Episode 1922 Scott Adams: Red Wave Blues And Signals Everyone Missed. Persuasion Filter: ON
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Believers of experts surprised
Fear: abortion rights vs. gun control
Non-Credible polling
Maricopa county questions
President Trump's future
Kari Lake projects competence and confidence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
I promise. And if you'd like to take what might be a bad day for some of you, if you'd like to make the best of it, well, you came to the right place.
I'm going to explain it all.
And so you will go away from this encounter knowing exactly what went wrong.
Are you ready? Well, if you'd like to take it up to the highest level of understanding, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
Except the midterms. It's called a simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. Ah, yeah.
Two sniffs and an exhale.
Ah, don't you feel better now?
A little bit. Alright, I'm going to lift your spirits and make everything better.
Maybe. We'll see.
I don't know if you heard there was an election last night.
I think Ben Shapiro summed it up best in a tweet as he was watching the results come in.
He said, from red wave to red wedding.
Now, if you don't watch Game of Thrones, that meant nothing to you.
If you do watch Game of Thrones, pretty darn clever.
The Red Wedding was a bloody massacre.
Can somebody confirm something for me before I get ripped apart today?
I need you to be my memory.
I believe I never predicted a red wave.
Is that true? Or do I have false memory about my own performance?
Go. True?
Mostly true, somebody says?
Yeah. Yeah, I couldn't remember if there was any time I did, but my memory was never being confident it was going to happen.
I was never confident it was going to be a red wave.
And I'll tell you why.
Because, once again, the persuasion filter just sees things different than the fact filter.
So I was never feeling it.
I never once felt a red wave, like in my bones.
I saw the same thing you saw.
I saw the experts.
I saw the polls. I never really felt it.
Never really felt it.
So I'm not surprised at all.
Let me ask you, how many of you are surprised at the result?
I was completely open to this going either way.
Yeah. Yeah.
All right. Well, we'll talk about all of this.
So, let's see if we can learn from our mistakes, okay?
Let's be the only people in the internet who can learn from our mistakes.
And as I tweeted this morning, if you believe the experts, the non-red wave is a surprise, right?
Anybody who believed the experts was surprised today.
How have the experts done in the last few years?
What would you say? Have the experts been nailing it?
Batting a thousand? Doing real good?
If you had bet against the experts on literally everything, how would you have done?
Suppose you didn't even know what the issues were.
You weren't paying attention to anything.
And you just cast a bet against the consensus of the experts just every time.
On COVID, on politics, on the economy, just every time.
How would you do? You would have had a positive record.
No, it wouldn't be a coin flip.
It would not be a coin flip.
You would have probably a...
I don't know, two-thirds success rate?
Two out of three, something like that?
Yeah, following the experts is a terrible idea lately.
Maybe the worst it's ever been, I don't know.
If you believe that facts are more important than feelings, how'd you do?
How are the facts of how the country is doing?
And if you believe the facts that, oh, there's all this crime and inflation and the economy, if you thought the facts were going to tell you how the midterms would come out, how'd that go?
Didn't work at all, did it?
Completely non-predictive, right?
So, what was predictive?
Was there anything that people used to predict that was predictive?
Well, it turns out, yes.
Yes. It turns out that there was one frame for looking at this situation that was completely predictive.
You're gonna hate this.
You're gonna fucking hate this.
What demographic group caused the win for the Democrats?
Go. What demographic group caused the win?
Not white women.
Not white women. It's women.
And it's not women, it's young women, right?
So young women of all types seem to be the dominant factor, right?
Young women. Have I ever told you what is the strongest form of persuasion?
What's this? Fear, yeah.
There's nothing that persuades more than fear.
Because fear you have to take care of first.
It's like, uh-oh, well, I don't need lunch if I'm going to be eaten by a lion.
So first I'll run away from the lion, and then I'll worry about lunch, right?
Now, lunch is essential.
I mean, eating is essential.
But not as essential as surviving so you can eat.
So fear is number one, and there's nothing close.
Somebody said sex.
I'll agree with you. Sex would be more persuasive than fear, even fear, but it doesn't really enter into politics.
But you're right. So that was actually a very insightful comment.
Sex would actually be more persuasive than even fear.
You see yourself, right?
People have sex even when it's risky.
So yes, you're absolutely right.
If sex had been part of the question, Like sexual relations, not gender.
Yeah, it would have made a difference, but politics, it doesn't.
All right, so if fear is the most important persuasion factor, let me ask you this.
What demographic group, based on science, not bigotry, based on science, not bigotry, what group is the most susceptible to fear?
What group is easiest to scare?
Yeah, and this is not a sexist comment.
I had to go Google it, because I didn't know.
And I just wondered if there was any difference.
And you Google it, and all of the top results say the same thing.
Yeah, there's a big difference.
The women's biology is such that they're easier to scare.
They have more fear about things.
Now, that makes sense, doesn't it?
You understand that.
Like, if I walk out in public...
I've said this before, and it's even a little bit irrational.
I've never been afraid of a person.
Isn't that weird? Now, I've been afraid of a gun that the person had in their hands.
Unfortunately, I've looked down the barrel of a few guns.
I've been afraid of that.
But if it's just the person, I'm not really afraid of somebody just because they're big.
Right? It's part of being male.
Are you? Are there any men...
Who are afraid of just being in public because there are men who are bigger or tougher looking?
That never even enters my mind.
Oh, you are? You are.
Now, I'm not talking about going into a dangerous neighborhood.
Of course you should all be fearful of that.
I'm talking about just you get on the bus and there's some big men on the bus.
Would that scare you if you're not as big as them, if you're male?
That wouldn't scare me.
I mean, not even a little bit.
But if you're a woman, do you have an actual risk?
You do. Yeah.
It's an actual risk.
So it makes sense.
Biologically, it's completely rational that those who are, you know, less able to inflict death on somebody would be more afraid of other people.
You know, one of the benefits of being male is that we can kill anybody.
