don't want to say it.
	Should I say it?
	Maize.
	Maize being a traditional Native American food.
	If they really wanted to make the attack...
	They would have used the phrase powwow chow, which is an actual recipe that Elizabeth Warren actually submitted to an actual Native American cookbook.
	I know it sounds like it isn't.
	I know it sounds like a joke that would be on SNL, but she actually did that because she is a shameless, race-hustling liar.
	They didn't go for that joke.
	That would be a little too real.
	That would be a little too hard.
	So they said maze.
	Okay, what's funny is that the SNL joke is actually much more staid.
	It's much more reserved and much more believable than the actual recipe that she submitted to the Native American cookbook.
	However, all of that said, Elizabeth Warren is losing some steam.
	She's been the candidate with all of the momentum for the last month at least.
	She's starting to lose some steam.
	Why?
	Well, in part, it's because she's not doing terribly well among minority voters, especially among black voters on whom the Democrats have relied for decades.
	Two, and I think this is even more decisive, it's because she released her ridiculous health care plan.
	She released that health care plan, the details of it, And people laughed in her face because it's absurd.
	She said she's going to pay for her healthcare plan by making those billionaires pay just, you know, two cents more.
	The healthcare plan costs $52 trillion.
	The combined wealth of every billionaire in America is about $3.7 trillion.
	So you get about 65% of the way through the first year of her healthcare plan.
	Even if you rob every billionaire of every penny he's got, You still have nothing left 65% into the first year of that health care plan.
	What do you do then?
	It's completely unserious and you've now got more serious Democrats looking at her and saying, nope, she's not the one.
	That's the donor class.
	That's the operative class.
	That's the big boss class because don't forget the Democratic Party is controlled by party bosses.
	That was true back in the days of Boss Tweet and Tammany Hall.
	And it's true now in the day of superdelegates.
	So her star is beginning to fade.
	You're seeing that reflected on Saturday Night Live.
	And in all of this, you have the answer to a question that nobody was asking.
	Mike Bloomberg officially declaring that he is running for president as a Democrat.
	That's what the Democrats want.
	A billionaire...
	Ex-politician who hasn't been in politics for years and years, who is absolutely moderate compared to this field.
	That's what the Democrats want.
	I don't think so.
	We'll go through his pathetic announcement video, and then we will get to some news from Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the game, the Harvard-Yale football game.
	But first I got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
	If you are craving more of my mellifluous tones, then you have not been listening to Another Kingdom.
	Maybe you have been, but you want more Another Kingdom.
	Another Kingdom is Andrew Klavan's fantasy podcast and it's performed by me.
	It's the last job I'm ever going to get in Hollywood because, you know, the rest of the town, not so much on my political views, not so happy about them.
	You gotta go check it out, dailywire.com, and subscribe right now to catch up, because today, today at 7 p.m.
	Eastern, 4 p.m.
	Pacific, Drew and I will be sitting down together to discuss the final season.
	And to take subscriber questions live from the listeners.
	This live event will be free for everyone to watch on Facebook and YouTube, but only subscribers will be able to ask the questions at dailywire.com.
	Plus, subscribers exclusively can watch the entire series.
	Or you can listen to the newest seasons for free on Apple Podcasts.
	Go check it out.
	Don't miss another Kingdom Live discussion happening today at 7 p.m.
	Eastern, 4 p.m.
	Pacific.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	We'll be right back with a lot more.
	It's like that meme that goes around on Twitter.
	You say, nobody says nothing.
	Literally nobody says nothing.
	Mike Bloomberg says, I'm running for president as a Democrat, is the answer to the question no one was asking.
	That's actually not quite fair.
	There is a question right now of, is there a Democrat that can beat President Trump?
	I guess this entire field of what was once about 25 candidates has not been able to rise to that challenge.
	Now, of course, Mike Bloomberg cannot be Donald Trump for president.
	Mike Bloomberg, I'm not sure that he would win any states if he somehow.
	I mean, I guess he would win New York or something.
	I don't know.
	It depends how this race shakes out.
	It would be very hard to imagine a world in which Mike Bloomberg is elected president of the United States.
	He's wanted to run for decades.
	He's been trying to run since 2008, at least.
	He's now officially doing it.
	He'd made moves to try to do it, to register in certain states.
	He has now announced his campaign.
	I think he's probably the least appealing candidate in the race, but you've got to see how he's pitching his candidacy.
	Because what his...
