The U.S. midterms delivered a 27-seat Republican House loss, defying the "blue wave" hype but exposing razor-thin margins in Florida (Senate by 35K) and Texas (Cruz’s 200K victory). Democrats’ Kavanaugh smear campaign backfired, while restored felon voting rights in Florida and Texas immigration trends threaten future GOP dominance. Rashida Tlaib’s election—rejected even by J Street—solidified Republicans as the sole pro-Israel party, with Democrats now mirroring Jeremy Corbyn’s UK Labor. Trump’s "jobs-not mobs" rallies swayed close races like Montana, yet media bias (e.g., CBC’s anti-Trump framing) and Democratic overreach may prove costly in 2020, where control of the House could decide the presidency. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, the U.S. midterm elections give the Democrats the House of Representatives, but increase Trump's strength in the Senate.
It's November 7th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
You come here once a year with a sign, and you feel morally superior.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Donald Trump was supposed to lose big last night in the U.S. midterm elections.
I mean, it's obvious, right?
Everyone hates him.
He was elected in some sort of fluke in 2016, or maybe it was a Russian hack or whatever the excuse is today.
But we're all so much savvier now, so much better educated because of the media.
So a blue wave was going to wash over America and clean off the stain in the past two years.
In the U.S., blue is the traditional color of the Democrats.
Red is the color of Republicans.
So here comes the blue wave.
Democrats are banking on a blue wave on the state.
Democrats hoping to ride a blue wave tonight.
And I think we're going to see a real blue wave.
Yeah, I feel very good.
There's an enormous tsunami-like blue wave coming.
There was a huge blue wave.
Can the president save his party and knock down that blue wave?
There was some hope that the Democrats would have a wave election.
It's not going to be a wave election.
Where is the blue wave tonight?
This is not a blue wave.
I don't think we're seeing some massive blue wave.
Democrats did hope for a big blue wave.
That is not happening.
In these statewide races, no signature win for Democrats.
Democrats are not winning in the way they were hoping to win early in the 1960s.
It's a red wave on the Senate side, at least.
Yeah, that blue wave didn't happen.
I mean, Trump's Republicans did lose 27 seats in the 435-seat House of Representatives as of last count.
That number may have changed somewhat due to late counts.
So it is true the Republicans did lose their majority there, and we'll talk about that in a minute.
But it is not unusual for voters to back away from a president during his midterm election.
That is, in the middle of the president's four-year term, Trump lost 27 seats.
Well, in 2010, halfway through his first term, Barack Obama lost 63 seats in the House.
In 1994, halfway through Bill Clinton's first term, he lost 52 seats.
Even mighty Ronald Reagan lost 26 seats through halfway through his first term in 1982.
Look, it is a setback.
Sorry, that ain't a blue wave.
Democrats Back Away From Trump00:07:23
I think it could have been.
I think it might have been.
But then just a few weeks ago, the country, and I'd say the whole world because we saw it up here in Canada, and the CBC in particular was obsessed with that up here.
We all saw what a Congress would look like if it were under control of the Democrats.
We saw the assassination attempt of Brett Kavanaugh, a judge with a sterling reputation, loved by his staff, by his friends, his clerks, both past and present, including the many female clerks who had worked with him, literally a perfect reputation until the Democrats revved up their smear machine.
And this Democrat Party lawyer, Michael Avenatti, the same lawyer who acted for that porn star, Stormy Daniels, he brought forward, quote, clients who claimed that Kavanaugh had raped them, literally raped them, including some who said he repeatedly raped them as part of a gang in high school.
Shocking allegations, insane, really, outrageous.
I mean, if they were true, not only should Kavanaugh not be put on the Supreme Court, he should be put in prison.
But none of these charges had ever been made in public in decades.
Not during Kavanaugh's previous confirmation hearings for other judicial positions, not during all the FBI background checks on him in the past.
The Democrats said anything they could say with a straight face.
They threw everything at him they could.
It was so extraordinarily over the top.
and backed up with no facts or changing facts.
And I think the world thought, oh my God, look at these maniacs.
Not just the maniacs in the official Democrat Party, like Diane Feinstein of California, who pushed these accusations against Kavanaugh inside the Senate, but the maniacs outside too.