Am I right? You could be bigger than me, but I could definitely kill you.
Right? Right? I might have to wait till you turn around.
I might have to wait till you go to sleep.
But, oh, I could kill you.
I could kill you. Right?
And every man could.
Now, women could kill you when you fall asleep, too.
It's just they're less likely to do it.
By the way, I saw a story in the news...
There was a woman who found nude pictures on her boyfriend or husband, I think.
I think it was husband. And found nude pictures of, you know, some young-looking hot woman on his computer and she ended up stabbing him.
She was so jealous she stabbed him.
And later she found out that the nude pictures on his computer were pictures of his wife when she was thinner.
So that was probably awkward later in the evening when they sorted that all out.
Talk about an awkward day.
Wow. Anyway, so women can kill men too.
It's just they need a reason.
That was her reason.
She didn't kill them, though.
She just stabbed them a few times.
So, yes, it is scientifically true that young women who dominate the Democratic Party are easier to scare.
Now, so number one, since both sides are trying to scare their own side, mostly you're talking to your own team, right?
So you've got one team of dominated by older white men.
Are older white men easier or harder to scare than the average person?
Older, I'm not talking about elderly necessarily, I'm just, you know, older, mature.
Older, they're pretty hard to scare, right?
Yeah, we're pretty hard to scare.
I'm in that group. We're pretty hard to scare, like actual scare.
You know, we'll be concerned about things like anybody would, but it's kind of hard to scare us, irrationally.
So that is a, that's a built-in advantage.
All right, now I'm going to go one level further.
Who is easier to scare, a man with high testosterone or low?
Go. And this is not bigotry, this is science.
This is only what science will support.
There's no speculation involved here.
Low T people are easier to scare.
High T people are braver.
Now, they might be braver to the point of stupidity.
Let me be clear here.
I'm not saying men are awesome and high testosterone men are the best of all.
There's no quality judgment happening here.
I'm not trying to put anybody down.
I'm only talking pure science.
And if you Google it, which I did...
You'll find that the higher your testosterone, the less fear you have.
That's just sort of what that drug does to you.
You put a little more testosterone in, you get a little braver.
It's one to one. Now let me ask you this.
Does the Democrat Party have high T-men or low T-men?
On average. I feel like it is sort of low T-men who want to...
Who want to be popular with women.
And they believe that women told them the truth, that if they act sensitive, they'll like them better.
Do you know, I believed that for like 20 years.
Women had gaslighted me for almost 20 years in my younger life.
Because I got raised in the feminist era.
So the feminist said, you know...
To be a good male and not a piece of shit, you should be in touch with your feminine side.
And you should be flexible and more like a woman.
I mean, you know, you don't have to be a woman, but just be more in touch with your feminine side.
And that would make you a person that people are really going to like.
So, yeah, in my younger days, I thought, you know, if I give women everything they want...
I'm in. Just give them everything they ask for.
It won't be easy, but I'm the kind of guy who's willing to do the extra work.
I don't care that it's hard to get there.
Oh, you tell me if the path is hard, but there's a good reward at the end?
I'll still take that path.
Because I'm the kind of guy who will crawl through broken glass to get what I want, which is true.
Basically, I'm unstoppable if I really want something.
But I was gaslighted so badly that I thought the way to crawl through glass was to give women what they asked for.
Oh my god was I stupid.
Oh my god.
It took me years to figure out that was all a lie, and none of that was like how people work.
It was just completely off model for just anything.
Just reality did not conform to any of that.
Your libido has ruled your life.
Well, of course it has. Am I supposed to apologize for that?
If your libido ruled your life, it might not have worked out well, but I wouldn't apologize for it.
That is literally how you evolved.
You evolved so your libido would take over your brain.
I don't apologize for that.
It's neither good nor bad.
It's just how I evolved.
I didn't have anything to do with the choices my ancestors made.
Not my fault. I just got here the way I got here.
Alright. What is the most predictive element?
I ask you what's the most persuasion element.
What's the most predictive thing in all the world?
The most predictive thing.
It never fails.
Seriously? Yeah, money.
Follow the money works even when it shouldn't.
Now, the even when it shouldn't is the part that I'm adding to the conversation.
You've all heard follow the money, blah, blah, blah, right?
Follow the money is just so obvious there's nothing to say about it.
It's just so obvious. But what I'm adding, and I'm adding this aggressively, is that follow the money works even when there's no fucking reason it should.
Like, every part of your instinct says, not this time.
This time is not going to be about the money because we have all these other big issues.
There's, you know, the fate of the world, you know, its honor, its integrity, it's the fate of the democracy.
These are all so big.
It's not about the money this time.
And then it's always about the money.
My understanding is that the Democrats spent better on close races.
Is that confirmed? Can anybody confirm that from the reporting today?
I saw one of the pundits say that the...
It was a Republican who said it.
A Republican said that the Democrats spent better in the close races.
So now you've got two factors that predicted the Democrats would do well.
Factor one, fear is the biggest persuasion thing.
But here's the next thing.
All right, here's the next quiz.
Which is more persuasive?
I will give you something you want.
Or, I will take from you something you value.
Which one forms action more?
I'll give you something you ask for, or I'll take from you something you value.
Not even close.
Not even close.
If you're going to take something, you've got to fight.
You've got to fight on your hands if you take it.
You don't take. We're not a species that evolved to give up stuff.
We like stuff, but there's lots of stuff we like, and we're also used to not getting what we like.
We're very used to not getting everything we like.
But man, if I've got something, and you fucking try to take it away from me, suddenly it's the most important thing in my life.
You're not taking my shit.
So what did the Republicans say they would do for the Democrat women?
They said they'd take their shit.
Elect us and we'll take away your rights.
That's how they heard it, right?
Because abortion. Now, I'm not speaking for or against abortion, so we're not talking about the policy.
I'm only talking about the persuasion.
Now, a lot of people said that Abortion was not why they were voting.
A lot of people said, like, 2 or 3% said that's why they voted.