	Campaign pitch shows is that the Democrats, the left, are even more disconnected from the reality of politics in the Trump era than we thought.
	Because at first, we've just been seeing this insane leftward lurch among the Democratic candidates, which is likely to doom them in the general election.
	That's been the sort of fantasy of politics that they've been engaging in so far.
	But What we see here in the Mike Bloomberg campaign pitch is that they're diluting themselves in an entirely different way.
	Here's Bloomberg.
	Mike Bloomberg started as a middle-class kid who had to work his way through college, then built a business from a single room to a global entity, creating tens of thousands of good-paying jobs along the way.
	He could have stopped there.
	But when New York suffered the terrible tragedy of 9-11, he took charge, becoming a three-term mayor who brought a city back from the ashes and brought back jobs and hope with it.
	Okay.
	Huge mistake right off the bat.
	First of all, Mike Bloomberg's a very impressive guy.
	I mean, he built his business up from nothing to become a dominant force in both media and finance.
	He's a very sharp, very impressive guy.
	He was an okay mayor of New York.
	I mean, I'm a New Yorker.
	Was in New York when he was mayor.
	Giuliani was much, much better.
	Giuliani is probably the greatest mayor in the history of New York.
	Maybe one or two exceptions.
	Mike Bloomberg...
	He lived off the fumes of Giuliani's New York, and then he added a bunch of stupid nanny state regulations, like you can't drink sodas, you can't drink Big Gulps, and you can't smoke in public.
	And so it was kind of annoying.
	Can't smoke in bars.
	He was a kind of annoying mayor of New York, but he was fine.
	He managed it well enough.
	He's much better than the Bolshevik currently in Gracie Mansion in New York.
	Now, the mistake he made is describing his political career, which at this point was...
	Centered around 2001, 2002.
	It's 18 years ago.
	What it's reminding voters is that he's old.
	And he's not going to convince voters that he got New York through 9-11.
	He didn't.
	Everyone knows that Rudy Giuliani got New York through 9-11.
	That's how he became America's mayor.
	And guess what?
	That strategy didn't work for Giuliani 12 years ago.
	Remember?
	Giuliani ran for president in 2008.
	So he got his campaign going in 2007.
	And his whole campaign was, I was mayor during 9-11.
	Joe Biden made fun of him.
	Joe Biden said that a Rudy Giuliani sentence includes a noun, a verb, and 9-11.
	And even then, what it showed voters was, this guy's kind of old news.
	Because even in 2008, 9-11 was seven years prior.
	They said, okay, that's kind of an amazing thing that he did, but that was just one data point, and it's kind of old.
	Now we're so many years later, not a good strategy.
	If it didn't work for Giuliani, it's not going to work for Bloomberg.
	And it reminds people that he's old and he's washed up, politically speaking.
	You've got to remember, Mike Bloomberg is 77 years old.
	He's nine months older than Joe Biden.
	He is an old man.
	He seems much more with it than Joe Biden, that's for sure.
	But again, that's sort of damning with faint praise.
	Bill Weld, who was running for...
	Mayor or for President against Donald Trump in the Republican primary.
	I don't know that he's still in it.
	He might be.
	If he is or he isn't, it doesn't really matter.
	Bill Weld launched his campaign by saying, Bill Weld was the governor of Massachusetts in, like, the 1840s.
	So, you know, he was governor of Massachusetts in the early 90s, and you see that.
	And, first of all, you see in the pictures that this guy is so much older than he was when he was governor.
	And you also think he's so past his prime.
	The political issues we're talking about today are completely different from the issues that we were talking about then.
	Not a good start.
	Bloomberg then goes on to make the pitch on his policy platform.
	Creating tens of thousands of affordable housing units so families could have a decent place to live, raising teachers' salaries and kids' graduation rates, and creating a more open and livable city for the millions who call it home.
	Open and livable city, and when he's saying that, he's holding a gay pride flag, walking in ostensibly a gay pride parade.
	This raises the question, who is Mike Bloomberg's constituency?
	He's making the same mistake that all billionaires make.
	I've For some reason, I've had the privilege of meeting a few billionaires over the years, and one thing I've noticed about the majority of them is they believe, not all of them, but at least the ones I know from New York, They believe that what America's really yearning for is a candidate who's fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
	He doesn't get hung up on all those silly social issues like killing a million babies a year or redefining marriage, the bedrock of civilization.
	He doesn't get hung up on that stuff.
	Liberals can have that.