Remember these folks literally banging on the 13-ton doors of the Supreme Court as if they were wild animals.
Look at that lady scratching them.
By the way, I'm not sure if you've heard, but several of Michael Avenatti's witnesses that were weaponized by Feinstein and the Democrats, they have recanted their testimony, said it was fake.
And so now the Senate has referred them to the FBI along with Avenatti himself for a perjury investigation.
But my point is, the world that had been told that Donald Trump was crazy saw what actual crazy looked like.
And they backed away from the party of Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenatti.
That's my theory.
And here's the thing.
Of course, Republicans in the main supported Kavanaugh.
But Democrats in the Senate had to vote on him too.
And take a look at this.
Democrats from so-called red states.
You see the one circled there?
States that supported Trump.
If they voted against Kavanaugh, they lost.
These three states in particular, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, those are Democrats.
And they voted against Kavanaugh and they lost.
And it wasn't even close.
But the one Democrat in the reddest red state in the Union, West Virginia, where Donald Trump literally got 69% of the vote last time, how could a Democrat possibly win there?
Well, the Democrat senator there did win.
His name is Joe Manchin, and he voted for Kavanaugh, breaking with the crazies in his party.
As in he declined to be part of the Avenatti-Feinstein mob.
He was re-elected last night.
I think that's very important and very hopeful, actually.
It shows severely normal people are not crazy.
Now, Trump and the Republicans had a jobs-not mobs theme as their campaign, and it worked, obviously.
Trump himself worked very hard, I would say.
Look at the size of this rally.
Just keep this up on the screen for a minute.
This is backstage here.
Look at that massive, massive Trump rally.
I've never seen anything like that before.
He would sometimes do more than one rally a day.
Look at the size of that.
That is stadium-size.
And it obviously made a difference.
The states that Trump visited tipped into the Republican category.
They were supposed to be a blue wave.
As I write this, the state of Montana is still counting their ballots, and the Democrat there leads by 0.3%.
So Trump did have a big rally in Montana, which obviously closed the gap.
We'll see if it tips it over.
But even without Montana, the Senate held and Trump's power there grew.
Now, Barack Obama broke with tradition for ex-presidents.
There's a custom that you go nonpartisan, not this guy.
He went on tour for the Democrats.
You don't see George W. Bush doing that?
You really didn't even see that much from Bill Clinton other than when his wife ran, he supported her occasionally.
But Barack Obama never really cared for tradition, including that tradition.
But he had, I think he had the opposite effect of Trump.
In the last week of the campaign, Obama worked hard too.
But each of the candidates he stumped for lost in Georgia, in Florida, in Indiana.
Now, maybe they would have lost anyways.
Maybe he made them lose less badly.
But my point is, I don't think he's as magical as the media thinks.
Maybe Trump is not as detested as the media thinks.
Scratch that.
He is deeply detested.
But I don't know if he's widely detested.
It just looks like everyone hates Trump if you're talking to think-alikes, if your sense of the world comes through the mainstream media.
Now, Florida was a great success for Trump, as it was back in 2016.
And yesterday, Republican governor, Republican senator.
But not by much.
Just 35,000 votes was the margin in the Senate out of 8 million votes.
56,000 was the margin for governor.
It really couldn't have been closer.
And look at this.
Florida votes to restore ex-felon voting rights with Amendment 4.
The victory means more than 1 million people will regain their right to vote.
So that ballot measure passed last night.
I'm guessing that convicted criminals, if they vote, they're going to vote Democrat.
And even if voter turnout amongst ex-cons is only 10%, well, that's the Democrats winning Florida forever.
I told you how thin the margin was.
And Texas, that right-wing state, the caricature of American red-blooded, patriotic, cowboy, T-bone state conservatism.
Oh my God, it came way too close to going blue this time.
8.2 million voters.
Ted Cruz, the Republican, beat Robert O'Work by just 200,000.
That is insanely close.
Add in a million more migrants from Mexico, and even Texas is blue.
And if Texas and Florida go blue, you're never going to elect another Republican president ever.
So it just won't happen.
