All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
40:33
Episode 669 Scott Adams: Have Coffee With Me While I Solve Healthcare, Immigration, Climate Change
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, come on in here.
You know what time it is.
I think you do because you all have smartphones and clocks and watches and stuff.
It's time. To have coffee with Scott Adams.
And not just enjoy coffee, but enjoy the simultaneous sip.
It's the best thing ever.
And all you need to enjoy it is a cup or a mug or a glass of stein, a chalice, a tanker, a thermos, a flask, a canteen, a grail, a goblet, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day, the unparalleled pleasure, The simultaneous sip.
Here it comes. Here it comes. Well, the funniest tweet of the day.
Curse of President Trump.
It turns out that Bill de Blasio has announced that he is leaving the race for president.
This did not go unnoticed by the President of the United States who tweets, and I quote, Oh no!
Well, first of all, will there ever be another president who ever starts a tweet with, Oh no!
Probably not. It's probably the only one you'll ever see.
So he says, oh no, really big political news.
Perhaps the biggest story of years.
Part-time mayor of New York City.
He's calling de Blasio a part-time mayor.
Part-time mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, who was polling at a solid zero, but had tremendous room for growth, has shockingly misspelled Drop down to the presidential race.
New York City is devastated.
He's coming home. Come on.
How are we ever going to pay attention to politics after this president?
Honestly, I didn't really follow politics too much before the age of Trump.
And I'm fairly certain I'm not going to follow politics afterwards.
So his election actually will have a fairly large impact on my life arc, because that'll be four years that I would have been talking about politics, and I probably won't if he's not president.
Yeah, maybe. We'll see.
So, there's a report that the so-called sonic weapon that was used in the Cuban embassy, the U.S. embassy in Cuba, might not have been a sonic weapon after all.
But by coincidence, China just announced that it actually has a sonic weapon that they're using against crowds, probably in the Hong Kong crowds.
So they have a handheld sonic weapon.
But there's a study that says that the embassy problem was probably not a sonic weapon.
Who predicted that?
Me. By the way, in the entire world, When that story came out that there was a sonic weapon that was injuring people in the embassy, did you hear anybody else, like in the whole world, who said, oh, no, that's fake?
I think it was only me.
And now there's a report that it was likely pesticides.
Because apparently they can study the brains of the people who are affected, and it seems to have affected a part of the brain that's sensitive to neurotoxins.
And there was some reason to believe that there was a different kind of fumigating and pesticides because of something that was going on at that time.
So, I would say that's not confirmed.
Not confirmed yet, but kind of weird we haven't found any sonic weapons, right?
We would have found that by now.
All right, there was a question I asked, which I believe I have an answer to.
I was asking what Iran was trying to accomplish exactly by attacking the Saudi Arabian oil facility.
And I couldn't figure it out, because I thought, well, do they want to start a war?
Do they really think nobody's going to know who did it?
As a strategy, I couldn't quite place it.
But that was because I had some gaps in my understanding.
And here's the main gap.
I didn't realize that Saudi Arabia really, really doesn't want a war with Iran, partly because Iran would probably kick their butts.
So that's the part I didn't know.
I assumed that Saudi Arabia was bristling with modern weaponry and U.S. support, and if Iran were to try to mess with them, it would be just a terrible mistake for Iran.
Turns out it's more like the opposite of that.
And I'm open to fact-checking here, by the way, so I'm saying my current understanding is subject to change.
My current understanding is that the last thing in the world Saudi Arabia wants is war, because Iran is pretty capable.
Pretty, pretty capable.
And there's not much, let's say, practice that the Saudis have had, so they don't even know if their defenses work.
And after you watch your entire oil facility just being devastated in 10 minutes, you're probably thinking to yourself, maybe we should try to keep the rest of our oil facilities.
So it seems to me that on day one or two of any war with Iran, Saudi Arabia would no longer be an oil exporting country.
Literally. On day two, you know, day one or two, Saudi Arabia would no longer be in business.
They just wouldn't be an oil exporting country anymore.
And you can see how easily Iran just took out a major facility.
Now, here's my current, better updated understanding.
I've said this a million times, but if you think Iran is not rational, you're just not paying attention.
They want different things than we want, but they're terribly rational, including this.
So it turns out that they seem to have known that the United States was not going to go to war for Saudi Arabia.
Because Saudi Arabia just isn't popular enough that the United States is going to say, yeah, let's go kill some Americans to defend them.