	He realized that what Americans really want is lower taxes.
	And polls show that, statistically, nobody wants that policy platform.
	People who want a presidential candidate who's fiscally conservative and social liberal, in other words, a greedy Democrat, is about 4.5%.
	Like, nobody.
	And I think most of those 4.5% are extraordinarily wealthy people in New York.
	So, he's making this pitch to fiscal conservative social liberals.
	That's nobody.
	That's not going to work.
	It's also the pride flag.
	It's not a great idea to get in there because it's going to turn off a lot of people after the LGBTQ movement has become the symbol of what you would call oppressive liberalism.
	I mean, the drag queen story hour and sex education, teaching your kids about disgusting things when they're in kindergarten, and confusing people on sex and gender.
	It's just not a good...
	Look, the whole argument for a Bloomberg candidacy is that these Democrats are too left-wing to win in general.
	I'm a more moderate guy and I'm pragmatic and I've accomplished a lot.
	Vote for me.
	And he's just not able to really make that argument because he is quite liberal on social issues.
	He's not going to win over conservatives because he created jobs.
	If you want a job-creating conservative president, you got Donald Trump.
	But he's not going to win over liberals by campaigning on economic pragmatism.
	Liberals don't want economic pragmatism.
	The majority of millennials are identifying as socialists.
	That's the majority of millennials overall, of all political stripes, certainly among Democratic primary voters.
	So he's giving himself a constituency of nobody.
	Then he makes the pitch from the pragmatic managerial experience that only King Michael Bloomberg can give you.
	He could have stopped there, but when he witnessed the terrible toll of gun violence, he put his money where his heart is, helping to create a movement to take on the NRA and the politicians they own to protect families across this country and help turn the tide.
	Andy's funded college educations for thousands of deserving low-income and middle-class kids and supported life-saving medical research and stood up to the coal lobby and the outright denial of this administration to protect the only home we have from the growing menace of climate change.
	King Michael.
	King Michael Bloomberg.
	Only he can do it.
	He has donated his own money out of the goodness of his heart to push all of these sort of oppressive, often unconstitutional programs on the American people.
	He's able to do it because of his largesse and because he's got a lot of confidence and a big ego and a lot of institutional power.
	That's right, folks.
	We need to defeat Donald Trump, and that's why the only way we can do it is by electing an egomaniac billionaire from New York.
	What kind of bitch is that?
	Hey, hey, do you hate Donald Trump?
	Well, vote for me, the poor man's Donald Trump.
	Hey, do you guys...
	Give me a break.
	And...
	And then you get the final pitch of this, which is actually on the ideological plane, this is where it all falls apart.
	Here's the final, here's the last thrust.
	If Bloomberg didn't win you over so far, maybe he didn't.
	Here it is.
	Now you're not going to be able to resist voting for him.
	Now he sees a different kind of menace coming from Washington.
	So there's no stopping here because there's an America waiting to be rebuilt where everyone without health insurance is guaranteed to get it.
	And everyone who likes theirs can go ahead and keep it where the wealthy will pay more in taxes and the struggling middle class will get their fair share.
	And jobs that just allow you to get by will become jobs that let you get ahead.
	Mike Bloomberg for president, jobs creator, leader, problem solver.
	It's going to take all three to build back a country.
	This is so lame.
	It's so lame because on the ideological front, What this pitch is to the American people is the same as saying, hey, vote for Mike Bloomberg because he's going to give you the exact status quo, but you'll get a little bit more money.
	Vote for the status quo with slightly lower taxes and a little bit more money.
	And the billionaires, they'll pay like a little bit more in taxes.
	Not too much, but a little bit.
	Vote for Mike Bloomberg and nothing will change.
	So, he just doesn't understand that on both the left and the right, right now, I think people are realizing that the status quo that we've had for now, what, 30, 40 years, is coming to an end.
	The status quo, you could call it whatever you want, call it neoliberalism, call it the post-war consensus, call it the post-cold war consensus, call it whatever you want.
	That's coming to an end because it was great, worked out for a long time, and now it has created some new problems that a new generation of politicians are going to have to address.
	Problems caused by mass migration.
	Problems, if you're on the left, that you would call wealth inequality or climate change.
	These problems, whether they're real or imaginary, these are the problems that are the result of the very politics that Mike Bloomberg is trying to preserve.
	And nobody is going to go to the polls because Mike Bloomberg says that wealthy people are going to pay a little bit more in taxes.
