All Episodes
Feb. 3, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
41:23
Episode 808 Scott Adams: Super Pole Dancing, Iowa, #BloombergBox Sales, Brainwashed vs Lying

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Content: Superbowl pole dancing half-time show President Trump's genius trolling of Michael Bloomberg 42% of Yang supporters would NOT support another Democrat MSNBC and CNN's pundits promoting King Trump nonsense Brainwashed vs partisan lying vs ignorant people Biden versus Bernie Is the Democrat nomination process legit? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum... Bum-bum! Bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum... Bum-bum... Bum-bum...
Wake up, everybody!
Wake up!
I know you had an excellent Super Bowl Sunday, but...
Now it's Monday.
It's time to get serious with... Coffee with Scott Adams.
You came to the right place.
Yes.
If you would like to enjoy Coffee with Scott Adams, always...
all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
It's going to be a good one.
Go! Mmm, Super Bowl-ish, I must say.
So, whether you cared or didn't about the Super Bowl, it did produce some news.
Well, some interesting things, anyway.
Let's talk about those. Number one, is it a coincidence that Trump keeps winning?
And not only does Trump keep winning...
Even things that are sort of loosely associated with him keep winning.
Because if you've got a Super Bowl that's Kansas City, middle of the country, sort of, you know, Trump territory essentially, against San Francisco, Pelosi territory, Everything's really about politics now, isn't it? It's sort of all about politics, even if you don't want it to be, even if it's not supposed to be.
It is. Now, I missed the opening, but correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe anybody was kneeling for the national anthem.
Am I right? Fact check me on that.
I don't believe anybody was kneeling.
That's sort of a Trump victory.
Took a while, but there we are.
So, Trump and Trumpism sort of gets the win over San Francisco.
I confess to having mixed loyalties there.
Now, I have to tell you, I don't know anything about football.
You know, I used to watch it.
I don't watch it anymore. It's the only game I watched this year was the Super Bowl.
I didn't know the name of the quarterback for Kansas City until the game itself.
I wasn't sure about the name of San Francisco's quarterback until the playoffs recently.
So I came into this with no knowledge whatsoever.
Turned it on a few minutes into the game, and I watched Haram.
Is that his name? Haram?
Who is... Who's the quarterback for the Kansas City?
I forget. Haram?
Haram? Anyway, I watched him throw one pass.
And from that one pass, I just said to myself, I don't think San Francisco is going to win.
Because just watching that one pass, I just thought to myself, I don't think that looks normal.
I don't know that much about football, but whoever threw that thing is not like the others.
So, I did think San Francisco was going to win when they were ahead, but when I saw that guy's arm, I thought, I don't know how you beat that.
He looked pretty good. Mahomes, thank you.
Anyway, everybody's jabbering about the halftime show, and Jenny from Lock, J-Lo, and Shakira.
Did a little bit too sexy pole dancing crotch grabbing rendition of their act, leaving many people with conflicting feelings.
I have to admit, it's not exactly what you want to be watching with your kids.
I mean, it doesn't bother me personally, but I totally get how other people would be bothered by it.
So I acknowledge that.
It was interesting in terms of what it says about the country and about where our heads are, etc.
I think they got away with it, meaning that Jennifer Lopez and Shakira are just so well-loved and popular and whatever.
They can kind of get away with what other people couldn't get away with.
I thought it was a great show.
I have to tell you, I saw Jennifer Lopez live performing in Las Vegas within the past year.
And you watch her perform live for, I don't know how long the show is, an hour or whatever it is.
And for an hour, she's doing intense physical activity, dancing and singing.
And when you see her actually sort of in person, meaning you're in the audience and there's no camera between you and her, And the whole time you're thinking, what does she do for her fitness that she can look like that and do that?
It's honestly the most, watching her in person at her current age, doing what she does, looking the way she does, it doesn't even seem real.
I do not know how she could, because she doesn't look like she had a lot of plastic surgery.