Because 9-11 is still sort of fresh in a lot of people's minds, and always will be, I suppose, as long as we're alive, the generation that watched it live on TV. And I don't know, and I think Iran is probably right, that it would be next to impossible for the U.S. public to back a war to defend Saudi Arabia.
Even though they're an ally.
So I think Iran realized that they had a free punch and that there would be no repercussion or at least nothing important.
And I think Iran said, wait a minute, we just figured out that if we want to get back at the United States, we can just keep punching Saudi Arabia forever.
Because it doesn't seem like there's any amount that they could punch Saudi Arabia that's going to make us respond militarily.
Because we really, really don't want to.
And Saudi Arabia really, really doesn't want to get in a war, too.
So I have to give it up for Iran.
It was a pretty good strategy.
I mean, it wasn't obvious to me, but I would say we're not going to respond militarily.
They successfully took the stakes way up.
I think they're calling Saudi Arabia's bluff and ours too, at least militarily.
And I think they're right.
I think they can blow up as much stuff in Saudi Arabia as they want.
And we're probably not going to do anything about it.
So... And then I heard the count today.
Apparently the attack was, I have the numbers approximate, it was like 19 drones and 7 cruise missiles or something.
So there was something like 25 different flying assets That either came out of Iran or Iran's proxy in Yemen to destroy that thing and basically just took it out.
And so the headlines today are all about the age of drone warfare is here and nobody can protect themselves.
And I think that's pretty clear that our normal defenses for, you know, our radar and our normal military defenses are not going to make much difference against this kind of attack.
So suddenly everybody can attack everybody again.
So, it looks like things are changing.
Now, it makes you wonder if somebody will attack Iran with a bunch of drones and missiles and then claim it wasn't us.
It's kind of ballsy for Iran to say, no, it wasn't us.
What do you mean?
I don't think it was us.
Could we do the same thing?
Could we just, you know, take out a major Iranian oil facility with, you know, with a hundred flying objects?
And then when Iran says, hey, United States, you bombed our oil facility.
And could we just go on TV and say, wasn't us?
Nope. I don't know what you're talking about.
We're just as innocent as you were when that oil refinery blew up.
We don't know what you're talking about. So that would be a funny thing to do, but not that I would recommend it.
So I promised you that I was going to solve, in the title of this Periscope, I said I was going to solve healthcare, immigration, and climate change.
I'm going to deliver on all of that.
Are you ready? Climate change solved.
Already done. Already done.
Now, not from my own doing, of course, but rather a number of influential people.
I like to point out Mark Schneider and Michael Schellenberger in particular, have done such a good job of, let's say, influencing people to understand that nuclear has to be part of the way we go forward.
Whether you think climate change is a problem or not.
So whether or not climate change is a problem, nuclear is still the way to go.
But here's what's new.
The Huffington Post just did a major piece, essentially praising Cory Booker for being the only person who's compatible with science, Andrew Yang is too, and Biden is actually, compatible with science, because he's saying that we need nuclear power to deal with climate change.
And Cory Booker says directly, you can't blame the other side, meaning the Republicans, You can't blame them for being anti-science on climate change if you're going to be anti-science about nuclear power.
Because science says we need it.
It's a big deal.
Huffington Post just turned on all the anti-nuclear people and just went full-throated pro-nuclear.
Let me say that again.
The Huffington Post just went full pro-nuclear.
CNN, I said, was it yesterday or just the other day, this week, CNN went pro-nuclear, unabashedly.
Both of them are printing articles that are absolutely, unambiguously pro-nuclear, with no real pushback articles.
In other words, they're not showing both sides, they're just showing pro-nuclear.
Who else is showing pro-nuclear?
The Daily Wire. So we're seeing it on the right, and you're seeing it on the left.
So The Daily Wire was mocking Marianne Williamson, is it Williams or Williamson, I forget, for saying that we should forget about the data on nuclear energy and just use our hearts.
And they were mocking her.
So in any given week, when you have the media that's on the right and the media that's on the left, And I'm talking way right and way left.
The full right and the full left, both unambiguously, clearly backing nuclear power.
What's that mean? It means, ladies and gentlemen, that climate change is solved.
Now, when I say is solved, we still have to do all the work of the political work and the persuasion and the economics and the technology.
I mean, it's a ton of work.
But we now have a clear path because both the left and the right just agreed.
Now, there are people who are still not on board, but they just look silly at this point.
You can't take seriously Elizabeth Warren when she's full anti-nuclear.
At the same time, CNN and Huffington Post and everybody on the right is all pro-nuclear.