	Nobody is going to go to the polls because Bloomberg says you're going to get a little bit of a raise in your same job that you don't really like.
	You're going to get a $2 raise or something.
	That is not going to convince anybody.
	But Democrats have nothing else.
	That's all they can think of because their radical politics are extraordinarily unpopular.
	Whereas President Trump's radical politics are pretty popular.
	He's talking about issues that people care about.
	The negative effects of mass migration, the negative effects of unfettered free trade and mortgaging our country out to China, giving them all of our manufacturing and having them buy up all of our debt.
	He's addressing real problems with relatively more popular solutions.
	Puts the left in a bad position.
	I mean, just look at the hysteria over the weekend because Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in the hospital.
	Justice Ginsburg, who is, you know, a little, little long in the tooth.
	She's a woman of a certain age, we will say.
	And she's had a good life and a good career.
	The left is pinning all of their hopes on Hearst.
	So when she was admitted to the hospital for fever and chills, they lost their minds.
	She was trending on Twitter.
	If your entire political program hinges on an elderly Supreme Court justice, And you've got pretty much no other hope and nothing else to offer the American people.
	You are in serious trouble.
	And it was so ghoulish.
	It was so ghastly.
	Because think about what they're really saying.
	The whole trend about Ginsburg can't die.
	She can't die before Trump leaves office.
	She's got to stay there.
	Please put her on life support.
	The whole point of that is so that the left can keep killing a million babies a year.
	That's it.
	That's what it's all about.
	It's only about Roe versus Wade.
	We see this throughout every Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
	All they care about is still being allowed through a completely fictional constitutional right to kill one million babies per year.
	One woman must live so that many others may die.
	That is such a dead program.
	I mean, that is such a, I guess, pun not intended actually, but it's such a hollow, desiccated political agenda.
	Everything else.
	We have three branches of government.
	We've got federal.
	We've got state government.
	We've got local government.
	We've got all of these institutions of our government.
	And because the left has just completely lost the narrative, they've completely lost the point, they're now pinning all of their hopes, and their hopes are really, really ghoulish, on this one elderly Supreme Court justice who was appointed by Bill Clinton.
	I mean, it's just, it's a whole political movement now about nothing other than a couple of these little interests that are pretty repugnant to people.
	I mean, just look at the Harvard-Yale football game.
	The Harvard-Yale football game was over the weekend.
	I did not attend.
	It's actually usually a pretty fun game because the tailgating gets pretty raucous and then nobody actually watches the football game and then everybody leaves and goes home.
	This year, I'm sorry I missed it this year, not because of the football.
	I mean, Yale won.
	Good job.
	Way to go, guys.
	But because in the middle of the game, the whole game was interrupted by a protest of climate change, sort of.
	Over 150 Yale and Harvard students, alumni, and faculty stormed the field to demand divestment from fossil fuels to stop climate change.
	You showed them, guys.
	You showed them.
	Climate change by protesting Harvard and Yale.
	And then bizarrely, the protest of climate change became a protest of Puerto Rican debt.
	I kid you not, here it is.
	Cancel the debt!
	Cancel the debt.
	Puerto Rican debt.
	Because what they wanted was for the Yale and Harvard investment offices.
	You've got to remember, Yale and Harvard have tens of billions of dollars in their endowments.
	I mean, these are hedge funds.
	These are like sizable hedge funds too.
	And so what these Yale and Harvard students are saying is that, most of whom I bet are on financial aid like I was, and so they're actually there very likely because of the results of the investment office.
	But they're now criticizing the investment office and saying, you can't invest in fossil fuels or Puerto Rican debt.
	You can't invest in companies that hold Puerto Rican debt.
	Puerto Rico, a very corrupt island which has mismanaged a lot of its funds and mismanaged its hurricane recovery funds, and so they've got a lot of debt, and then companies are buying up that debt to allow Puerto Rico to continue to exist, and you've got to divest from that.
	They've got nothing.
	The left has got nothing.
	They don't even know what they're protesting.
	What are they angry about?
	It's just...
	An intellectual argument that the left is making, whether it's at the Democratic debates or in the impeachment hearings or at the Harvard-Yale football game.
	It's not an intellectual argument.
	It's just random ideological spasms.
	Climate change!
	Puerto Rican debt!
	Just words.
	They're just saying words that don't have any meaning in any context of an argument.
	They're just saying words.
	Random things because the left has nothing.
	And actually, just to put one final point on it before we go, I've got to get to the dumbest article on the internet today.