You know, one assumes that everybody at that level is getting a little bit of work.
But she doesn't show signs of it.
I would say that you almost have to see Jennifer Lopez as an athlete, as much as an entertainer.
As an athlete, it's really impressive.
What she's managed to do and get out of her physicality is just really, really impressive.
So I'm a big fan. And maybe it was a little too sexy, but we'll get over it.
All right. Let's talk about the Bloomberg Bucks.
You may have noted already, yesterday I did a Super Bowl commercial for my invention, the Bloomberg box.
It's an actual box that you can stand on to even things up if you're not quite debate height.
Now, as luck would have it, I think I'm almost exactly the same height as Bloomberg.
So I think I'm supposed to be...
I'm 5'8".
So I think I'm supposed to be insulted by all this talk of shortness.
I'm not. It just seems funny to me.
So the whole thing is just a little bit silly.
Certainly, I don't think that Bloomberg's height stopped him from earning $56 billion and becoming Bloomberg.
So, obviously, it's not a real issue.
But it is something that would probably matter if he stood on the stage.
Now, here's the funny part.
Trump is playing the...
So that everybody has to fact check it.
And I want to read to you his exact quote on this.
I guess it was in his interview yesterday.
It's just so funny that he does this, because you know it's intentional.
And remember when he would do this three years ago, and I would be the only person who would say, no, this isn't what you think.
This is actually going to work.
And then it would work, and people would say, huh.
Didn't see that coming.
Only that cartoonist said that.
But this time he does this play that he's done so many times where he puts this little piece of fake news into the consciousness and he makes everybody fact check it so that we're only talking about that.
So Piers Morgan called this out in a tweet noting that it had to be considered genius at this point because he's just so good at it.
He's so good at this thing.
So here's his exact words.
He goes, quote, I love the fact that Trump says it's okay to be short.
There's nothing wrong with that.
You can be short. Thank you for that permission.
Why should he get a box to stand on?
Okay. Why should he get a box to stand on?
He wants a box for the debates.
Now it's even funnier when you put it into his mind, like it's just something he wants.
Not only does it not exist and it didn't happen, but now it's something he wants.
So he's deepening the rumor.
Why should he be entitled to that?
Why should he be entitled?
It's really about entitlement now.
Let's talk about entitlement.
Why should he be entitled to that?
Really, does that mean everyone else gets a box?
I would love to run against Bloomberg, Hans.
Why is he entitled to that?
Does that mean everybody else gets a box?
It would be hilarious.
You know, it would be hilarious.
As if Bloomberg didn't get a box.
No, I don't know. Because I think they do that, right?
If you have a shorter candidate.
I think that's a real thing.
Hasn't that been done before for maybe Hillary Clinton, maybe Klobuchar or somebody else?
But what would stop...
I'm just asking.
What would stop Trump from demanding his own box?
Nothing, right? There's nothing that would stop Trump from saying, well, this should be a level playing field.
We're not trying to fool the audience.
The whole point of the debate is to show the audience who we are.
So, if everything's supposed to be equal, Trump gets a box.
Now, is there anything that would make you laugh harder Then finding out that Bloomberg got a box, and then Trump demanded his own box, I don't know if I could ever stop laughing.
That would be the funniest thing I'd ever seen in my life.
And the funniest thing is that his argument would be pretty good.
The argument that everybody should be treated the same, and it's their own fault if they have a look.
It's nobody else's fault if somebody's taller than someone else.
Somebody's saying Julian Castro had a box.
So... I would love to see Trump demand a box.
But here's the funny part. All the networks and everybody had to fact check him.
And of course they fact checked it and found out there was absolutely no rumor to it whatsoever.
Now there's a new rumor that Bloomberg is really angry about this.
I doubt it. I mean it's possible.
But I kind of doubt that of all the things that Bloomberg has to worry about in a day...
