Twitter’s May 28 fact-check of Trump’s unsubstantiated fraud claims—backed by a Washington Post article from liberal-leaning journalist Philip Bump—ignites accusations of partisan censorship, especially after Project Veritas exposed shadow-banning tactics targeting pro-Trump content. Meanwhile, Red November reveals Biden’s radical leftward pivot, aligning with Sanders’ policies despite attacks on him, and how impeachment and COVID-19 reshaped the 2020 race, leaving his base unmotivated while activists rally against Trump. The episode ties tech bias to political strategy, questioning whether election integrity or ideology drives these moves. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through Twitter's bizarre attempt to censor the President of the United States.
They don't yet have the courage to delete his account.
That would probably hurt their stock as so many people go on Twitter just to follow Trump and he would go somewhere else and take his viewers and their ad dollars with him.
But they're rebutting him.
The only politician on Twitter I'm aware they do that to.
They don't do that to Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau.
I'll take you through what happened and what Twitter says about it.
I'll show you why I think it's a joke.
That's ahead before I get to it.
Please consider supporting Rebel News by becoming a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
Just go to RebelNews.com.
It's $8 a month or $80 for a whole year.
And you get the video version of the podcast plus shows from Sheila Gunread and David Menzies.
Okay, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Twitter drops its mask and reveals its plans to censor Donald Trump in the upcoming election.
It's May 28th 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.
The only thing I have to say is government others is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Do you know who always lies on Twitter?
Disputing For Its Own Sake00:03:30
Politicians you don't like.
You know who never lies on Twitter?
Politicians you do like.
How is that possible?
Because I say your guy's lying and you say, no, no, my guy's lying.
Or let's take the middleman out of it.
I say you're wrong and you say I'm wrong.
So what do we do?
Well, nothing that's called life.
It's called variety.
It's how we live.
It's how we can cheer for different sports teams and all be right.
It's why some people would never drive a Ford.
Others would never drive a Dodge.
It's certainly politics.
Other than perhaps the casual use of the word lying, which is harsh because it implies knowingly saying something false for the purpose maybe of tricking someone.
It's completely healthy to disagree on things.
You can disagree on facts even.
You can certainly disagree on opinions or feelings.
And all of it, facts, opinions, feelings, arguments, whatever, makes up your worldview, makes up politics, makes up an election campaign, really.
My favorite thing about our system is that at the end of the day, ordinary people get to be the judge of things.
Hillary Clinton had all the celebrities and all the experts and all the establishment on her side.
She spent about a billion dollars more than Trump did in the election.
She still lost.
I love that for the same reason I love how Michael Bloomberg spent a billion dollars for his very brief run for the Democratic Party nomination, and he lost too.
Because ordinary people get to make the final arbitration in the dispute.
But we love disputes.
They're an important part of democracy.
They're the basis for it, really.
Imagine a judicial system, a court system without a dispute.
You can't really, other than the fake court systems in totalitarian regimes like China or the former Soviet Union, where it was just a show trial where the guilt was known in advance.
There was no dispute about it.
And the rest was just a show to teach people what would happen to them if they decided to dispute the state.
Our legal system, our parliament, we take Canada's biggest complainer, give him a free house, a huge staff, a big salary, and we give him a title called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
As in we acknowledge that he is opposing and it's not disloyal by nature and we insist on it and we give him all sorts of legal protection.
Someone proposes, someone opposes.
It's a back and forth.
And through that back and forth, the truth is hopefully found.
It's a dispute.
I know you're thinking, okay, as you stop belaboring the point.
Well, I'm trying to tell you the deep meaning, the deep history of the word dispute.
It's not a bad thing by definition.
I suppose there's a point where disputing for its own sake becomes just being quarrelsome, but in a way, all human progress depends on disputing.
Being able to challenge things to see if there's a better way, being open yourself to being challenged on the off chance that maybe you're wrong on something and you'd prefer to be right.
Here's a woodcut from the year 1483 showing an official disputation, an official debate with formalized rules.
In this case, it was a theological debate between Christians and Jews.
It was an attempt to reason through things as opposed to have a violent war over it.