Warren can't win.
So the path to...
The path to no nuclear is pretty much closed because both sides just closed the door.
Now, where's AOC in all this?
Because I think you can't talk about climate change and you can't talk about where we're going unless you throw her in.
She's so influential. And what is her take on nuclear?
Do you know? Do you know AOC's take on nuclear power?
Open to it. Yeah.
Open to it. So I believe that's her latest statement, is that she's open to the argument.
Now, how do you interpret open to it?
It's not like she hasn't already looked into it.
Do you think AOC hasn't paid attention?
Yeah, I know some of you have a low opinion of everybody who's on the other side, but seriously.
AOC, she's most associated with the Green New Deal.
She's looked into it.
She knows nuclear has to be part of the solution.
There's no doubt that she understands that, and she's sort of doing the cats on the roof with, well, I'm open to it.
Have you ever heard that joke, cats on the roof?
It goes like this.
Guy is going on vacation.
He asks his brother to look after his cat.
So a guy goes on vacation and he wants to check in.
So a few days after vacation starts, he calls his brother and goes, hey, how are things?
How's my cat? And his brother says, your cat's dead.
He's like, oh my God, oh my God, you're ruining my vacation.
That's so terrible. How can you just say it like that?
You're so cruel. And the brother says, well, what am I supposed to do?
I mean, I'm just telling you the truth.
And the guy says, you could have broken it to me more softly.
He goes, what do you mean? He goes, well, for example, the first time I called and asked about my cat, you might have said, oh, the cat's on the roof and, you know, we're trying to get her down.
And then maybe the next day I call and say, well, she's still on the roof.
We're still trying to get her down.
And maybe the third day you say, well, we tried to get her down, but she fell and she looks injured.
And then maybe the fourth day you say, well, it looks like she's not going to make it.
So by the time I find out my cat died, I've had lots of time to sort of, you know, adjust to the idea.
So try to break it to me slowly next time.
And the brother says, all right, all right, I get it.
So, the brother on vacation says, alright, that's just terrible.
He goes, anything else happening?
And the brother says, mom's on the roof.
Alright, so, I will pause because I'm sure you're laughing at home.
So, AOC is telling us that the nuclear power is on the roof.
In other words, she's trying to break it to her side, slowly, that that's the answer.
She can't go out and say, Green New Deal, Green New Deal, let's do solar, let's do windmills, let's do solar, let's do windmills, whoops, let's do nuclear.
You can't really do that.
You need a little bit of a transition.
So she's in the open-minded phase of the transition to full nuclear because you know she's going there, right?
Now, I, of course, have more confidence in her abilities than most of you, and I have from the start, and I think she's smart, and I think she's going to do her homework, and I think she's already pro-nuclear, and we just have to get there.
Alright, so, climate change is solved, meaning that we know how to solve it, and all the people who need to agree are on board.
There are a few candidates who are not on board, but I don't think they're going to win, so it doesn't matter.
All those smart people are on board.
Cory Booker, Andrew Yang, even Biden's advisors are saying, yes, nuclear.
So, let's talk about immigration and healthcare.
Would you like me to solve both of them now?
Oh, I can do that.
But first, let me give you some context.
Let's go to the whiteboard.
Whiteboard coming at you.
Ah... Alright, here's what I want to tell you.
This is a framework for understanding where I'm going next.
Imagine, if you will, that before, and I'm just roughly picking years to make a point, let's say before today, throughout entire human history, mostly we were dealing with shortages.
Meaning that we were trying to find enough food to eat.
We were trying to get enough materials and money and capital.
And we were trying to get stuff.
We didn't have enough stuff.
So imagine, let's call that the era of scarcity.
But I believe that now our modern systems from Amazon.com to Capitalism to FedEx to all the systems we've built have created a situation where we can get all the stuff we need if you have a good enough reason to get it.
You can find anything you need.
You can find a way to get it to you.
All you really need is money and we know how to make money.
We know how to make business models.
We know how to get jobs.
We know how to make money. So I would argue that we are about to enter, or have entered, what I'll call the era of design.
The era of design is notable because it imagines that you can get all the stuff you need You just have to organize it right.
Now, in terms of design, I'm talking about systems, not just products.
So I'm not talking about designing a new phone.
That's just product design.
It's not very interesting. I'm talking about designing systems, such as the Constitution of the United States.
That's a system. It's a good one.
The system of capitalism.
It's good. Our legal system.
It's a system. And here's my insight.