So I think last night was a temporary victory for Trump.
But look at some losses.
It used to be that foreign policy in America was something that Republicans and Democrats more or less had in common.
Foreign Policy Divide00:15:40
They both supported NATO.
They both supported democracies around the world.
It was a military veteran, a Democrat named John F. Kennedy, who brought in the Cuban blockade, who did the Berlin airlift, who pushed back in the Soviet Union.
I mean, the Democrats, I think, were always softer, but they were still respectable and patriotic.
Hasn't been that way for a while now.
They're full-out supportive of Iran, of course.
And they've all but abandoned Israel, and they've embraced not only anti-Israel candidates, but outright Islamists.
Look at this victory video of a Democrat.
And note the only flag you'll see at the victory party is not the Stars and Stripes.
It's a flag of Palestine in the West Bank, they're literally glued.
It's like five o'clock or six o'clock in the morning.
And now it's more than that.
They're glued to the TV.
My grandmother, my aunts, my uncles in Palestine are sitting by and watching their granddaughters.
The 13th Congressional District, I'll uplift them every single day being who I am as a proud Palestinian-American.
We love all the media so much because for so many years they all dehumanize.
And I tell you as a Palestinian, you know, a lot of my strength comes from being a Palestinian.
But I can tell you my mother's, like the compassion this woman has, that is in me.
She smiles every single time.
This woman doesn't even understand when people are being racist to her because she believes that people can be better.
You know, Trump probably is they have lots of flags, Pledge of Allegiance.
That's a Democrat victory party, and they're actually ulting.
Welcome to America.
Now, I'm not saying Palestinian Americans should not be allowed to vote or be allowed to run, but that lady there clearly has the Palestinian grievance narrative.
She's bringing that Intifada spirit into America and the Intifada flag and her hijabed mother.
That's the future of the Democrats.
It's not the party of an 85-year-old Jewish liberal named Diane Feinstein or a 77-year-old Jewish liberal named Bernie Sanders.
The future of the Democrats is hard left-wing, anti-Israel, and I would say even anti-Semitic.
Now, Trump held his own against the Democrats, but the real enemy, of course, is the media party.
They hate when Trump says they're the enemy because the truth hurts.
If Trump were to say something crazy, like truck drivers are the enemy of the American people, or restaurant owners are the American enemy of the American people.
I'm just making up some examples.
People would laugh.
They said, what are you talking about?
They'd mock him, and it would backfire because it would be patently weird and untrue.
Everyone knows that truck drivers and restaurateurs are not the enemy of America.
It would be like the lies about Brett Kavanaugh that were so obviously ginned up, people would say you're crazy.
But when Trump says that the fake news media are the enemy of the American people, and he always has that adjective, fake news, well, they go nuts, don't they?
Because it resonates, because people know it's true.
You say that to a trucker, he said, you're crazy, ignore it.
But these media, they go crazy because they know it's true.
And not just in America, take a look at some of this.
Just in one party rule is over.
That's Ching Ching Cheng is her name.
That's a real person.
She literally writes from the United States for a Chinese Communist Party newspaper.
She works for the Communist Party of China that literally has a one-party system, but she's bashing Trump as being a one-party state.
But how is that any weirder, that tweet, than this one by a New Yorker named Ezra Klein?
I'm sorry he shares my first name.
He writes, I don't think people are ready for the crisis that will follow if Democrats win the House popular vote, but not the majority.
After Kavanaugh, Trump, Garland, Citizens United, Bush versus Gore, et cetera, the party is on the edge of losing faith in the system, and reasonably so.
Now, first of all, there's no such thing as the House popular vote.
That's not a thing.
Every district in the United States elects one congressman, whether they win by one vote or by 100,000.
But look at the implicit threat there.
You will have violence.
You will have a crisis.
You will have mobs.
If we are denied our power as we were in 2016 when Hillary had it stolen from us.
That's a journalist.
Oh, you're in for it if we don't win.
Now, Trump lost ground in the Congress last night.
Did you see any Republican riots?
Of course not.
It's unthinkable.
It just couldn't or wouldn't happen.
You can't even imagine a Trump riot, can you?