Historically, violence sometimes did accompany some disputations, unfortunately.
But my point is the whole purpose, the whole point of a dispute, a disputation, the ancient roots of that word is that we prefer to talk things out than to fight things out.
As Churchill is supposed to have said, it's better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.
And he would know he fought in five wars.
So thank you for listening for a five-minute preamble on the word dispute.
Here's why I'm so focused on that word dispute.
Dispute Over Mail Ballots00:12:02
Because a couple days ago, Donald Trump made a tweet, as he tends to do, to his 80 million Twitter followers, and he said this.
He said, there is no way, zero, that mail-in ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.
Mailboxes will be robbed.
Ballots will be forged and even illegally printed out and fraudulently signed.
The governor of California is sending ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one.
That will be followed up with professionals telling all these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how and for whom to vote.
This will be a rigged election.
No way.
Okay, so that's clearly his point of view.
It's an opinion.
It's actually not even an opinion, which you could say is a comment based on a fact.
Because this was actually a prediction.
He thinks something will happen in the future.
He thinks mailboxes will be robbed.
I think that's fairly reasonable.
He says he's worried that politicians will tell people how to vote.
They will try to take over future tents.
I think those are all obvious risks.
And I bet some or all of them come true.
But they're not even statements of fact.
They're not even really opinions.
They're predictions about the future.
You can agree, you can disagree, you can have a disputation with him.
You can even do so right there on Twitter.
And it's clear that Trump does read Twitter, so you might even get his attention.
And who knows, you might actually change his mind.
It could happen.
I doubt it.
But you could more likely change the minds of other people watching your disputation.
That's part of the fun of it.
But look at the bottom of those tweets.
I've never seen anything like that before.
Get the facts about mail-in ballots.
What?
And it's a link, and when you click it, you're taken to this political advocacy page put together by Twitter itself that says, Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.
Well, like I said, that's the sort of thing about the future predictions.
They cannot be substantiated until the future unfolds.
If I were to say, I predict that Joe Biden will be replaced by the Democrats because he's just too weak and they don't want to lose, that's not an unsubstantiated thing.
It's a prediction.
I predict I will gain another 10 pounds during the quarantine.
I predict I will lose 20 pounds.
It's not true or false.
It's not unsubstantiated.
It's a guess or a hope.
Look at what Twitter wrote.
What you need to know.
Trump claimed that mail-in ballots, well, hang on, stop right there.
Is it correct that I need to know it?
Is that substantial?
Hey, fact check.
Twitter says I need to know this.
I don't.
Okay, let me keep going.
Trump claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to a rigged election.
However, fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud.
Trump falsely claimed that California will send mail-in ballots to anyone living in this state, no matter who they are or how they got there.
In fact, only registered voters will receive ballots.
Five states already vote entirely by mail, and all states offer some form of mail-in absentee voting, according to NBC News.
All right, well, who are all these fact-checkers?
Why can't I see their sources and their proof?
Why has Twitter put itself in the role of a judge?
Why can't I judge for myself?
And why is it only this one president from this one political party who is being corrected and denounced, really, by Twitter?
Are there no other lies on all of Twitter?
Obvious lies.
Very senior Chinese diplomats have published kooky conspiracy theories that the United States military created the coronavirus.
It's laughably false.
It's maliciously false.
Twitter doesn't care, though.
No correction or counterweight to them.
By the way, citizens in China are banned from using Twitter by their own government, but Twitter is happy to let the Chinese government propagandists on their site.
No truth warning under them.
Now, Twitter cites the Washington Post, which is owned by Amazon's Jeff Bezos, as proof that Trump was wrong.
Okay, but what are the Washington Post politics?
They're liberal, obviously.
So like I say, it's a dispute.
Two sides to a dispute.
Twitter should be hosting the debate.
Perfect.
A forum, a platform.
So why do they now suddenly set themselves up as the umpire of this debate, the judge of this debate?
Look at this.
Here's the Washington Post article promoted by Twitter that claims Trump is wrong on voter fraud.
It's written by a guy named Philip Bump.
I love that name.
What a wonderful name.
Philip Bump.
I checked him out on LinkedIn and he has a philosophy degree.