But 2 or 3% was the margin on all the tight races, wasn't it?
2 to 3% said abortion was why they voted.
You know, they were kind of single-issue voters.
2 to 3% is all it takes.
That's the whole game. I mean, you could easily make a story that abortion is the only thing that mattered.
At the same time, the news is saying the opposite.
They're saying that only 2% to 3% said it mattered, so it didn't matter.
Isn't that upside down?
If 2% to 3% actually voted because of it, that's the whole race.
So I don't know. I mean, I think that one's still a little bit gray.
But you gotta at least wonder if that mattered.
Alright, what is something else that the Republicans were gonna take away from the Democrats?
Go. What were the Democrats afraid of losing besides abortion?
Democracy. Democracy.
Yep. They thought they were gonna lose democracy.
Now, doesn't that sound ridiculous?
If you don't believe democracy was at risk, that doesn't even register as a thing, does it?
If you're a Republican and you know the January 6th stuff was all bullshit, not even once did you think that democracy was at risk, did you?
So you didn't take that seriously, did you?
I didn't. Every time I heard it, I'd be like, okay, nobody's going to take that seriously.
But I was sort of in my bubble, wasn't I? How many people would it take to take that seriously before the red wave goes away?
Not many. If 5% of Democrats believed they were going to lose the thing they valued the most, freedom, democracy.
It would only take 5% of them to be afraid that they were literally going to lose it.
Do you think that 5% of the low-T men who are Democrats were literally afraid of losing democracy?
I do. I do.
I don't think most of them were seriously afraid.
About 5%.
Yeah, absolutely. Do you think that 5% of Republicans had some fear of, like, losing a thing?
I don't think so.
I think they all thought they were going to get something.
Republicans all went into the midterms thinking, yay, we're getting stuff.
But they weren't afraid of losing stuff, were they?
Now, you could say, yeah, inflation, you know, losing their guns.
But gun control wasn't even an issue, was it?
Gun control just disappeared as an issue.
If the Democrats had pushed gun control as their number one issue, what would have happened?
They would have lost. Bigger.
Yeah. Because that would be taking something away from Republicans.
What happens when you say we're going to take something away from Republicans?
They'll do anything to stop it.
Because nobody wants to lose what they have.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, if you look at the demographics of the two groups, you can see that fear would be more effective in one group, and fear is the most important in persuasion.
Did the Democrats try to activate that fear?
Did they tell you you're losing your democracy, you're losing your freedom of your bodily autonomy?
Yeah, they did. Did you as a Republican take any of that seriously because you thought, that's not going to work?
Probably you didn't take it too seriously.
But that's because you didn't believe it.
Right? They actually believed that They were going to lose these things.
Now, abortion's kind of a gray area because the states get to decide, so maybe nobody will lose anything, at least in terms of the majority.
But certainly they had the feeling that they lost something.
If you're a Democrat, it doesn't matter that it's up to the states.
They can't feel that.
What they feel is it's harder to get an abortion.
They feel that.
They lost something. Yeah, and the January 6th thing probably did make it a little bit credible that they could lose their democracy.
Here's a big hidden danger.
The polls were unreliable, right?
So the polls before the election didn't get it right.
What is more dangerous than the polls not agreeing with the outcomes of elections?
That is like the most dangerous situation, isn't it?
Because you've got people who are wondering about the credibility of the election.
And at this point, we're happy that justice is blind.
We like it that justice isn't a bigot.
Justice is blind. But now we have democracy is blind.
Democracy is blind because we don't have a system where we know what happens when the vote gets into the computers.
It's a little bit blind there.
But now we're blind because the polls don't even tell you, okay, if the outcome and the polls were close, probably it was a fair election.
But what if they're not close?
What if the polls say, oh, it's going to be a red wave, and then the actuality is nothing even close?
At that point, it's easy to rig elections because the public doesn't expect the polls and the outcomes to match.
The moment the public doesn't think polls and outcomes should match, because they've seen enough examples where they don't, kind of like a weather report, right?
We don't really expect the weather forecast for next week to be necessarily accurate.
It might be better than 50%, but your expectations are not that high.
Well, here's the good news.
I see on Twitter just the smallest amount of quibbling about some election integrity stuff.
Mostly just about Arizona, Maricopa.
But I think Maricopa is the closest watched You know, election segment in the whole country, especially because it had problems.
So I think there are plenty of people watching it, and however that turns out, it doesn't affect most of the results, one way or the other.
But we've survived, and it looks like we're not going to have a huge election integrity problem.
Would you say it? As of today, does it look like there won't be any major risk to the democracy so far?
Yeah. All right.
Now, here are the reasons you're going to hear in the regular pundit press today.
Everybody's going to have to tell you why the results didn't come out the way you thought.
Some people are going to say the quality of the candidate mattered.
But does the quality of the candidate matter every time?
I would argue that the quality of the candidate matters only if everything else doesn't.
The quality of the candidate matters only if everything else doesn't matter.
So if the control of the Congress is at risk, Then the quality of the candidate doesn't make any difference at all.
None. When the Democrats needed to get Trump out of office, did the quality of the candidate matter?
Nope. Didn't matter at all.
So everybody who says the quality of the candidate matters, they're right, unless there's some other thing that matters more.
Now, which makes it almost worthless, right?
Isn't the Yogi Berra famous saying, Good pitching beats good hitting, and vice versa?
Is that Yogi Berra or somebody else?
But the thinking is, and let me say that again, a good candidate can overcome almost any situation.
That's what Trump did.
He was a good candidate in the first election.
But more money can overcome any candidate.
So there's an amount of money that can overcome any candidate, but there's also a quality of a candidate that can overcome almost any money.
So when you see the pundits say, well, it's the candidate that matters, the little recording in your head should say, unless it's a close race and the Congress is up for, you know, unless there's a lot of money, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
It also depends who you're running against.
Would Fetterman have won against a more traditional candidate than Oz?
Oz didn't get Oprah's endorsement.