Like every skill, design is something that some people, some few people, are really, really good at.
Other people are okay at it, and other people are bad at it.
It's just like every other skill.
The top... 1% of 1% of people who are good at this, designing, can change the world.
So people like that would be, for example, the founders of this country, who designed a constitution and a system that has been just brilliantly effective for a few hundred years.
Now, maybe it won't be always as effective as the environment changes, but they're great, you know, Jefferson and that crowd, Madison, etc., were great designers.
So think of them not as founders, think of them as designers, designers of systems.
Now, who did we see? Part of the reason I picked 2019 is because of Kanye.
So Kanye West.
You know the story.
On his own, his own initiative, he hired some architectural folks, and they designed some example or test, I'd say...
Test homes that he was trying to develop for low-income housing.
When he was done, I guess the neighbors in the city said, hey, you don't have permits, and it's kind of loud.
So he tore them down.
And I've said that you're seeing the beginning of his design phase probably not the end of it.
That whatever he learned when he built the first ones, now he knows.
He'll probably do some more in a different place in a different way, and then he'll keep experimenting and designing his way forward.
When you've got people like Kanye designing housing, suddenly you've got something like Thomas Jefferson designing the Constitution.
You're elevating the skill level that's going into design.
Now, I'm not going to say that Kanye will necessarily design the low-income house of the future and that will change the world.
But there are people like him who are that level of creative designers.
And you need that level. You need the top 1% of 1% who are getting ready to change the world.
Everything's going to be redesigned.
Let me give you an example of redesign.
And by the way, once we get our systems designed, then we'll enter sort of a golden age where things are going pretty well for us.
So, let me give you an example of how powerful design is.
And I'm going to use an example of a hypothetical deal In which the left and the right make an agreement in which the left gets some stuff they want on health care, while the right gets some stuff they want on immigration.
This idea, the seed of this idea, comes from Joel Pollack at Breitbart.
So credit to Joel for this insight.
This insight is that there's something about health care and immigration that makes them a natural pair for a deal.
And that is that they influence each other.
So if you had free health care, it would be a problem to also have unlimited immigration.
Because the immigrants would come in, eventually, they would come in at numbers so great that you and I can't afford our healthcare anymore because we're trying to share.
There just wouldn't be enough money for you to have healthcare, you if you're, let's say, an American citizen, if you have unlimited immigration.
So the two topics are tied necessarily.
You couldn't untie them if you wanted.
So how could you design...
How could you design a system that takes advantage of the fact that they're connected and gives people what they want?
And I'm just going to throw out the bones of an idea.
I'm not going to sell this idea as like the best way to go because I don't know, but it'll give you a sense of what I'm talking about in terms of how powerful design is.
So imagine if you said the health care going forward would be a combination of private insurance, so you could always pay your same private insurance you have, keep it through your employer, and you could have that, and it would be unchanged.
But it would also be Medicare for the rest of us with some kind of a needs test, so you can't get it if you're rich.
But if you have a certain income, you can just get it.
Now, I understand there's something like 15 to 18 percent of the country doesn't have health care insurance.
So, you'd be adding to the cost of...
I guess you'd be adding to the cost of society 15 or 20 percent on top of health care.
So, that would be too expensive.
People would complain.
But let's say that you simultaneously said, we're going to have private insurance.
We're going to have Medicare for the rest of you.
That's going to cost more, and the way that we're going to pay for that, at least as an attempt, we'll see how close we can get to this.
This is trying to reduce costs through competition.
The competition specifically would be that the private insurance and the government insurance We'd be bidding for services and trying to beat down the providers and lower the cost.
So you'd have as a goal lowering overall cost of 20% that would make this sort of revenue neutral country-wise.
It doesn't mean every person is revenue neutral, but country-wise it would break even.
And then you would trade this, and again this is just Throwing out the bones of an idea.
I'm not saying this is the best idea.
You would trade it for effective border security and you would depersonalize it by saying, whatever the engineers say we should do and where, that's what we'll do.
So stop talking about walls, stop talking about fences, stop talking about electronic sensors, stop talking about humans.
Just say, here's the deal.
We just want the experts to tell us what to do where.
Not for the purpose of, here's the beauty, not for the purpose of restricting, but for the purpose of controlling, like a lever.
Creating a system for immigration that when we need more of it, we can easily pull the lever.
And when we need less of it, we put the lever.
In other words, just creating a system for immigration that we don't have right now.
Right now we don't have a system because it's up to the people crushing the border whether they come in or not.