I don't think he's really worried about the box thing, but now there's this new rumor that he's furious about it.
I never believe any of those kinds of rumors, because you hear these about Trump all the time.
Trump was furious about this or that or whatever, and then you think to yourself, probably not.
Probably not. He probably mentioned it.
So Bloomberg may not love it, but I doubt he's furious about it or anything like that.
So I wouldn't trust that reporting.
Here's the funny thing. As a prank, I want to see if we can persuade this box into reality.
And by persuade it into reality, I don't mean that there will be an actual real box.
I mean that we will use persuasion until everybody thinks there's a box.
Just as an experiment.
Now, the experiment is based on trying to repeat the experiment that CNN and MSNBC do on a regular basis, in which they ignore The facts that don't agree with the reporting and just continue talking as though they had not been debunked.
Now, how many times have you seen this?
For example, the fine people hoax has been debunked a billion times, but they still just act like it hasn't.
Instead of addressing the debunking, they just act like it didn't happen.
When Dershowitz What did Wolf Blitzer do?
When the guy who is the only person who knows for sure what Alan Dershowitz said and meant, meaning Alan Dershowitz, corrects them in the most unambiguous way, what does CNN do?
They just acted like it didn't happen and then continued talking the way they were talking.
So I would like to give you a one-act play in which I will be talking to Dale, the anti-Trumper, and convincing him through my powers of persuasion...
That the box exists.
Dale, you've heard the story that Bloomberg's going to stand on that box.
Do you think that's fair?
Scott, Scott, Scott.
There is no box that is fake news, something your president does.
He lies, he lies like a lying liar.
He made it up. There is no truth to it.
Bloomberg has confirmed there is no box.
Every single network has confirmed there is no box.
Scott, no box.
What color is the box?
What the hell are you talking about?
I just told you there's no box.
You can't have a color on a box that doesn't exist.
No box. Bloomberg says there's no box.
Every reporter says no box.
No box. No box.
It doesn't exist. Who's paying for this box?
What is happening now?
What is happening? I keep telling you.
It's fake news. There's no box.
There's no box. The box does not exist.
Dale, do you think it's fair that Bloomberg gets a box and Trump doesn't get a box?
What's fair about that?
What's happening?
What's happening? Scene.
So no matter what anybody says about the box, just as a prank, just as a prank, look at them expressionlessly and And ask a question about the box.
It'll be hilarious.
Don't ever leave character.
No matter who you're talking to, when they tell you the box doesn't exist, just look right at them and ask them about a detail about the box.
It will make them crazy.
Funniest thing ever. All right.
Go forward. So I created my Super Bowl commercial in which I was selling the Bloomberg box, my product which you just saw.
Which, by the way, it has more than one use.
It can be used as something to stand on, but also can be used by Antifa as kind of a mask.
So you can use the box if you're attending an Antifa rally, and nobody will know who you are.
They might think you're Mike Bloomberg, if they're not very observant.
But it has multiple uses.
I don't make products that are only good for one thing.
So I've got about 76,000 views on that.
Looks like it's going semi-viral.
So that's good.
On other news, I think this is fascinating.
I've talked about it before, but according to a poll, Warren supporters said they would all, basically, 90% of them would support whoever gets nominated if it's not Warren.
So in other words, Warren has very soft support.
Their supporters...
Prefer her, but if they have to go to second or third choice, that's okay.
90% of them would do it.
Yang supporters are at 42% would not support the Democrat if it's not Yang.
42% of them.
Now, that's 42% of a small number, but I wonder what those people say when they get polled.
I wonder if Yang supporters are just sort of breaking the polling, because I don't know who they are.
Are they people who have never voted before because there was never anybody who spoke to them?
Are they people who won't vote?
Are they young people who, when it comes to Election Day, they're like, eh, it wasn't Yang, I just don't care, I'm not going to vote at all.
Or is it Trump supporters who have lost faith and gone over to Yang for some reason?
I don't know who they are.