But even a fancy Democrat like that, Ezra Klein, was ready to riot, he'd probably have some staff riot for him if he didn't get his way on the left.
And look, I'm interested in this story.
I'm up here in Canada, but America affects the world.
Affects us Canadians more than most.
And I like what Trump is doing on policy issues and in his style.
I love that he bashes the left rhetorically because for so long the right has given deference to the left.
But I cover Canada as much as I cover America, I think.
I cover the world.
And if I cover Trump too much, well, that's up to me as a person.
That's up to you, as a viewer who chooses to watch, I guess.
But what about our Canadian state broadcaster, the CBC, that was created by a law of parliament called the Canadian Broadcasting Act, specifically to promote Canadian culture, specifically to stop Canadian media from being dominated by America?
Well, the opposite has happened.
The CBC now, with our Canadian taxpayers' money, is obsessed with Trump.
Partly because they hate Trump, because they're all liberal.
Partly because they hate Trump, because their boss, Justin Trudeau, does, and they want to please him.
And partly because the CBC is not really allowed to criticize Trudeau.
So they pretend they're doing real accountability journalism by going after someone, anyone, just not their own country's leader, Justin Trudeau.
They'll be really accountable for American taxpayers or whatever.
But look at this laugh.
Look at this laugh here.
This is a tweet from the CBC.
Fox News calls appearance of two network stars at Trump campaign event unfortunate distraction.
Says it doesn't condone Sean Hannity, Janine Pirow, speaking at Monday rally, but doesn't say whether they'll be disciplined.
That's tattletale journalism.
The CBC, but that's a real CBC story.
What's that got to do with Canada?
What was that other than gossipy snippiness?
But that's a real story.
And look at this, the CBC itself.
That's their star on the left there, David Suzuki, literally cutting a TV ad with Dolph McGuinty for the liberals.
And remember, Mary Walsh of the CBC, who did this really weird, homemade attack ad about Stephen Harper and called him a Nazi.
Hare Harper and Stasi Steve.
Yeah, I don't think the CBC is your best moral authority to criticize a private foreign media company, Fox News, in a foreign land for campaigning for their president.
Like I say, it's projection.
But the CBC went much further this time.
They actually sent down at great expense their Ottawa political reporters to the United States to stir up anti-Trump sentiment.
Here's Rosemary Barton in Ohio in a foreign country's politics meddling on behalf of Canada's state broadcaster.
Look at this.
You're not a big fan.
Not at all a fan.
No, so how do you think he's, how do you think he's doing in the job?
My greater concern is what I think is happening for the people in this country.
And he is incredibly polarizing, has certainly given permission for racism, for the expression, the overt expression of racism.
I can give an example now.
Give an example just so we all are on the same page in terms of what you're talking about.
Yeah, so they literally sent Canadian government journalists down to Ohio to do a poor man's version of isn't Trump racist with voters.
What are you doing?
How weird is that for the Canadian state broadcaster?
How gross is that?
Imagine if Donald Trump sent a Trump-allied team of reporters up to Canada in the final week of our federal election.
I don't even know how that would work because there is no government state broadcaster in the same way down there.
I mean, their PBS is far left.
Imagine if Trump sent someone up here in the last week of our election to stir up anti-Trudeau sentiment.
It's unthinkable.
Or even look at this.
Look at this.
A tweet from CTV.
Meet the Canadian journalist tracking Donald Trump's false claims.
That's a CTV story.
It's praising a Toronto Star reporter named Daniel Dale who is obsessed with Trump and hairsplits every public statement by Trump.
They have this whole vanity website dedicated to it.
It looks like a Democrat Party website, and it sort of is.
But if you read through it, it's actually extremely boring.
I don't think they expect anyone to read through it.
It's just the headline there.
Because most of those 3,000 points are just him quarreling with Trump's opinions about things and saying, well, I disagree with him.
But even if it were accurate, and even if it were great journalism and fair and objective, which it isn't, can you tell me why a Canadian media company called the Toronto Star pays a full-time Trump-obsessed critic with the explicit mission of documenting Trump's lies?
Not even to report on Trump.
I would get that, but the premise is, of course, Trump is lying.