Now do you think that Oprah makes a difference when she makes an endorsement?
How much do endorsements normally matter?
Sometimes they matter a little.
But I feel like the Oprah endorsement might be the only one that matters from a celebrity.
Remember, Oprah can sell books.
Do you know who else can sell books by recommending them?
Almost nobody. Almost nobody.
If anybody else could sell books like she does, they'd all be doing it.
Because that would give you some power, or you could get some benefits from the books that are sold, etc.
But Oprah has an unusual ability to move her own audience.
And her own audience is who?
Who is the audience for Oprah?
Women. And probably younger ones.
I don't know if it's younger ones, but it might be.
All right. So yeah, I think Oprah actually mattered.
I literally don't care who won.
I know you don't want to hear that.
I don't care at all.
And I told you that in advance.
You know why, right? I'm a one-issue voter.
And nobody had a fentanyl plan that was good.
You know, some of them were, you know, tighten up the border, but that's just basic stuff.
That's something you need to do.
It doesn't get you anywhere close to stopping fentanyl.
So if the Republicans don't have an anti-fentanyl plan and the Democrats don't, I don't give a fuck which one of them won.
Don't care at all. Honestly, don't.
But I'd like to give a shout-out to Twitter user Dodger Dave.
Dodger Dave, I know he follows me on Twitter, but I don't know if you're watching this.
But Dodger Dave reported on Twitter today that he's been off of fentanyl for one year.
One year today. So if anybody would like to congratulate him on Twitter, please do.
He's going to need all the help he can get.
But this is a real accomplishment, by the way.
When you hear somebody like, you know, he overcame odds to run for Senate, and you won the Senate, you're like, hey, that's a strong person there.
You know, Carrie Lake, there's a strong person.
She's overcoming odds to maybe win.
We don't know yet. But none of that comes close to Dodger Dave.
Dodger Dave got off fucking fentanyl.
This is the strongest guy you know.
Like, I wouldn't want to be in a fight with Dodger Dave.
I wouldn't want to be in a contest with Dodger Dave where whoever could take the most pain was going to win the contest.
Dodger Dave's got the goods.
So he made it a year.
So keep going. Trump made a joke and a third of the country either pretended they didn't get it or wanted to act like they don't or don't know what a joke is.
So prior to the election, Trump was asked if he would take credit for his candidates he endorsed winning if they did.
And he said, quote, with a smile.
So you have to understand he said this with a clear smile that says I'm joking.
And he said, well, I think if they win, meaning his candidates, if they win, I should get all the credit.
If they lose, I should not be blamed at all.
And then later he, you know, he confirmed the point that everybody acts that way.
You know, everybody acts that they take credit when they win and they take no responsibility when they lose.
And he made the point that that's what everybody does.
Right? But what he first answered about himself...
What did the Democrats say?
Oh, my God.
The ego on that man.
The narcissism of that man.
That if he wins, he takes credit, but if he doesn't win, he doesn't take credit.
My God, the ego, the narcissist, everything we thought about him was right.
To which I say, he was mocking his own ego.
That was the joke.
The joke was he was making fun of himself, that he would take credit for something that clearly might be a random occurrence.
That was obviously making fun of his own narcissism.
And they couldn't tell the difference.
Or they pretend they couldn't.
But I saw a lot of comments where it really looked like they couldn't tell the difference.
They actually thought that was narcissism.
I've argued with you before that He might be closer to the opposite because he puts his ego out there where it's just trashed every day by his critics.
Most people couldn't handle that, but he can.
So apparently he's got some kind of control over his ego where he can mock himself and he can still make the joke after the fact.
You know, if his people had won, he would have taken full credit And he would have done it with a smile.
And those who knew him would have known, oh, he doesn't mean it.
Or maybe he does a little bit.
But he knows he's having fun with it, right?
You would know he was having fun with it.
Somebody says, but your record not good.
Well, your record not good.
You talking about me? Anybody who tells me my prediction record is not good means that they only know about some of my predictions.
Generally, that's all it means.
I don't even know if my record is good, but I know that the people who say it's bad are never aware of my actual record.
Mike Cernovich. He said this on Twitter today, after the results are mostly in.
He said, Trump has zero shot at 2024 general.
After tonight, this isn't up for debate.
I was around in 2015 when he had, quote, no chance, and accurately said he'd win.
True statement. And he threw the biggest inauguration event in 2017, but he says times change, or he changed, or whatever, but it's time to move on.
What do you think? Let me poll you before I give you my opinion.
Does Trump now have zero chance of winning because he's going to get blamed for the midterms because he promoted some candidates that lost and maybe it was their loyalty to him that was his main consideration.
And that's how it's going to be interpreted.
A lot of people saying zero.
Okay. Now everybody who said zero, hold on for a second, hold your answers for a second.
So everybody who said zero, who would you vote for if he's running against a Democrat?
Who would you vote for?
Would you not vote for him because you'd vote for the Democrat?
How many of you will now vote for the Democrat no matter who it is, if Trump is the other one?
Nobody. Nobody.
Yeah. Everybody who says Trump has zero chance, totally wrong.
You're totally wrong.
Yeah. Now, I don't normally disagree with Mike Cernovich.
You've probably noticed that, right?
I'm going to agree with him most of the time.
But one thing you need to know about him is he's one of the strongest persuaders in the country.
His persuasion game, his actual technical knowledge of how to do it, is one of the best in the country.
So, in a political context, he's persuading as well as giving you his opinion, and sometimes it's more persuasion and sometimes it's more opinion.
And it's a little hard to know, with people who are good at it, it's a little hard to know exactly when they're doing what.
But I think this is more persuasion than prediction.
Would you agree? Because two years is a long time.
Do you know it's a long time?
A week. Everything you know about everything could be wrong in a week.
Am I right? Everything we knew about the midterms was wrong today.
In 24 hours, everything you knew about politics changed.
Am I right? Everything you knew about politics just changed in one day.