It's not up to us. There are too many of them.
We can't control them. So, imagine if you could that we agreed that the number of immigrants who would come in on any given year Would be based on the unemployment rate.
So you'd completely depersonalize it.
And you say to yourself, look, at this unemployment rate, we'll let this many immigrants in.
And by the way, Congress, you could make that go up or down.
You know, it doesn't have to stay there.
We could decide, oh, let's boost that up because it's good for us.
And then I'm throwing this in because I think this is coming one way or the other eventually.
Someday there will be an app For immigrants who are not citizens who want to work, they connect with employers through the app so that the government can watch everybody do it legally.
Effectively, that would mean that having an app would be like a worker's visa without the paperwork.
So let me say that again.
Instead of going through a legal worker's visa program, if you've got the app and you've signed up for it and it's really you, That's it.
You've got a worker's visa.
But you also have to have an employer say, I'll give you a job.
So the app would be pairing employers and employees.
It would be handling the payments so that the government could tax it.
How about that? The government could keep track of the workers and everybody would be legal.
Somebody says, you never account for lying corrupt politicians and officials.
Totally unrealistic.
Yeah, I'm not saying that any particular plan is realistic.
I'm trying to give you an idea of how, if we could design better systems, everything would be better.
You know, we don't have a shortage of goods and products.
We have a design problem.
So I believe that there will be an app at some point.
That does the job of keeping everybody accounted for, paying their taxes, paired with jobs, maybe even keeping them out of trouble, and making it easier for the immigrants to get work, and maybe even making it easier for them to get on some path to citizenship, should the country decide that they want to do that.
Alright, so, here's what it would look like as a Designed plan.
Now, you could call this a deal.
If you're talking in President Trump language, you'd call it making a deal.
But it's a special deal because it would have to be designed so that these two parts of the deal work together.
So that if unemployment starts to go up, you don't have to build a wall then.
What would be the worst system?
Here's the worst system. Would be unemployment starts to go up in this country and then we can't stop people from coming in.
That would be the worst system, right?
The best system would be if we get a lever and our unemployment goes up and then we just pull back a little bit on immigration.
Not completely. Just pull back enough to get our employment back where we want it.
And again, those things could be negotiated by Congress.
It doesn't have to be what the president is forcing on the country.
Somebody says, are you saying automation will have no effect?
No, I'm not saying anything like that.
Somebody says, how about a better system instead to train and educate people born and raised here first?
Well, those don't have to be insteads.
Those can be in addition to's.
So why wouldn't we do both?
Okay, so the other thing I wanted to point out is that I think Kamala Harris has some kind of a plan where at least for 10 years you get to keep your private insurance.
But I'm waiting to see the good argument against having dual healthcare systems.
Because I don't know any good argument against that.
Do you? Does anybody have a good argument for...
A good argument for why we wouldn't just have dual healthcare system.
Cover everybody. But with a, you know, an income test.
Well, dual healthcare with everybody covered.
That's the part that's different.
All right. Somebody says Germany has dual healthcare system and it works well.
Yeah, I think there are a few countries.
Great Britain is the other one, right?
Where they can do that.
Now, the real question is whether any of this allows you to lower costs.
And it seems to me that the administration could make a deal with the Democrats to say, if you will help us do these market-based things to lower costs that will drive down costs, help us with the votes we need to drive down costs, we'll help you get a system that runs parallel with private insurance so that everybody can get health insurance.
I feel like that would be a decent deal.
But it has to be tied to immigration.
You absolutely can't have...
You can't have a free healthcare system and open immigration.
I think everybody understands that.
They just need to hear it.
It's one of those things that just needs to be said, and then you hear it the first time, you go, oh, yeah, that's true.
How many people do you think in the voting public...
No to make the connection between immigration rates and what we can and cannot do in a practical sense with health care for all.
Do you think most of the public...
Just sort of immediately connects those two and says, oh, I want healthcare for all.
Oh, wait. I can't have that if it's also open borders.
I don't know that everybody makes that connection.
And once you make that connection, this design just falls out from that, doesn't it?
It just sort of, blah.
It's the obvious thing where you end up.
Now, I keep saying that I think healthcare is going to end up with some kind of a dual system.
But I'm really kind of testing that idea because I keep expecting that someone in the comments or somewhere else will say, Scott, Scott, Scott, read this article or look at these statistics and you can see why you can't ever have a dual healthcare system.
It won't work and here's the reason.
I haven't seen a reason.