He worked as a software designer for two years, pretty good.
And then he worked for a series of left-wing blogs.
I don't know, maybe he's a genius, Philip Bump.
Maybe he knows more than the president of the United States and all the president's advisors could be.
But like I say, it's a dispute.
I'm actually siding with the president on this one.
Common sense tells us there is voter fraud all the time and that mail-in ballots would likely increase that.
I'm not sure why anyone's trying to deny that.
Why not make the more reasonable argument, which I think would be, of course there's going to be more voter fraud, but that's an acceptable price to pay, some would say, to increase voter participation.
Now, I would disagree with that myself.
I would say if you can't be bothered to walk to the voting station, you really don't care enough to vote.
But why are you pretending that mail-in ballots won't increase fraud when they obviously will, even a little?
I just typed in U.S. Postal Service voter fraud into Google.
And dozens of stories popped up, including this press release from the Justice Department just two days ago.
Pendleton County mail carrier charged with attempted election fraud.
Elkins, West Virginia.
Thomas Cooper, a mail carrier in Pendleton County, was charged today in a criminal complaint with attempted election fraud.
U.S. Attorney Bill Powell announced.
Cooper, age 47, of Dry Fork, West Virginia, is charged with attempt to defraud the residents of West Virginia of a fair election.
According to the affidavit filed with a complaint, Cooper held a U.S. Postal Service contract to deliver mail in Pendleton County.
In April 2020, that's just last month, the clerk of Pendleton County received 2020 primary election COVID-19 mail-and-absentee request forms from eight voters on which the voters' party ballot request appeared to have been altered.
So who are you going to believe?
Twitter and Philip Bump?
Or your lying eyes?
So who's in charge of these decisions to snipe and snark at Trump?
Well, the boss of Twitter's trust and safety system is named Yoel Roth.
So he's one of the arbiters in this dispute.
But scroll through his tweets in the months before the 2016 election of Trump and then actually all the way up to the inauguration.
He despises Trump.
He mocks Trump.
He hates Trump and Trump voters.
I think he's toxic.
I think he's abusive.
I think he's a little bit insane.
Perfect.
Let him join the dispute.
Him and Philip Bump versus Trump.
Bump versus Trump.
Except, no, no, no.
This Yoel Roth and Philip Bump, they're the ones Twitter put in charge of the fact check here.
I'm not kidding.
Well, the internet smoked that out pretty quickly.
And so the CEO of Twitter joined in defending his extremist Twitter trust and safety officials.
Here's what he said about that.
This is Jack Dorsey.
He said, fact check.
There is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that's me.
Please leave our employees out of this.
We'll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally, and we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.
Hang on, Jack, how can we leave your employees out of this?
They can leave themselves out of it by staying out of it, by letting Trump and Biden debate and letting the rest of us be the peanut gallery.
We can give our views too.
We can judge the disputation, but leave your employees out of it.
If only we could, Jack, if only they would, Jack.
He's not a mere employee.
He's a hardcore Trump derangement syndrome partisan.
Does Joe Biden get a hall monitor like that too?
If so, it's got to be someone as hardcore on the right as this Yoel Roth guy is on the left.
So it's got to be like Alex Jones of Infowar, someone that bellicose, because that's who Yoel Roth is on the left.
But look at that phrase.
We will continue to point out incorrect or disputed information.
Well, it's all disputed information.
All information is disputed by someone, and an election campaign is the proper place to dispute it.
And the rule for disputations in an election is pretty simple.
Whatever the voters choose.
Oh, sure, there are also some criminal laws that could theoretically apply to, I don't know, a death threat or something, but that's not what we're talking about here.
We're talking about who gets to make a political decision about election fraud and what team we trust in an election.
And the answer is the voters get to decide.
But Jack Dorsey and Yoel Roth and Twitter want to put their finger on the scale to make sure it ends the right way.
They want Trump to lose, obviously.
Don't take my word for it.
Here's a video taken undercover by Project Veritas at Twitter headquarters that shows how Twitter staff talk when they let their guard down.
Listen to this for a minute.
Let's say Polto pro-Trump thing and I am anti-Trump.