So if you say that Trump can't win based on what's happening today, I think that ignores the function of time and what we've observed for quite a while now, which is things can change radically and quickly, and you don't predict it.
So yes, he could win.
Now here's the second question.
Can win doesn't mean will win.
Can mean does not mean will.
If DeSantis primaried him, which I'm not going to predict.
I don't predict it.
I don't rule it out, but I don't predict it.
So remember I said that.
I don't rule it out, but I don't predict it.
That's a hard one.
Because you could imagine DeSantis getting enough pressure that even if he had decided not to, maybe he could change his mind.
You know, go to the country, it's the right time sort of thing.
But do you think he could primary Trump successfully?
No. Who would win in the primary, DeSantis or Trump?
DeSantis or Trump in the primaries?
Most of you are saying Trump.
It looks like about two-thirds or more are saying Trump.
Now it's evening out.
It's hard to tell just by the answers.
All right, so it's mixed.
It's mixed. Here's the answer.
They both could win.
Yeah, I think that was not as obvious as anybody thinks.
They both could win.
The way that DeSantis could win is to say, I'm Trump without the bad parts.
And then it's just over.
Then it's just over.
Now, I'm not saying that's a true statement or that you should believe it.
Because Trump does have some things which are unmatchable, right?
Trump is a little unmatchable in some categories of things.
But if that was the pitch, if DeSantis says, look, I'll give you all the good of Trump, but without the downside, I think he just walks to the nomination.
I think if he played it that way, He just walks into the nomination.
Honestly. I don't even think he would be close.
But I don't think he would play it that way.
I think he'd play it more traditionally and then it's anybody's guess.
He already is.
Yeah, and the fact that our elections are always close...
This was really...
Probably this was the greatest affirmation of democracy that I've ever seen.
Would you agree?
I feel like our system just totally showed itself as strong.
And once again, big applause for the founders who hundreds of years ago built a system to last the test of time And it did.
So far, so good.
I think that our republic is as strong as it's been in a long time.
Like right today. This is actually a really, really positive thing.
Because not only did the republicans find some humility, but I think everybody did.
The one thing that everybody needed, both republicans and democrats, and Scott needs this too, And all of the public, all the pundits, right?
So I'm in this category I'm going to criticize.
You know what we all needed?
There's one thing we all needed.
A big old dose of humility.
That's what we all needed, right?
We all needed to be a little bit wrong and just have it slapped in our faces, right?
So everybody got to be a little bit wrong on this one.
Here's how the Democrats are wrong.
The strongest governors won easily.
The governors who handled things like Republicans and had real plans and real solid policy things, DeSantis being one, Abbott being another, I guess, what's his name in Georgia?
Georgia governor is Kemp.
Yeah. So those three governors are being held out as good models.
So if you're a Democrat, you look at those three governors and you say, uh-oh.
And Youngkin? Youngkin's another example.
Yeah, four governors, let's say.
You would look at those governors and say, uh-oh.
Every time somebody acts like a good Republican, they win big.
How about that? The people who actually act like real Republicans, not crazy Republicans, not extreme Republicans, not Marjorie Taylor Greene.
I'm not criticizing her, I'm just saying that she's in that wing.
Right? So, if you're a Democrat, you need to have some humility that when a Republican acts like a Republican, without the crazy shit, they win hard.
Right? Being just a normal, capable Republican governor, you don't just win.
You win with, like, a punch.
It's like a win-plus.
It's not even close. But then you throw the crazy shit in and what happens?
Not so easy, right?
You throw in Dr.
Oz, and he's not exactly a traditional Republican, is he?
You're not quite sure what you're getting there.
There's this little mix of stuff.
You know, his background has some sketchy stuff, according to people.
What's crazy about Oz is some of his, let's say, things he's promoted in his entertainment career.
Now, I don't necessarily think that should haunt him, because that's a different kind of job, but it is.
I think it does. I think it leads to the not serious Feeling.
You look at DeSantis, do you say he's serious or not serious?
DeSantis is as serious as a heart attack.
You look at Abbott.
Is Abbott a serious politician or not?
He's serious. That's a serious guy, right?
Right, those are serious people.
But you look at Oz, and as serious as he may be about politics at the moment, you don't get the same feeling about him, right?
Right? It feels a little more opportunistic, would you say?
A little opportunistic?
Which is nothing wrong with that.
By the way, if you're not opportunistic, why aren't you?
You should all be opportunistic.
You know, that's our system.
Play it. Play it the way it was designed.
Be opportunistic.
But it might not look good.
It might not look good as it looks.
Yeah, is Masters...
Done? Or does he still have a chance with what's uncounted?
Is Blake Masters done?
That race hasn't been called, right?
Because there's still some small chance that the remaining votes go his way?
Small chance. Not looking good.
All right. Do you think that...
Do you think that Trump made the quality of candidates not matter?
I think a little bit he did.
And what I mean by that is what Trump did was maybe solidify the team play aspect more than anybody else did.
You could imagine, you know, 20 years ago you could imagine a Republican or Democrat just voting for the other team because they liked that candidate.
It's easy to imagine a Democrat voting for Reagan, right?
That's pretty easy to imagine.
And it worked. But Trump came in and he basically made it a blood war.
So being on the side of the blood enemy, that doesn't work the same.
Reagan liked everybody, and so it was okay to be on his team, even if he didn't like 100% of what he was doing.
Trump is so polarizing that I think people just voted for their team.
So I think that the team play nature of things just eliminated the quality of the candidate, except, remember, good pitching beats good hitting, and vice versa.
Except where the candidate was so strong, like the Republican governors we mentioned, where the candidate was so strong that nothing else mattered.
And people said, oh, okay, I can get beyond that.
Alright. Rasmussen said that 25% of the people they polled say that the late results make them more confident that the election is fair.
25%, yeah.
So 25% say that when you don't immediately have a result, like every country in the world can do, that that's probably an indicator that things are more secure than you thought.