Now go catch him and get the numbers up as high as possible because we want a big number.
Why would you do that when you don't even do that in your own country to your own country's prime minister?
There's not a single journalist in Canada who has that kind of obsessive scrutiny of our own prime minister.
Not at all, let alone that viciously.
It didn't happen to any liberal premier either.
I think it's going to start being done to Doug Ford, the new conservative premier of Ontario.
Wouldn't surprise me if they started extreme obsessive critical journalism against Ford.
But where's it been for Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne and Rachel Notley?
It's weird.
And it's telling how obsessed the Canadian media are with fighting Donald Trump.
Oh, well, the media in Canada doesn't get a vote in America's election, and American journalists only get one vote each, and those votes are usually wasted in New York or LA, which are already overwhelmingly Democrat.
Thank God, at least for now, the decisions are being made in places like Florida and North Dakota and Missouri and Indiana for now.
And guess what?
The 2020 election campaign has just begun.
Stay with us.
Joel Pollack of Breitbart.com joins us next.
That's not an invasion.
Honestly, I think you should let me run the country.
You run CNN.
And if you did it well, your ratings are going to be a good question.
Let me ask you.
If I may ask one of the questions.
Mr. President, if I may ask one other question, are you worried about it?
That's enough.
That's enough.
Mr. President, one of the I may ask on the Russia investigation, are you concerned that you may have to do it?
I'm not concerned about anything within the Shiny investigation because it's a hoax.
Are you worried?
That's enough.
Put down the mic.
Mr. President, are you worried about indictments coming down in this investigation?
Mr. President.
I'll tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them.
You are a rude, terrible person.
You shouldn't be working for CNN.
Go ahead.
I think that's on.
You're a very rude person.
The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible.
And the way you treat other people are horrible.
You shouldn't treat people that way.
Go ahead.
That is a testy press conference today in the wake of last night's historic midterm elections.
I want to show you a different angle of Jim Acosta of CNN.
Looks like she's pushing away the hand of a young White House staffer.
Take a look.
Boom.
Do you see that?
She tries to put that up just one more time.
She tries to take the microphone back.
And look at that.
And show one more time.
Look at Jim Acosta.
push that girl.
Yeah, exactly right.
That's Jim Acosta.
He knows how to handle a lady if she's conservative and he's liberal.
He knows what to do.
That's pretty gross.
Joining us now via Skype from the world headquarters of Breitbart.com in the Los Angeles area is our friend Joel Pollock, senior editor-at-large over there.
Well, Joel, I bet you didn't get a lot of sleep.
You're in California and some of those local congressional votes went down to the wee hours.
Yeah, they're still counting in some of those districts, but it looks like Democrats have picked up three out of the seven races they were targeting in California.
And internally here in discussions at Breitbart, we thought that the seven districts would be a bellwether for the nation as a whole.
We thought that if Republicans limited their losses to one or two, that would mean they probably had held the House across the country.
But as it happened, Democrats won three of those seats.
Now, they didn't win four, five, six, or seven.
So the House majority the Democrats have nationwide now is actually a very narrow one.
It's in the single digits, apparently.
Oh, really?
Yeah, apparently they won 32 seats.
They needed 23.
So that means they'll have a nine-seat majority, maybe give or take one or two when all the counting is done.
But it means that Nancy Pelosi is going to have a tough fight to be elected speaker because there are roughly a dozen or so Democrats who are coming in who said they would not vote for her as speaker.
So that's going to be a gut-check moment for them, keeping in mind that her fundraising enabled them to win their races in some cases.
Democrats' Narrow House Majority00:12:11
So we're going to see an interesting squabble on the Democratic side, but it also means that the Republicans, if they stay united in opposition, are going to have significant leverage in this new Congress, maybe more leverage, ironically, than they would have had in the majority.
Now, it's always better to be in the majority.
You control the committees, you control the chairmanships.
But from a policy perspective, as Trump pointed out in that press conference this morning, you can get deals done more easily if you have a president from one party and someone leading one House of Congress, the House of Representatives, which is really the House that controls the purse strings more directly.