I was like, oh, I just banned this whole count.
They'll go to you.
And then it's at your discretion.
And if you're anti-Trump, you're like, oh, you know what?
Mollo's right.
Let it go.
The idea of the shadow ban is that you ban someone, but they don't know they've been banned because they keep posting, but no one sees their content.
So they just think that no one's engaging with their content when in reality no one's seeing it.
I don't know if Twitter does this anymore.
How do you know if it's a lie?
Oh, you use machine learning.
You look for Trump or America and you have like 5,000 keywords to describe a redneck.
And then you look and you like bars all the messages, all like the pictures, and then you look for stuff that matches.
So is it going to like essentially ban certain mindsets and or people who could be negative?
Yeah, no.
It's not going to bend a mindset.
It's going to bend like the way of talking.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Sounds pretty neutral to me, Jack.
Here's Jack Dorsey trying to call an apple an orange.
He says, this does not make us an arbiter of truth.
Really?
Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves.
More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions.
Nah, mate, no, no, no.
You said Trump's claims were unsubstantiated.
That's what you said.
That's another way of saying what he said wasn't true, even though what he said was a prediction for the future.
And by the way, it certainly is substantiated just two days ago.
A postman was charged with tampering with ballots.
And we can see you.
We can see that you're only doing this to Trump.
Not to Biden, not to Nancy Pelosi, not to Justin Trudeau up here in Canada, not to the corrupt World Health Organization, which has pumped out lie after lie about the virus.
You're not doing this to foreign dictators who you let use Twitter for propaganda and they won't let their own people use it for information.
It is no coincidence that this is happening in 2020, the year of the election.
Silicon Valley billionaires think they can choose the next president.
Do you think they're right?
Stay with us for more.
Well, Donald Trump is perhaps the most riveting man in politics in our age, no doubt about it.
Radical Shifts in Democratic Primary00:15:00
But it has been a joy and a horror to watch the circus of the Democratic Party's presidential primary.
What a cast of characters.
My favorite was Minnie Mike Bloomberg, who blew a billion dollars trying to get Americans to like him.
He couldn't.
But, you know, that's just a, that's like a few nickels to you and me.
As you know, over the last six months, as we've been following the Democratic presidential primaries, we have relied primarily, if I can use that word, on our friend Joel Pollack, the senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com, who has covered the Democratic race intently.
And not just from his base in LA, but as you know, sometimes he's joined us from the road, literally the road, or other venues across America.
And I didn't know this until now.
Besides giving us his updates along the way, he was writing a new book.
And you can get it now, or you can pre-order it now.
It'll be released in July.
The title is Red November.
That's a great title, isn't it?
Will the country vote red for Trump or Red for Socialism?
And joining us now via Skype is our friend Joel Paul.
Joel, that's a great name.
It makes me think of the hunt for red October.
Of course, Red October being the Soviet phrase.
Red November, I guess that's how it would come to America, wouldn't it?
Well, then, we chose the title well.
My initial proposal was to call it the hunt for red November.
It was indeed a play on that movie and novel.
And yes, it's a reference to the Soviet Revolution.
But my publisher pointed out that red states are also what we use to refer to Republican states as well.
So it's a hunt for red November in two senses, both red in socialism and red for Republican.
And we don't know yet which one the American people are going to choose.
The book tells the story of the Democratic primary, which has been the most left-wing primary in American political history and has emerged with a nominee who, even though he is described as a moderate, is the most left-wing nominee in the history of American presidential elections.
Yeah, I mean, Joe Biden is funny because I don't think people paid very close attention to him when he was Barack Obama's sidekick because Obama was so much more interesting and so much more fluent.
I wonder if he was properly vetted because he certainly comes across as reasonable and a friendly neighbor next door.
And because he looks like a stereotypical white senior citizen, well-dressed, like he looks like a moderate would look.
A radical might look like Ilhan Omar, might be young and a little bit alternative looking.
Joe Biden looks central casting, boring guy, vice president.
But you're saying he's the most radical nominee ever chosen.
Well, I don't know if he's radical.
He's left-wing.
There's a difference, I think, between radical and left-wing.
Radical can imply also a kind of audacity in tactics.