25%. Sometimes that's called like one quarter.
I don't know, why does that number keep popping up?
Anyway... Here's the most unexpected, but not really, story of the day that has nothing to do with this, but we'll get back to it.
Remember Alan Dershowitz was accused by one of the Epstein victim young women?
And the The victim young woman who has been accusing Dershowitz of sexual impropriety for years today recanted her accusation.
She fully recanted her accusation.
What? Yeah, exactly.
Exactly. I'm watching the comments of our locals and the people are like, what?
What? What the fuck?
Now, does recanting your accusation mean that it wasn't true?
It doesn't, right?
It doesn't. It doesn't mean it wasn't true.
But I'm going to pat myself on the back for something, if you don't mind.
All right? When many of you were basically saying Dershowitz is dead to you because of those accusations, I said...
I said, he has an unusually strong defense, and you better wait.
You better wait on this one.
Because he's not hedging.
He went right at it.
He went at it like a maniac.
Do you know how he defended himself?
He defended himself like an innocent person.
Now, remember, he's smart enough to know how to play it psychologically and leave the right impression, but he defended himself like an innocent person.
And the claims that he made in his defense sounded so weak that they actually sounded real.
You know what I mean? Like if you made up a defense, it might sound a little stronger.
But he had that, yeah, she did give me a massage, but I left my underpants on.
And you're saying, that's not like the strongest defense.
But that's actually why it sounded real to me.
It sounded real to me because who would say that?
That's like, the better defense would be, we didn't have a massage.
Right? If you were just going to lie, you know, maybe you'd lie differently.
Now, none of that says he was innocent.
So let me be clear.
I don't know. I have no idea who did anything.
But I'll tell you, Dershowitz is the person who fights for your ability to be innocent until proven guilty.
That's who he is.
He fights for your ability to be innocent until proven guilty.
So I returned the favor.
I returned the favor.
Again, it has nothing to do with any knowledge I would have about who did or did not do anything.
How would I know? But in our system, In our system, I'm going to favor the system over the individual results, because you've got to keep the system strong.
And this was one of those innocent until proven guilty things that I was kind of a maniac about, honestly.
I didn't know which way it would go, but I'm a total maniac about the guy who helps keep your ability to be innocent until proven guilty.
That's who he is.
And he's very consistent about that.
Always has been. So I respect that, and I return the favor.
Which has nothing to do with any other thing he may or may not have done.
It's just about the system.
So I hope, I hope, I hope this is the right outcome.
I hope. But it's another reminder that everything you think is true, no matter how sure you are that it's true, you don't really know.
Don't really know. I gave a warning last night that I thought was going to be important, but maybe it isn't, which is the same warning I gave at 2020, which is everything you hear about maybe there's some impropriety in the election, that 95% of it, at least, at least 95% of it would be total bullshit.
I'm still at that number.
Yeah, because you've heard some things like, oh, what about this?
What about that? I think it's all bullshit so far.
Which is not to say there's no cheating.
I would never say that.
There's just no way to know. But what you hear, the things that get surfaced, are 95% bullshit.
So if you hear something that sounds really, really credible about some election shenanigans, it might be true.
But that shouldn't be your assumption.
You should start with the assumption, very unlikely, But be open to the possibility.
Be open to the possibility.
Just don't believe in any Krakens like I did.
Don't be a Kraken believer.
Be a Kraken denier until it's proven.
All right. But it looks like there isn't...
So far, I'm not seeing a lot of claims of fraud.
Am I looking in the wrong places?
Is there anybody on television who's claiming fraud?
Has Trump weighed in and said the election was rigged?
Because Trump would have already said something, wouldn't he?
Because they're going to ask him.
Trump's going to be asked. So Carrie Lake is saying something is suspicious.
I don't know what she's saying, but here's what I'll bet, without even knowing what she's saying.
I'll bet what she's saying is, you know, we need to be careful and take a look at this.
I'll bet she's not saying it's definitely rigged.
Because she would be way too smart to say that, right?
Confirm that. She's way too smart to say the election is rigged.
She's definitely smart enough to say we need to take a look at why things didn't go as planned, and that's important.
The election was kind of botched.
So if she says the election was botched, that's right.
If she says she got cheated in the victory, that would be too far.
with what information we have.
have.
All right.
So here are all the different things you're going to hear from the pundits who got everything wrong up to this point.
They're going to say the good candidates won.
They're going to say spending was the difference.
Some might say cheating, I suppose.
Some might say the rule changes.
Some might say the GOP had no solutions.
Did you notice that the GOP didn't have solutions?
Well, it turns out they did.
They had this whole commitment to America thing today.
Let me tell you what I remember from reading the commitment to America.
And now I'm done.
Those are all the things I remember from my reading of the commitment to America.
Do you know when I learned that there's a commitment to America document?
I learned that after the election.
All I do is watch the news.
That's all I fucking do, is watch the news all day.
I didn't know. I didn't know the Republicans had a written plan.
Did you? Yeah, first you're hearing of it.
Now, I feel like I have this vague memory that Rick Scott had something, but it was different from what the Republicans had as sort of a platformy thing.
But I just thought it was some generic platformy thing.
I didn't think it was anything serious.
Fox talks about it all the time.
Do they? I haven't heard any details.
What were the details? Refund police?
I don't know. So, here's one of my blind spots I had until right before the election.
I sort of tuned into this on election day, but not soon enough.
That the Republicans were not giving a positive story.
They were sort of assuming that you knew that they did a better job, because you could see that things were bad under the Democrats.
But I guess people were not making the leap from things are bad to Republicans have a better idea.
I think they do have a better idea, but they didn't make the argument.
Yeah, and Rick Scott made them afraid that Social Security was on the line, right?
Whether it was or not, it was enough to get them afraid of it.
So what is the biggest persuasion?
Fear. Who had the better fear of persuasion?
The Democrats did. Was it really about Trump?
How much of the election was really about getting rid of all Trump supporters and making sure there's less chance that Trump would get elected?