You can get deals done if a member of the opposition leads there or the opposition leads there because there's a potential for dissenting factions on the majority side, if the majority is in the president's party, to torpedo pieces of legislation he'd like to put through.
And that's the scenario we've seen over and over again with health care and other policies that the Republicans just could not get done on the Senate side more than the House side.
But the Republicans could not fully repeal Obamacare in the last two years, partly because of exactly that dynamic.
They had a slim majority, and so they had small factions dissenting and making demands, meaning that the ultimate legislation couldn't pass.
But if you can have the Democrats with some responsibility for coming up with their own policies, and then you can have Republicans respond to those, Trump pointed out you can cobble together a coalition to get things done more easily.
That might not please conservatives in every instance, but it might be the political reality, and it actually will help Trump boost certainly his presidential power over Congress, but it'll also help him score some legislative achievements.
He sounded very optimistic about immigration, healthcare, and a few other things as well.
Well, of course, Bill Clinton, for part of his, in fact, I think for much of his presidency, had a hostile Congress, but he was able to get some deals done, whether it was NAFTA or welfare reform.
Some would write that off to him being non-ideological, pragmatic, triangulation, whatever you want to call it.
You could say that other than his personal scandals, he had a successful presidency as opposed to Barack Obama, who was so combative.
I can't even think of a single policy issue from Obamacare to the nationalization of the auto industry, where he actually reached across to do bipartisan deals.
I don't know.
I think Trump is a dealmaker in his blood.
He might actually get some things done.
Yeah, and I think when you look at Clinton, you can contrast him to Obama in the sense that, as you pointed out, Clinton did deals with Republicans.
Clinton shifted after losing both houses of Congress in 1994, and he accomplished welfare reform with Republicans.
He accomplished a balanced budget with Republicans.
That's because he shifted.
When Obama lost the House in 2010, he did not shift.
He dug in and he became more left-wing.
That's when he backed the Occupy Wall Street movement, when he gave that infamous speech in Osawatomi, Kansas, basically declaring economic warfare, when he backed Trayvon Martin and so on and so forth.
Obama never took an election loss as a sign that he was doing anything wrong, never took it as an opportunity to reach across to the other side.
In the most infamous example in 2011, right after Republicans won the House, Obama torpedoed a deal on spending.
And this was written about in Bob Woodward's book, The Price of Politics, just how Obama deliberately spiked a deal.
And then when a bipartisan commission recommended steps on fixing the national debt, Obama ignored his own bipartisan commission.
Barack Obama did not go into politics to make deals.
Barack Obama went into politics to change the world in his utopian image.
And that's why he could never compromise.
But Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, I think, both went into politics with some talent as dealmakers, some experience, but also because I think they wanted to do the best they could for the country.
And so they were willing to put aside ideology.
Trump didn't really have much ideological baggage, if you want to put it that way, when he came to the White House.
They're not giving up on their principles necessarily.
I mean, Clinton certainly stuck to certain principles, and Trump is sticking to his principles on immigration and so forth as well.
But I think you're seeing Trump follow the Bill Clinton model in a different way, but he's closer to the Bill Clinton model, I should say, than to the Obama model.
I want to tell you something that scared me very much.
I always thought that Robert O'Rourke, or Beto, as he liked to call himself, I thought it was a long shot, a joke the whole time, the idea that a fancy Democrat popular in Manhattan and Hollywood could win in Texas.
I laughed and laughed, and I thought, all those people wasting their money.
Well, he came within about a percent of winning, and Florida was less than a percent.
And those are massive wins with massive states.
Of course, it wasn't a presidential election.
The Electoral College wasn't at play, but the governorship, the senators, very important.
But Joel, I got to tell you, I am terrified that you move the needle just half a percent, whether it's through the media effect or fundraising or even just demographic changes by bringing in another 5 million illegals.
You lose Florida and Texas to the Democrats.
You're not electing a Republican again in our lifetime.
That's the terror I had from up here in Canada.
Am I missing something from being way out of the country?
No, I think you're 100% correct.
And I think that's why Republicans are upbeat about last night.
Democrats lost in every race where they poured their most expensive assets, their Hollywood stars, their big money, their dark money, their left-wing institutional organizations.