I think Obama was a radical.
I think Biden is left-wing.
And Biden is left-wing because he's had to shift his positions from somewhere left of center, maybe what we used to call liberal, over to the left.
And you can look at everything he's now advocating.
He used to oppose federal funding for abortions.
Now he wants the Hyde Amendment repealed so that federal taxpayers would fund abortions.
He used to say we need a middle-of-the-road approach to climate change.
Now he says he wants to eliminate the fossil fuel industry and the coal industry.
And by the way, when he campaigned for Obama, he campaigned for clean coal.
That's out the window.
He used to talk about Medicare for all as a kind of pie in the sky when Bernie Sanders proposed it, but now he's adopting pieces of that proposal, like lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 60 and so forth.
So he is inching over to the left, and he's almost unrecognizable from the Joe Biden of 10 years ago, 15 years ago.
And he's had to do that to capture some of Bernie Sanders' base, but also to appeal to a party in general that has shifted to the left.
On every single policy, Joe Biden today is further to the left than Joe Biden was a year ago and further to the left than any Democratic Party presidential nominee has ever been.
And you don't have to take my word for it.
You can take his own word for it and Barack Obama's word for it.
Obama said in endorsing Joe Biden that he would be the most progressive president, running on the most progressive platform in history.
And he included himself in that.
And he almost apologetically said, well, I couldn't run on all this stuff when I was running for president, but Joe Biden is going to carry it through.
So by their own admission, they're running the most left-wing campaign, the most left-wing nominee.
Not a radical by temperament, but certainly by policy, he is the most left-wing candidate the Democratic Party has ever run.
And I guess, I mean, there's been a lot of speculation about just how with it Biden is, how attentive he is, how sharp he is.
I suppose if he publicly says, well, I'm going to have this suite of left-wing policies, and if he appoints a cabinet and a staff and a chief of staff and a White House team that is in line with that, it doesn't matter if he's goofy and forgetful and has seniors' moments.
Because if he says, yeah, this suite of left-wing policies that could have been written by Ilhan Omar and Alexander Cosesio-Cazez, other people will take that and run with it, won't they?
So I guess that's my second question.
Is his team as left-wing as his agenda?
Because you know, they say for Democrats, run to the left for the primary, run more to the center in the election.
I think that's the way.
You're saying that's not the way.
He's staying to the left.
That's correct.
So in my book, Red November, first of all, I talk about this issue of Joe Biden's mental capacity.
He has declined.
He never came to the spin room in all of the debates that I attended, that anyone attended really, because I was at most of them.
I missed one or two, but he was never in the spin room, not once.
And I speculated that might have been because the spin room tends to happen very late at night.
So it might have been simply too late for Joe Biden.
He also wanted to avoid committing gaffes.
And he's always been gaff-prone his entire career, but more so lately when he says things that simply don't make sense or that the campaign has had to explain or undo later.
So Julian Castro, one of his opponents, brought this up, I believe it was in the Houston debate, and I talk about this in the book, that Joe Biden can't remember what he said two minutes ago.
That's what Castro said.
And the audience murmured and booed a little bit.
But Corey Booker, then in the spin room, endorsed that claim.
He said that Castro was correct to bring up Joe Biden's mental faculties and his aging, and that it was a legitimate issue.
Now, of course, Corey Booker is talking about how wonderful Joe Biden is, and he's a light bringer, I think is what he called him, or a light worker, which was something that was used also to describe Obama.
But, of course, back in the fall of 2019, when Corey Booker was still in the race, he was worrying about whether Joe Biden could do the job at all.
So the vice presidential pick becomes very important.
The campaign has tried to portray Biden as bringing a team along with him.
So you're not just voting for this guy, you're voting for all of these people around him.
And many of them are more left-wing than Biden has been.
He brought Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez into his team of advisors, for example.
He set up all these policy councils.
And she now, who complained about his climate policy, is advising him on climate.
That doesn't mean he's going to go all the way toward the Green New Deal as she has proposed it, but he is certainly starting to embrace some of her ideas.
He never talks about nuclear power, and he's not going to.
I think he may have mentioned it once earlier on, but that's not happened since.