Probably some of it.
I think people's minds are framed by Trump so that you can't not consider him.
It's impossible not to consider him.
How about the mega mega extremist claim made by Biden?
Did it work? The mega, mega, they're all extremists, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and those are the ones you have to watch out for.
I thought it wouldn't because it wasn't working on me.
Like when I hear, blah, blah, extremists, I go, blah, blah, blah, I don't even care.
But, remember, the demographic that is more Democrat is younger women.
And as we discussed, in case you missed it, science says very clearly that women are easier to scare.
They're easier to frighten.
So do you think that women were afraid of losing democracy and the mega-mega extremists and they'd lose their bodily autonomy and stuff?
Probably yes. And the low-T males, again, this is not a judgment statement.
I'm not saying there's something wrong with you because you have lower testosterone.
It's just different. But those differences do translate into mental states and actions.
How about, apparently the Democrats are getting credit for their crazy-sounding strategy of boosting the worst candidates on the Republican side.
So that the primaries were won by the worst extremists, and then they lost their elections.
But apparently that worked. Is that what happened?
Did that happen with Oz?
Was Oz backed by the secret, dark Democrat money?
Yeah, Marjorie Taylor Greene won, as did probably a lot of the people who...
AOC and the squad all won by big numbers, too.
The people who were in safe districts all won.
That has just more to do with the district.
How about...
Do you think the GOP stayed home because they thought they were going to win?
What do you think of the theory that Republicans didn't turn out because they were confident of winning?
I don't feel that.
I don't feel it.
Yeah, it's possible.
I could be persuaded, but that wasn't the energy I was picking up.
I was picking up Republicans vote for fun and for principle.
Republicans don't vote or not vote because it's convenient.
Am I right? In fact, you could define Republicans as people who are going to vote no matter how hard you make it.
They're going to fucking vote.
Because it's important.
It's a principle. I don't know if it's the same on both sides.
It might be. But I don't see Republicans staying home because it rained.
Maybe. All right.
The best predictors, in my opinion, were follow the money and persuasion of fear, the persuasion of losing something, abortion rights, bodily autonomy, losing your democracy.
Those were good, good approaches by the Democrats, it turns out.
And it was a little bit invisible to me because that persuasion wasn't intended for me.
And it didn't work on me. So I was a little bit...
I was blinded by the fact it was designed for a certain demographic, and it worked.
It worked on that demographic, I think.
And then, what about the high ground maneuver?
That's the fourth thing that I talk about all the time, which you can never lose.
If you take the high ground, you win every conversation.
I'll give you an example. We should do A. No, we should do B. And then somebody else in the meeting says, can we test both of those things cheaply?
And both the people go, yes.
And then the smart person says, well, why don't we just test both of them, and we'll do the one that works better.
That's the high ground. Once you hear it, you just stop arguing, because you would sound like an idiot after you'd heard of the high ground, right?
Was there any high ground?
Did anybody have the high ground in this election?
Well, maybe a little bit.
Maybe a little bit.
Because I think the high ground was protect the democracy.
It was bullshit, but it does sound like the bigger principle, doesn't it?
If I gave you a choice to get exactly the right candidates you want, well, you might lose democracy itself.
That's not a good deal for me.
So, preserving the system actually is a pretty good high ground.
And the Democrats had it.
They actually had the high ground.
Weirdly. The low ground was, I might get mugged on the street.
Right? I might get mugged on the street is real.
That's like frickin' real.
That's a real, immediate, personal, local fear.
But it's also not the high ground.
It isn't. The high ground is the whole country.
That's just bigger than your little problem on the street.
So the Democrats had that.
They had the high ground. And January 6th was probably the key to holding that.
Now again, I was a little bit blind to that because it didn't work on me.
Right? So that's the persuasion you miss when it doesn't work on you personally.
It was easier to see Trump coming because his persuasion was working on me.
You know what I mean? If you can feel it, it's easy to call it out, but I miss this completely.
Maricopa County, what went wrong?
So the information we're getting is sketchy as hell, which is that some of the machines were crashing some of the time because they couldn't handle the type of ink that was used on the ballots.
How many questions does that raise?
Question number one.
You don't test the actual ballots with the actual machines before the election?
Or do you just test a few?
And testing a few wouldn't have picked up these errors.
Did they test the actual ballots?
Or was there some production problem that they had to use cheap ink for some of them?
I don't know. So those are big questions.
We'll find out. But could you game the system by giving some people ballots that had intentionally weak ink and giving the people that you knew would vote your way ballots that had the proper ink?
Could somebody game the system that way?
Could you take legal ballots and replace them with weak ink ballots?
Could you, if you were the printer, if you were the printer of these ballots, could you make two batches of ballots, one that you send to predominantly Democrat areas and one to predominantly Republican areas?
I don't know. You could.
But here's the sketchiest part I heard about it.
The technicians visited all the machines.
Now, on election day, you've got people inside the election machines.
Okay. There are people inside the election machines on election day.
That makes you feel comfortable, doesn't it?
Now, I'm hoping that they have systems and processes to protect that very thing, because you would expect on election day would be the day you would have the most technicians and the most machines.
For just ordinary reasons, right?
So they must have some way to protect against the obvious danger of having anybody in the machine.
I don't know what it is, but I'm hoping they have a process.
So probably that wasn't a problem.
Probably not. But does it raise any suspicion that they could tweak individual machines to a higher state of sensitivity and then they would work?
Wait a minute. If all of the machines were made the same, but only some of them needed to be tweaked, doesn't that mean that they were not the same machines?
That they had different settings?
Because if the hardware is the same and the software is not the same, and the only thing they changed was a setting, that means they weren't using the same machines.
And that means, I'm very curious, if the ones that didn't have the right setting were in one kind of district versus another.
Or one precinct versus another.
Somebody says it's not the tabulators, it was the printers?
Not the tabulators, but the printers.
So is the system that when you vote, it prints out your vote, and then they take that printed vote and put it in a tabulator?