They lost in Florida and they lost in Texas.
And they also lost in Georgia, it looks like, in the governor's race there.
They also lost in Ohio.
So the big states are still in Republican hands.
There were some losses for Republicans.
They lost Kansas.
They lost Wisconsin.
They lost Illinois.
Illinois was going to go anyway.
They lost Michigan.
There was a shift in the Midwest where I think Midwesterners basically had had almost a decade now of Republican reform and decided, you know, we've got those reforms.
Now we want something new.
But I think that Republicans retaining Florida is so huge and Ted Cruz beating Beto O'Rourke in Texas is also massive.
So you're absolutely right.
Well, no, but I think I'm making the opposite point, Joel.
I'm saying they're important wins and they're wins that any conservative or Republican or fan of Trump would celebrate.
But they were razor thin.
And, you know, I pointed out earlier in the show that there's this proposition that passed in Florida to give ex-felons a vote.
Batten itself can ship the balance.
Well, I guess I'm saying I'm terrified.
The win was so fingernail thin is what I'm saying.
Yeah, yeah.
Look, it's always going to be that way in Florida.
I mean, Florida is always on a knife edge.
Now, they have a new block of voters from Puerto Rico who relocated there since the hurricane.
I'm not sure how big a factor they were.
You also in Texas have a changing demographic in that state Democratic column.
I think there are probably some people who will benefit from the felon voting in Florida who will vote Republican for the same reasons other people vote Republican.
You know, just being a felon doesn't necessarily make you a Democrat, although being a Democrat might be a good first step if that's the way you want to go.
But look, I think it's too early to say we're not talking about a measure that lets people out of prison early.
It's not a measure that would increase crime as we've seen in California with some of the prison reforms that unfortunately haven't gone so well.
I think there's going to be a considerable amount of widespread public support for this only because there are some felonies that are so in retrospect, you know, many years later and so forth, that are so independent from the act of voting that I'm not sure that people, I mean, look, to use an example, the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, his father is a felon.
His father went to federal prison.
His father is certainly a Republican.
You know, there's all kinds of different reasons people go to prison.
And I'm not sure it necessarily puts more votes in the Democratic column.
Probably on balance it does.
But I think that that's not as big a worry as what's happening in Texas, where you've got not only immigration changing the demographic profile of voters there, but you've got migration from failing blue states, high-tax blue states to low-tax, successful Texas.
And they're bringing their political beliefs with them.
They're not changing them just because they've voted with their feet.
So they're changing the demographic profile of voters in Texas, especially in those urban areas.
And so that's a bigger problem for the GOP in the long run.
Yeah, well, I mean, I've been to the Breitbart World Headquarters there.
And like our world headquarters in Canada, you have a very low profile because you are behind enemy lines.
California, home of Nixon, home of Reagan, it's about as deep blue as it ever gets.
I'm just worried that's what the demographic destiny of America is.
But for now, I think there's cause for relief.
If there's one more thing I'd like you to touch upon, I know you're so busy today, but just speak to this for a moment.
I showed a clip of a Palestinian-American Democrat who was celebrating her win, not with an American flag, but rather with a Palestinian flag.
Her mother was wearing a hijab.
There was lots of ulation, if I'm saying that word right.
That's a lot more normal in grassroots Democrat politics now than the ancient Jewish tradition that Bernie Sanders and Dianne Feinstein show.
That's my sense of it.
Am I wrong?
Is there still a pro-Israel, pro-Jewish spirit left in the Democrats, or is it all moving the way of Jeremy Corbyn's Labor Party in the UK?
Oh, it's definitely moving in the Corbyn direction.
I mean, last night, there were several anti-Israel Democrats elected, and a couple of pro-Israel Republicans defeated, but Republicans also defeated a large number of anti-Israel Democrats, including that candidate for governor in Florida, Gillam.
And I think the parties are split now.
Republicans are pro-Israel, Democrats are anti-It doesn't mean that every Democrat is opposed to Israel, but there really is no constituency anymore in terms of the House of Representatives for solid pro-Israel Democrats.
There aren't any.
None of them came to the embassy opening earlier this year.
They've got now some rabid anti-Israel people.