So I think we have to understand this a lot better than we do.
Alright, let's talk about, so CNN and MSNBC are running this persuasion play in which they're having all their dumbest pundits, and really it's the dumb ones.
There's no way to be nice about this.
Philip Nance, have you ever seen Philip Nance?
I don't think he's dumb necessarily, but he just goes on TV and he will say absolutely anything.
So he and others who are equally, let's say, non-credible, are saying that we've just learned that President Trump wants to be a king.
And they're all using that word.
A king. He thinks he's a king.
He's above the law. He wants to be a king.
King, king, king. And they're trying to sell this into existence.
And I'm thinking to myself, you have really run out of material.
Man, have you run out of material.
If what you've got left is we're reading his mind and we think he wants to be a king, you've got nothing left.
That is the most ridiculous complaint.
It doesn't ring true on any level.
And if Democrats are buying into this, that says something about them that's not good.
Alright, here's a fun question for you, for your Democrat friends who are opposed to Trump's wall.
I want somebody to report back to me after trying this experiment.
Find an anti-Trumper or Democrat who is very opposed to strong immigration, and especially somebody, and here's the key, somebody who is opposed to what was called the Muslim ban, but was really a ban on countries that didn't have good Systems for identification, which ended up being a lot of Muslim countries.
Now, that's been expanded.
I don't know what percentage of Muslim countries now.
But most of your Democrats would say, and still say, that President Trump is only closing the borders because the people are Muslims.
So he's discriminating against Muslims.
Now, find a person like that.
Somebody who holds that view.
And ask them how that's different from the travel ban on China to prevent the coronavirus.
Because in both cases, you are punishing a large segment of people who you know to be innocent.
You know that 99% of the Chinese travelers don't have any virus.
You know that. So why are you punishing 99% of the Chinese travelers just to prevent the risk that the 1% might bring in?
Now, how is that different from the ban on countries, many of them are Muslim majority, or most or all, I don't know what it is, but how is that different?
Because we also believe that the Muslims coming in are 99% or more completely innocent, have every right to immigrate like everybody else does, but the 1% or less, whatever it is, might be very dangerous.
How exactly are those two situations different?
Now, I always warn you not to do persuasion by analogy.
So, yeah, somebody says good analogy.
So analogies don't win arguments.
You're not going to change anybody's mind with this analogy.
Trust me, it's not going to change anybody's mind.
But it's an experiment.
See if you can get somebody to walk through the risk management of it.
Because those who do not think That the ban on countries is based on racism, and I don't.
I don't believe it's based on racism.
I look at it as risk management.
So to me, it looks exactly the same as the virus thing.
It's just a risk management thing.
It's based on not being able to identify the risk within a population.
Alright, so do that.
It'll be fun. Let me know what your Democrat says when you try that.
Did you see the...
I think there might have been two Trump ads in the Super Bowl.
One of them in particular mentioned that Trump has made the country, what, stronger and safer?
He talks about the economy and he shows some military stuff.
I think the two words were stronger and safer.
Those are really good.
Strong and safe.
And he can back it up.
I don't believe there would be anybody who would disagree that our military got stronger.
Everybody would agree with that.
And that our economy got stronger.
So when the President says we're stronger and safer, those are really basic words.
I mean, that really goes down to, you know, your biological requirement.
Now think of that.
This Trump ad, quite well done.
I'm not going to say it's the best ad they'll ever make, but it's really, it's in the top shelf, right?
It's in the category of some of the great ones.
Maybe not the greatest.
But the stronger and safer, think how basic and biological that is.
Compare that to lesser candidates' offerings, which I think you'll see such as, we can't have that Trump, he is dividing us, sort of a concept.
He's dividing us.
Okay, what does that mean to you?
How does that change your life?
I don't know. In fact, apparently the polls show exactly the opposite.
The polls show that racism has gone way down since Trump became president.
Did you know that, by the way?