I mean, I'm not saying I've seen bad reasons or any reasons.
Have you? All right.
Explain the difference between outcomes.
Why would I keep private?
Oh, so you would...
The only people who could get the public option under the dual system I'm talking about would be people who are below a certain income or over a certain age or I think below a certain age.
So children and seniors and then adults under a certain income would be the only ones who could get the government to pay for it.
Everybody else has to pay for their own because they have money or they have a job and their employers pay for it.
Then the second thing is the quality of the care.
A lot of people have a preference.
You might not be able to get the same doctor, the same quality of care, the same timeliness, the same confidence as if you are in a private option.
Somebody says, in Germany, anyone can get the public system, but above a certain income.
Yeah, so the other way to do it, which is effectively the same thing, is that your income determines what, if anything, you would pay for the public or private options.
All right.
Will it be mandatory to have one or the other?
I don't see why it would be.
Why would you force somebody to have mandatory free insurance?
You can't force somebody to go to the doctor.
So, you know, for the free option, the one that's below a certain income, people can just ignore it.
But I suppose all you'd have to do is show up to the right kind of doctor or emergency room and you'd be covered.
I think that's what it is.
Now, somebody's saying, what if you have money, but you don't want to buy private insurance?
Well, I guess, I don't know, we'll deal with that somehow.
Okay, how many people think I just solved climate change?
Not by myself, obviously.
Healthcare and immigration, again, not by myself.
I'm using Joel Pollack's seed of an idea and expanding on it.
So don't blame him for anything I expanded on.
Just the insight that those two things could be a deal because they both...
So here's the other reason that healthcare and immigration make a natural deal.
Because they're equivalent emotionally, right?
They're sort of both large national interests that have our emotions and our attention.
And if I said to you, what's bigger, immigration or healthcare?
Well, you'd have to think about it for a moment.
You know, you'd probably say healthcare.
Some people would say immigration.
So the fact that you'd have to think about it tells you they're both big.
And that makes it a fair trade.
It's like, okay, I'll give you your big thing.
You give me your big thing, and we'll both make the thing we're giving up at least a little bit moderate.
So, this is the quietest I've ever seen in my audience.
I don't know what's going on here.
Is there anybody who thinks this is a bad idea?
Did I just describe solutions for the three biggest problems in the world?
No, that's not true.
The three biggest, let's say, political topics in the country.
Did I just describe three solutions for the three biggest political issues?
And everybody here is going, well, okay.
Is that what happened? I don't know.
So some of you are saying no and not solved, but I'm not seeing any reasons.
Is there something obvious I'm missing?
Okay. So...
That's about all I have today.
I would love to see a debate on the question of whether or not a dual system works.
Now, my take on Elizabeth Warren is that she is 100% unelectable.
And the reasons are that her stand on nuclear energy, it's just the end of the story.
If you've got Huffington Post on CNN, The whole right and all the important left and every scientist saying we need nuclear power, Warren just doesn't have anything.
She's just empty. She has an empty weapon there.
And then secondly, wanting to take your healthcare away.
For every person who loves that idea, There are going to be, I think, two people who don't want to lose their existing health care.
So I feel that she has a plan that can get her maybe the nomination, but it's not even slightly competitive.
Am I wrong?
Does it seem to you that Warren would not be even slightly competitive?
Because of nuclear, so the whole climate change she can't get right, and health care.
Immigration will be, people will just take sides.
So she's fine on immigration from the standpoint that her own team likes where she is, I'm sure.
But it looks like the Democrats are driving as fast as they can toward guaranteed losing.
It's the weirdest thing.
Now, I will continue to say Because it's not fair to change my predictions in midstream.
That Harris is still their only chance of winning.
Because Harris has something like a dual healthcare system idea.
And I'm sure that she could also pivot to, well, I'll take a look at nuclear because she's...
We don't really even know what Harris is up...
I don't even know what she thinks about nuclear, do you?
Even if she said she doesn't like it, You could easily imagine her saying, well, I looked into it and maybe we need a little nuclear.
So I think she has a chance because she could at least, you know, pivot a little to the center and create some policies.
She's got the age right.
She's got the, you know, she's got person of color right.
She's got gender right.
She's got the experience.
She's not just a mayor.
Mayors don't seem exciting.
She sort of still has the whole package.
The only thing she has is that she's terrible at campaigning, apparently.
And that might be fixable.
You don't know. You don't know.
She got this far, so she knows how to learn.
That's all I got for now.
▲
Export Selection