	Ta-Nehisi Coates in the New York Times, the cancellation of Colin Kaepernick.
	The long and short of it is, Ta-Nehisi Coates, a MacArthur genius, the guy who wrote about why we need to give the descendants of black slaves reparations in America...
	That guy is saying that Colin Kaepernick has been a victim of cancel culture, and this is a terrible, awful thing, and it doesn't make any sense.
	Here's the essence of his argument.
	Cancel culture is not new.
	Any sober assessment of the history of America must conclude that the present objections to cancel culture are not so much concerned with the weapon as the kind of people who now seek to wield it.
	Quote, until recently, cancellation flowed exclusively downward from the powerful to the powerless.
	But now in this era of fallen gatekeepers, where anyone with a Twitter handle or Facebook account can be a This doesn't make any sense just on its face.
	But it's the same kind of gripes about oppression and the powerful and the powerless.
	By definition, cancel culture will flow from the powerful to the powerless.
	Whether it's flowing from a corporate executive or from the democratic social media mob.
	The people who get canceled are, by definition, become the powerless.
	And the people who are able to do the canceling are the powerful.
	This is not just a matter of class or money or race or any other way you want to play identity politics.
	It's in the act itself.
	But then he gets to the heart of the NFL's problem.
	He says, the NFL is revered in this country as a paragon of patriotism and chivalry, a sacred trust controlled by some of the wealthiest men and women in America.
	For the past three years, this sacred trust has executed with brutal efficiency the cancellation of Colin Kaepernick.
	This is curious given the NFL's moral libertinism.
	The league has at various points been a home for domestic abusers, child abusers, and open racists.
	That's all true.
	And yet it seems Mr.
	Kaepernick's sin, refusing to stand for the national anthem, offends the NFL's suddenly delicate sensibilities.
	And while the influence of hashtags should not be underestimated, the NFL has a different power at its fingertips, the power of monopoly.
	Kaepernick's cancellation bars him from making a living at a skill he has been honing since childhood.
	Cry me a river for Colin Kaepernick.
	That's not what happened at all.
	Here's what happened.
	Colin Kaepernick disrespected not just some aspect of America, but the whole country itself by disrespecting the national anthem, which is called the Star-Spangled Banner, which is the flag, which is the symbol of the whole country.
	And then, guess what?
	It turns out the people who watch America's new favorite pastime, who tune in to watch sporting events, which have always had a patriotic aspect to them, but especially football in this day and age, the people who tuned in and watched that didn't like it.
	They don't like it when you disrespect their whole country.
	They don't want to watch him, and Colin Kaepernick lost that job, and then he made millions of dollars with Nike pitching sneakers and trying to get Betsy Ross canceled.
	That is not an aspect of cancel culture.
	It is actually a demonstration of the cause of so much of our social strife.
	You've got multi-multi-millionaire Colin Kaepernick, who played in one of the most elite professions you can possibly be employed in, being the subject of writing by Ta-Nehisi Coates, a man who has lived an unbelievably luxurious elite life, won the MacArthur Genius Grant, writing in the New York Times, best-selling author, and all these two guys can do is complain and pretend to be victims.
	Yale and Harvard students at one of the most elite sporting events in the world, the Yale-Harvard football game, all they can do is complain and pretend to be victims.
	Those candidates up on the Democratic stage, all they can do is pretend that woe is me, everybody's a victim, everybody's being oppressed.
	It's just BS. People know that that isn't true.
	Even the New York Times comment section was making fun of Ta-Nehisi Coates for this column.
	It's just BS. They've lost the narrative.
	They've got nothing.
	They're huffing and puffing.
	Even through impeachment, they've got nothing.
	What argument will they make going into 2020?
	I suspect the left won't have an argument to make.
	It will be more shrill, sighs, shrieks, and hysteria.
	And in the meantime...
	We can keep making serious arguments to the American people.
	I think we've lost a lot of reason as a culture.
	We've lost a lot of civility.
	But I think that between a reasonable argument to the voters' interests and huffing and puffing and screeching about surreality, I think the great conservative consolation will hold.
	I think reality will win.
	That's our show.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	See you tomorrow.
	If you enjoyed this episode, and frankly, even if you didn't, don't forget to subscribe.
	And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
	We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
	Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz and directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Assistant Director Pavel Wydowski, edited by Danny D'Amico.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire, 2019.
	On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.
	We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.

▲