Fact check me on that, but I believe the polls show that how we feel about race has improved substantially since Trump became president.
You didn't see that coming, did you?
I did, because I think those things improved no matter what, generally speaking.
Obama was kind of a blip because some people got excited because we had a black president.
So that inflamed things for a while.
But apparently the arc is that we're just getting better on this stuff historically pretty much all the time.
And I think that will continue.
So here's what I loved about the ad.
So first of all, it was basic and biological.
It got right to what matters to you.
It also works really well for women.
It works really well for anybody who feels vulnerable.
If you feel vulnerable in any way, you want to know that we're stronger and safer and that we're looking out for you.
But here's the brilliant part that I don't know if anybody caught.
If you're Trump, you're trying to do something that's kind of a fine line.
You're trying to win black voters.
You're trying to win Hispanic voters.
You're trying to win female voters, right?
Because those are the weaknesses for Trump's supporters.
But it's not really a Republican thing to just go out and pander.
So the Republicans are not good at saying, hey, black people, vote for me.
I will give you some stuff.
Republicans don't like to sell that way, right?
Because that gets into identity politics.
It's opposite the brand.
So if you can't call out a group, but you still want to appeal to them, how do you do it?
And this ad is subtly, subtly brilliant.
If you didn't catch this, here's what they did.
At the end of the ad, where there's some talk about employment being great, Somebody says something, employment for everybody is good.
And then the next voice, you don't see who is talking, but you can tell from the voice, in all likelihood, it's a white woman newscaster.
Now, don't get into the argument about whether you can always tell somebody's ethnicity from hearing their voice.
Yes, yes, I know you can't always tell.
But remember, an ad is just giving you a quick impression of things.
It's not about reality.
So the impression, which probably is right, but could not be right, it's possible it's not, was that the sound of a white woman talking, a voiceover, says that black unemployment is the best it's been in 49 years or whatever.
So here's the clever part.
It was a white woman applauding black employment improvement.
And then the very next voice is, actually they showed it, was a black man, newscaster on Fox, applauding Hispanic employment.
So you see what they did there?
It was kind of subtle. In both cases, they had somebody who was not in the in-group.
Yeah, it was Charles Payne.
So Charles Payne, an African-American man, was talking, his little clip is about Hispanic employment being good.
Now, I'm sure that if you saw the whole clip, he probably talked about employment in general and black unemployment too.
But what was brilliant about this that I absolutely loved was Is that they had people celebrating the other group.
Do you see how powerful that is?
So we had a white woman celebrating black employment improving and a black man, a very successful black man, applauding Hispanic employment.
Do you see how powerful that is?
It's really, really strong, and it's invisible.
You could watch that commercial, and it would just go past you.
It's super clever, and you know it's intentional, too.
I mean, one assumes it's intentional, because it's too good to be accidental, in all likelihood.
All right, here's a fun topic I save for the end.
People ask me, how can you tell if somebody is brainwashed, let's say for a political party, versus they're just lying?
How can you tell the brainwash versus lying versus they're just ignorant versus they have a legitimate opinion and it just happens to disagree with yours?
How can you sort them out?
And I suggested the other day a way to do that.
Now, this is not 100% defective.
There will be exceptions and overlap, etc.
But these are good starting places for your suspicion.
If somebody is brainwashed, Meaning they literally believe something and don't have reasons?
That's what it means to be brainwashed.
They have a belief, and it's a strong belief, but it's not based on facts and reasons.
The way you can determine it is if you get into a conversation with them and you give them a counter-argument that you think is good, a brainwashed person's response will sound crazy.
It'll sound crazy.
Now, what is not crazy would be somebody has wrong facts.
It's not crazy to have wrong facts.
Somebody has bad logic.
Well, that's not crazy.
There are lots of people who are not good at logic.
So there are lots of things that would disagree with you that you would not process as just being crazy.
But cognitive dissonance...