He talks about getting rid of coal, as we said.
And he said during the debates that if working-class Americans had to lose their jobs to satisfy the climate change agenda, well, so be it.
You know, we'll find them other jobs somehow.
So that's the message he's selling.
He opposes the Keystone Pipeline, which, as you know, was in a very important arrangement with Canada and a Canadian company.
Under the Obama administration, the Obama State Department certified that there was no environmental risk from the pipeline.
Obama simply blocked it because of the left-wing environmental lobby that didn't want to see fossil fuels developed at all.
Never mind that Canada was simply and logically going to sell the oil to someone else if they didn't send it down through the United States.
I mean, that oil is not going to sit there in the ground.
Canadians have to work as well.
So the idea that this was going to be anything that had an impact on climate change was ridiculous.
It was always ridiculous.
And Trump, in his first week in office, reversed that and pushed ahead the Keystone Pipeline.
Joe Biden says he'll cancel it when he gets into office.
That's the influence of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
So these advisors really are steering him in that direction.
I've described the Biden presidency, if it ever were to happen, as a kind of regency.
You know, in the old history books, when a king or queen was too young to serve, you know, they ascended to the throne at age four, they'd have some minder, some elder member of the family or the church ruling effectively for them in a kind of regency.
That's what would be happening with Biden.
He'd be too old to govern himself, and so the country would be essentially steered by a politburo, by a committee.
Let me not use Soviet terminology for everything, but it'd be steered by a committee run by a combination of old Obama and Clinton hands on the one hand and young Bernie Sanders socialists on the other.
It would be a combination between the Democratic establishment staffers and the young upstart ideologues.
And actually, the establishment staffers, some of them are not so far away from the ideologues in terms of what they believe.
They've just done things differently.
But that's who would be running the country.
We're talking with Joe Pollack, our old friend from Breitbart.
His new book is called Red November.
Will the country vote red for Trump or Red for Socialism?
Hey, I want to play for you a quick clip, and I'm sure you've seen this clip.
If not this particular one, many like it.
It's a Bernie Sanders supporter, very woke, very radical, very college activist-y.
And she sort of got this chant, please don't make me vote for Joe Biden.
And I don't know why it's sort of catchy.
I've seen this a gazillion times.
It's sort of pathetic, but also quite honest.
Here, take a quick look at that.
Democrats, please don't make me vote for Joe Biden.
Please don't make me vote for Joe Biden.
Please don't make me vote for Joe Biden.
I don't want to vote for Joe Biden!
So it's not very profound, but maybe it is.
It's very simple.
It's please, Democrats, don't make me vote for Joe Biden.
What she means, obviously, is I want to get rid of Trump.
I don't like Trump.
I don't like the Republicans.
But please don't make me vote for this guy.
There's a lot of Bernie supporters who twice now have been spurned.
And even though, as you correctly say, Biden is more left-wing than any of his predecessors, he still feels like the man.
He feels like what Bernie Sanders was rebelling against.
And I have trouble imagining that young woman, please don't make me vote for Joe Biden, voting for Joe Biden.
What's going to happen?
You hung out with these people.
You saw, you might have even met that young woman.
What are they going to do?
Are they going to fall in the line and support Joe Biden?
It's not clear.
So there's a huge degree of unity among Democrats when it comes to what's motivating them.
Even the Sanders supporters are strongly motivated now by the desire to get rid of Donald Trump.
And I think it was easier for many not to vote for Hillary Clinton because they assumed she would win anyway.
And so that wasn't an issue.
They prefer Hillary's policies to Trump's policies, let's say.
Although on trade, Trump has done better for Sanders supporters than Hillary would have done.
Trump canceled the Trans-Pacific Partnership in his first week in office, for example.
So I think it's hard to say.
I don't think that Sanders supporters are excited about voting for Biden.
I would compare it roughly to how Tea Party supporters felt about Mitt Romney.
And nobody in the Tea Party really felt particularly close to Mitt Romney.
He was a bad candidate because he had embarked on this adventure called Romney Care in Massachusetts, which made him a very poor candidate to oppose Obamacare.
And the Tea Party was motivated by opposition to Obamacare, among other things.