The woman you described wearing the Palestinian flag, Rashida Clay, she's so anti-Israel that even J Street, the far-left George Soros-funded organization, they dumped her because it was embarrassing to them to have somebody who openly advocated for the destruction of Israel as a campaign issue.
So I think that the Democrats are now saddled with this baggage.
I don't think it infects the rest of society because the Democrats who are the most anti-Israel are also Muslim.
And so I think when Americans look at that, they say, well, you know, maybe that's just a Muslim thing.
It doesn't necessarily mean the rest of America has to feel that way.
But it is interesting, I think, that Republicans basically are the only pro-Israel party now.
Gordon Chang Responds00:04:05
Yeah.
Well, I have to find some words.
So it's great to catch up with you.
Thanks so much for giving us so much for your time on this very busy day.
Thank you.
All right, there you have it.
Joel Pollock, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com in one of the bluest states there is, California.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about countries asking China about human rights questions.
Paul writes, Is it surprising that Canada fails to call out the Chinese on their human rights abuses while Trudeau is at the helm?
Yeah, I mean, it's not surprising, but it's striking to see it.
I mean, look at all those countries.
I read from the Netherlands, I read from Switzerland.
I read them all.
There's a lot of really progressive, woke countries, Sweden in particular, Netherlands.
One or two of them asked about women's rights and gay rights also, because the number one problem with China is not that you can't get gay married there.
The number one problem with China is you can't do anything freely.
You can't speak, think, move, vote, campaign, organize, anything.
Yeah, being gay married, that's sort of priority number 100.
But it was the only thing Trudeau talked about.
It just shows that he is in the league of failed states like Belarus and Pakistan when it comes to being a moral authority in the world.
I thought it was embarrassing.
Jonathan writes, that is quite the hypocrisy coming from the UK concerning journalists.
After all, they have put Tommy Robinson through.
That is a great point.
And the other day was some symbolic day about not walking up journalists.
And I saw that the UK embassies around the world were tweeting scolding remarks around the world.
And I just thought, you just put a journalist in prison for 10 weeks in solitary confinement.
I think he should sit this one out.
But you know, listen, I'm glad the UK's not sitting it out.
I want them to correct their hypocrisy by improving their conduct at home.
I don't want them to stop speaking truth of power to China like Trudeau has.
On my interview with Gordon Chang, Jerry writes, whenever I watch Ezra's interviews with intellects like Gordon Chang, I always feel smarter.
Anytime I watch MSM interviews, I'm quite sure that I lose some brain cells.
Well, you know, let me say two things about talking to Gordon Chang.
First of all, I try to say less than I normally do.
And that is so hard for me because I want to make points.
And I want Gordon Chang to respond to some of my points because I think he's so smart.
So I try not to talk more than 51% of the time in an interview.
But number two is you're so right.
He knows his stuff.
He knows the exact section of the exact law.
He knows the exact geography, the exact history, the who's who in the police.
He's so informed.
And I mean, I try and read his columns or whatnot before he's on, but I basically just sit back and say, all right, take the wheel, Gordon, because the guy knows his stuff.
And I like his temperament and his demeanor, don't you?
I think it's actually pretty cool that he comes on our channel.
I'm really grateful for that.
He really is a world-class expert.
And he's written for world-class publications.
I mean, the Daily Beast is where he hangs his hat most of the time, but he's been in Forbes.
He's been in the national interest.
So, yeah, well, anyhow, thanks for the compliment for him.
And I'll try and stay out of the way of the smarts from, I'm not saying all our guests aren't smart, but with Gordon Chang and a few others like that, I say, okay, Ezra, say fewer words so Gordon can get in more words because that's where we're going to learn things.
Anyways, that's a long way of saying I agree with you.
Why He Comes On Our Channel00:00:33
All right.
Well, what do you think of the election?
What do you think of the election?
I wish that Trump held the House, but that's just not that normal.
When you have a first-term president elbows up, you're going to lose ground.
The big fight is in 2020, will Trump be re-elected?
Will the Democrats go even crazier than they did on Brett Kavanaugh?
And will that crazy backfire?
I think it did yesterday.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, do you at home?