Which is what happens when a brainwashed person is challenged with the facts.
Cognitive dissonance is literally where you're cobbling together your reality and patching it up with something that only makes sense to you.
So that when somebody is the observer and they see you in cognitive dissonance, the things you say don't even make sense.
They just sound like crazy talk.
So that's the tell for a brainwashed person who's been presented with a superior argument.
It's actually crazy talk.
Now, compare that to someone who's just a partisan.
Somebody who's just a Democrat or they're just a Republican and it doesn't matter what you're going to say, I'm going to support my team.
How can you tell that person?
Because that person is actually aware when they're lying.
It's a big difference.
The brainwashed people can't tell when they're They're departing from reality.
They don't have the ability. But a lying partisan, well, they know when they're lying.
They know when they're avoiding a topic.
And if you corner somebody who's a partisan and they're just a liar, what do they do?
Well, most often they change the topic.
They say, well, your team did this too.
That's changing the topic.
Or they say, well, what about the other thing?
That's changing the topic.
So liars who don't want to act like they're crazy, because nobody wants to act crazy.
Nobody does that intentionally.
It would be rare if they did.
I suppose somebody could.
But the cognitive dissonance people, the ones who are brainwashed, they're not choosing to be crazy.
That's just what cognitive dissonance does to you.
It just makes you say things that are irrational.
The partisan liar is just going to change the subject.
So that's your big tell for a liar versus brainwashed.
What about ignorant people?
What about somebody who just didn't have the information that you have, and therefore you disagree on some policy, but once you fill in the gap, they end up being converted to one of the other two things.
If somebody is only operating out of ignorance, and you fill in the ignorance, you tell them the facts that they're missing, they usually don't change their mind, because people don't like changing their mind.
You will end up converting them into either a brainwashed person who starts babbling crazy talk, or a partisan liar.
They'll know they're wrong, but they'll just support their team anyway.
So the ignorant can be fixed, but it doesn't win the argument for you, It just converts them into a liar or a brainwashed person.
So what does a legitimate disagreement look like?
What does it look like when somebody disagrees with you, but maybe you don't like their argument, but you say to yourself, okay, they're not brainwashed, they're not lying.
This is actually their actual belief.
It's reasonable. I just disagree.
Here's how you can tell.
A legitimate debater Can describe your argument accurately?
In other words, you can say to that person, all right, tell me what you think I'm saying.
Can you restate my argument?
And if they can, they're not brainwashed, and they're not ignorant, and they're not partisan liars.
They're probably legitimate people who just want to figure stuff out.
So that's a really good way to tell if you're talking to somebody who's legitimate.
Can you describe my argument in your words?
And if you notice that in most public conversation, people will mischaracterize your argument and argue against the so-called straw man, the argument you never made.
So just ask people directly.
Instead of just having them debate you, say, can you just stop right here?
Can you put in your own words, describe my argument in a way that when I hear it, I'll say, yeah, that's it, you got it.
And most people can't do that because legitimate disagreements are actually kind of rare.
They're kind of rare.
All right. So those are the main...
A lot of people are mentioning Juan on the five.
Juan has an interesting role on the Five.
I don't know if you can exactly assume that the way Juan Williams presents himself on the Five is exactly his personal opinion.
Because remember, he has a role to play.
Which is representing the other side.
It would be a boring show if the other four members of the five had an opinion and Juan said, you know, in this case, I just agree with you.
It's sort of his job.
It's what he gets paid for to give the opposite opinion.
So I don't know if you can make too much of...
Of the fact that he disagrees with people.
You can't...
There's just no conclusion you can make from that.
Because, yeah, somebody says Juan does a good job.
I would say that the reason that Juan has that very high-level job is that he does a good job.
Meaning that his role in the five is exactly...
He has exactly the right kind of energy, charisma, personality...
That just fits really well with those other people and the little, let's say, entertaining friction that they have.
So he's a really good choice for the show.
I will say that.