Nevertheless, the Tea Party members held their nose and voted for Mitt Romney.
Now, interestingly, I saw a number after the 2012 election that suggested the Tea Party had voted disproportionately for Mitt Romney.
That is to say, there were more Tea Party Republicans who showed up for Mitt Romney than a typical Republican.
We may see more people on the left showing up for Joe Biden.
Joe Biden's big problem is that he's not motivating anybody.
He's in his basement in Wilmington, Delaware.
He is being handled by a bunch of people who are just trying to keep the live streams going and get him from wandering off camera.
He doesn't control his own Twitter account.
Some people say Trump shouldn't control his own Twitter account, but with Trump, at least you know he's in charge.
You know he's doing things.
Whether they're good or bad or controversial, he's doing things.
Donald Trump is managing the country.
He's running his own campaign, essentially.
And Joe Biden is not.
I just think that it's going to be difficult for Biden to motivate ordinary voters, never mind politically engaged left-wing activists.
I think the left-wing activists might be motivated to come to the polls anyway.
I think that ordinary Americans do not feel particularly motivated by Joe Biden.
You're seeing national opinion polls where he's winning by 11% over Donald Trump.
That's all very premature.
We don't know what's going to happen when voters actually start comparing Trump to Biden.
Right now they're comparing Trump to the ideal.
But Red November explains just how off the rails the Democratic Party has been and has become.
And people remember that.
After the first debate in Miami, when every single candidate, including Joe Biden, raised their hands in answer to the question, who wants to provide free health care to illegal aliens, the headline in the New York Post the next day with a picture of them all raising their hands was, who wants to lose the election?
And even the New York Times had to admit that this was a completely different Democratic Party, that the candidates were further left than Bill Clinton, than Barack Obama.
This was something that had not been seen since FDR and maybe ever.
South Carolina's Radical Shift00:04:12
You know, I think you're right.
I think actually that the kind of woman who would say, please don't make me vote for Joe Biden, she's telegraphing, I am going to vote no matter what.
Just do me a favor and don't make me vote for Biden.
Other people wouldn't say, please don't make me vote because they just won't show up and vote.
They won't get off their chairs to vote.
This will be a very interesting test because I think if your source of information about the Democrats and about politics in general is Twitter, is CNN or MSNBC, maybe this radical left politics is normal because it's being normalized by the media party.
But will it work in Western Pennsylvania, fracking country?
Will it work in Wisconsin?
Will it work in the steel parts of the country, Indiana, Ohio?
I wonder.
It's very interesting.
When does your book come out?
Again, tell us when it'll be available.
We can pre-order now, and we'll put a link under this video to the Amazon.ca link for our Canadians.
And I mean, there's no one I trust more on this election than you, Joel.
And I know for a fact that you have gone to every Democrat thing imaginable.
That was half the fun of interviewing you.
So folks can pre-order now, and then as soon as it's ready, it'll be either shipped in hard copy or by e-book.
Is that right?
Right.
We're doing it in hard copy, audiobook, and also in electronic book for Kindle.
It is a lot of fun.
The first half of the book all takes place on the campaign trail before impeachment, before coronavirus.
It's almost nostalgic because you go back to an age where politicians were still shaking hands and kissing babies.
You know, that was before we had to wear masks in public and all that.
So campaigning was traditional, and then suddenly it wasn't anymore.
And I go through the impeachment.
I talk about that whole saga and how it kept the Democrats off the campaign trail.
They sabotaged their own election.
The only people who were able to campaign in Iowa were Joe Biden, Andrew Yang, and Pete Buttigieg.
And the other 17 or whatever were stuck in the Senate.
And I talk about coronavirus and how it crept into the election slowly.
And really the only thing that was said by anybody, I can find two comments on coronavirus in the early stages.
One was an op-ed written by Joe Biden where he was essentially taking apart Donald Trump's general response to the pandemic, but he didn't really advocate for anything substantial.
I mean, Biden said that if he were president, he would have the CDC, our centers for disease control, over in China right away.
Well, Trump had been trying to send the CDC to China.
The Chinese had refused.
And Joe Biden has a very poor record on China.