All right. What about all this Biden versus Bernie stuff?
I have a real question.
About the Bernie supporters and about Biden.
We're hearing more people are imagining that Biden is going to fall off a shelf.
And there's something that we get to check.
So there's a theory of how the world works, which I happen to subscribe to, that we're going to get to check.
It goes like this.
I don't believe that the Democratic convention and nomination process is legitimate.
I don't believe that.
I believe that there are powerful people in a variety of roles and jobs, probably loosely or maybe not loosely connected with the Clintons and the Obama world, etc.
Sort of a world in which a lot of them know each other.
And that, in a variety of ways, they're going to get to decide who is the candidate.
Now, they can manipulate it by changing rules, by changing funding, probably a whole bunch of variables that they have.
Superdelegates, as somebody said, a broker convention.
So they have lots of tools.
Let's say the...
Is it Deep State?
The sort of career Democrats.
They have lots of tools...
To keep somebody like Bernie out of office.
But it does seem that Bernie is doing the best in terms of getting voter support.
So if Bernie is killing it in the polls and he doesn't get the nomination, that should confirm to you that it's a rigged process.
Now, the last time Bernie got sort of pushed out of the nomination process by Clinton supporters, we all said that's a rigged process.
And we were right, right?
I mean, it clearly looked like a rigged process in 2016 to me for the Democrats.
So if it happens again, I feel like that's a confirmation, don't you?
That our system is completely broken and that whatever you think were the Democrats are just some kind of a cartel or mob situation.
So if the Democrats are more of a mob, mafia kind of situation where a few people are deciding what's happening and we just find out about it later, don't expect Bernie to get the nomination.
Now, I suppose it's possible he could have so much support, it would be impossible to rig the system.
And I think that's what Trump did.
I think what Trump did was he probably would have been shut out of the system if he'd been less popular, but he just made himself impossible to ignore and popular enough that the rigging, had there been any, just wouldn't work.
He was still too popular. We'll see if Bernie can achieve that, but I think he can't.
I would expect... So here's what I'm still predicting.
I'm predicting that wobbly Biden...
We'll sort of stumble across the finish line because he'll have the support of the insiders.
But the insiders will not really be supporting Biden.
This is my hypothesis and prediction.
They will really be supporting what power they will have in a Biden presidency.
And one of the main levers that I would imagine that they would want is to have their own vice president, somebody stronger than the president, Who can really be the power and maybe take over as soon as Biden fails completely?
Because remember, Biden could just quit.
Biden could win the presidency, serve for a month, and then tell us, you know, I don't feel so good.
I think my vice president needs to take over.
That's why I picked such a good one.
Totally possible. Because, you know, we haven't seen somebody that age and that wobbly looking become president.
So, under those conditions, I would expect Bernie to lose, Biden to win, and Biden to fade, either before Election Day or soon after, so that the vice president chosen by the machine, the real people in power, can get their power back.
That's the plan, I would think.
All right. Somebody says, please don't say Kamala.
It makes me sick.
Sorry about that. Now, it doesn't necessarily need to be Kamala Harris, who's the vice president pick.
I think she's a good chance.
It just needs to be somebody who's more connected with, let's say, the Clinton camp than somebody who isn't.
That's all it would take. Watching Mike Bloomberg completely, let's say, pervert the system...
It's kind of hilarious because he's violating just about every principle that Democrats have in order to be their leader.
What does that do to the Democrats if the guy they choose as their leader is the guy who got there by violating everything they believe in?
So they don't believe in rich guys buying elections, but he is.
They don't believe in old white guys being the leader of the party that's all about diversity, but he might be.
They seem to be leaning more toward climate change as the end of the world and we'd better get rid of all of our cars.
But he's not.
So it's starting to make me think that the rules change that allowed Bloomberg into the debates was probably about...
It could be that maybe some...
Some people are trying to maybe take some support from Biden, so that would work against the theory.
Export Selection