He's been very accommodating.
That's putting it nicely.
The other comment was Pete Buttigeg vaguely mentioned it in a debate.
But the first time coronavirus really ever came up on the campaign trail was February 25th in the presidential debate in South Carolina, the last of the four early primaries.
It did not come up in any serious way before that.
And then all of a sudden it was upon us.
And in a sense, Joe Biden got lucky because had Donald Trump closed the country down earlier, the way Biden now says Trump should have, Super Tuesday might never have happened.
South Carolina might never have happened.
Joe Biden might never have had a chance to snatch the nomination away from Bernie Sanders, who had gone 1-2-3 in the early primary states.
No candidate before had ever won the popular vote in the first three primary states.
Bernie Sanders did it.
He was coasting to the nomination until Joe Biden won South Carolina and then a couple of days later won Super Tuesday.
So it's quite a dramatic story.
And you see it become almost a thriller as the virus stalks the candidates toward the end.
And I don't make any predictions, but I say this choice that American voters face is really a stark one.
You have a choice on the one hand between the most conservative president we've probably ever had, with the possible exceptions of Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.
That's on the one hand.
And then on the other hand, you have the most left-wing candidate ever to run from either party.
You know, he's essentially running for the first term of Eugene Debs.
Never mind the third term of Barack Obama.
Eugene Debs was the Socialist Party nominee in the early 20th century.
Bernie's Thrilling Rise00:03:22
That's where we are right now.
Biden wouldn't call himself a socialist, and he attacked Bernie Sanders as a socialist.
But the number of issues on which Biden differs with Sanders is vanishingly small.
And I think that's going to be a very interesting choice to watch.
Well, I have so much enjoyed our conversation, and I'm very excited about your new book.
Folks, I recommend it based on our conversation today with Joel and our conversations with him as he was traveling America writing it.
It's called Red November.
Will the country vote red for Trump or Red for Socialism?
You can see a cover of it on the screen right now.
And you can click the Amazon link below this video.
Good luck out there, Joel.
We'll talk to you again.
Thanks so much.
All right.
Thank you.
Stay with us.
more ahead on the rebel hey welcome back on my monologue yesterday about the trial of huawei's cfo mung wanzhou Rob writes, what a relief to see justice was upheld.
Trudeau somehow didn't get his claws into this one and buy off the judge.
Thank you for enlightening us on Huawei's corruption.
Yeah, well, I think justice was done.
I mean, it is possible that she is legally not to be extradited.
Like, even if she would have won, that isn't necessarily proof of corruption.
But the fact that she lost her dismissal is, I think, proof of the absence of corruption, don't you think?
Paul writes, hopefully Huawei Meng ends up in a U.S. prison soon.
The company's toxic and needs to be confined to China.
Well, that's the thing.
The reason I read out that extended passage from the ruling about how they met in some back room in a Hong Kong restaurant, I just love that touch, shows that Huawei is operating just like the dictatorship that it is symbiotic with.
So they were a great success in China because they have no real problems.
They just crush anything because they're joined with the government.
They're taking that same style, that same corporate culture, and exporting it around the world.
And they're finding luck in corrupt parts of the world, luck in extremely poor parts of the world that will take a payoff.
But maybe in America and hopefully in Canada, perhaps in Australia and the UK, and maybe even in Germany, China's style of doing corrupt business will be stopped.
We'll find out in the months ahead, I think.
Revelation replies or writes, free press isn't just for journalists, it's for us citizens too.
I have a right to a free press.
That's in reaction to Kiam Becksy being ejected from Rideau Cottage yesterday by RCMP at the direct instruction of the PMO.
That's a great point.
Freedom of the press is not just for the press.
It's for those of us who choose to read a press.
Dave writes, enjoyed tonight's show as always, but what caught my attention was your hair.
I think you've taken several years off with the new look.
Who says Wuhan's impact on the hair industry isn't good for some of us?
Skip the haircut when this is over.
Well, I think you, maybe, maybe you need to check your eyesight because I mean, I've just embraced the ugly.
What are you going to do?
I mean, I got bigger problems than my hair, but I think you have very unusual tastes, sir.