Is that what's happening?
Somebody says yes.
However, was it the printer they adjusted or the tabulators?
What got adjusted, the tabulators or the printers?
The printers. So somebody changed the printer so they printed properly.
But it's the printer on the voting machine, right?
If the vote gets printed out by the voting machine, it's the voting machine itself that's reading the...
or that's the problem, right?
Okay, I guess we have a whole bunch of questions.
So I don't have enough detail to go much further.
But let me make the general point.
So whether it was the printers or the printer on the voting machine or the election machine counter, no matter what it was, no matter what it was, the intention was they were all the same, right?
The intention was everybody had the same equipment.
How could some of that equipment act differently?
How's that possible? Well, one way would be somebody put bad ink or not enough ink in some of the printers.
That would actually be a pretty normal, reasonable thing.
Some of them just had bad ink or bad printers.
But it could be the same printer, just some of them weren't good.
Listen to the printer expert.
Who's the printer expert?
You have no standing to find out what happened.
Yeah, yeah, maybe. Maybe there'll be no standing from a legal sense, so there's no way to find out.
All right, all I'm saying is they have not eliminated the possibility of shenanigans.
Would you agree with that?
That what we know so far...
Has not eliminated shenanigans from the possibility set.
But would you agree with the second part?
If the problem is the printers were not printing, let's say, the same, doesn't that sound like a normal problem?
Like the whole thing is explained?
If all it is is that printers don't print the same everywhere, that's everything we already know.
Every one of you has a printer problem.
But then the question would be this.
Why did we never have this problem before?
Why did we never have this problem before?
First time? Haven't we always used printers?
And printers suddenly went from functional to non-functional?
And why did they only become non-functional in the most important county?
All the other printers everywhere were fine.
Just this one very important county Had some bad printers in it.
A lot of them. A lot of them.
Got a lot of bad printers in there.
So here's what I believe.
I believe we're still in the fog of war.
So the one thing we can all say about Maricopa is we don't know what happened.
Would you agree with that?
We don't have enough information.
So the first thing we know is we don't have enough information.
The second thing we know is there's a perfectly normal explanation for what we're seeing.
Doesn't mean it's true, but it's perfectly normal.
Yeah, there was a problem with some printers in one area.
I mean, that feels like something they could explain with normal stuff.
Again, we have questions.
Why just this one area?
Why didn't we ever have this problem before?
Good questions. But I wouldn't be surprised if they could be answered.
It could be as easy as...
Let me just give you an example.
It could be as easy as there's a procedure to put in a new ink cartridge before you start the election.
And in one place they didn't do it.
They did some testing, and they forgot to change the ink cartridges.
And then when it got toward the end, the ink was light, and then the reader didn't pick it up.
But everyone else just followed the procedure, so they just didn't have that problem.
Maybe. Now, I'm not saying that's the answer.
I'm saying that it would be real easy to imagine a very normal human error situation.
Well, but here's the thing.
You could also determine whether it was a mistake that would favor one side.
But if the problem was simply that some machines didn't work, could you know that would favor one side?
Could you be confident that your plan would work?
I don't know. These are questions we must get to the bottom of.
But I don't think the country is up in arms.
I feel like Maricopa, no matter what happens there, maybe we learn something, maybe we get smarter, but it's not like the end of the democracy no matter what happens.
And let's see.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is, I believe, the most useful and best live stream you're going to see today about the election campaign.
Now, if you would like to track my influence on the world, watch how the election results are covered today.
Now, I have the advantage of being able to go early in the day, so sometimes, you know, if I just say the obvious thing, other people will also say the obvious thing, but it's not because of me.
Everybody's going to say the obvious stuff, so they're not copying me if they say obvious stuff.
If you hear people talking about the demographic difference, the fear of persuasion, the taking something away persuasion, or those things, then maybe that was my influence.
All of the pundits and news people today are going to be struggling to say something new.
I just achieved that.
See if anybody else does.
So there's your challenge for the day.
So this is my pitch to you for why you should watch my live stream.
It is my contention that I gave you a take which you won't hear anywhere else unless they were influenced by me.
And I think that's what I add.
I add the take you haven't heard somewhere else.
Which is not crazy.
By the way, how did you like my take?
I guess I'll just ask you how you liked it.
What do you think of my take that I was blinded to the persuasion for all the obvious reasons?
I'm not the target of it.
And because I'm not the target, that's not a good excuse.
Because I do know enough about persuasion, I should have seen it.
I should have picked that up, honestly.
But I think maybe I was picking it up subconsciously.
Because remember, I was very unique in not having a prediction about a red wave.
Is there anybody else who is notable in the prediction world who also did not predict a red wave?
Styx? Styx and hammer?
Is that true? Nate Silver, his was based on data.
Michael Moore. Yep.
Interesting. All right, let me ask you this.
Did Michael Moore do it again?
I don't know if he was right on his reason, because I think he thought abortion was going to be a driving thing, but he might have been right about that.
He might have been right that that 2% or 3% was all it took.
Are you admitting you are lacking in persuasion analysis?
In this case, I missed the signals, yes.
But I don't think I missed them enough that I made the wrong prediction.
I knew to not predict.
Because there was just something about this situation that wasn't...
I couldn't put my finger on it.
There just wasn't something working.
But now, after the fact, it's a little clearer after the fact, you know, your analysis could be a little bit better.
But I would ask you this.
Every time somebody is this wrong, can you adjust who you believe in the future?
If I had told you there was a red wave, I would be pretty embarrassed today.
And I would probably have to tell you honestly that you should discount what I predict in the future.
But the fact that I was one of the few people who did not predict a red wave, I feel like you should take that into consideration too.
Oh, you're right. I wouldn't be embarrassed.
Yeah, I guess that was hyperbole.
Yeah, I don't really get embarrassed by anything.
But you get the point.
I would have been wrong.
Yeah.
Even Jim Cravers, right, once in a while, somebody says.
Now, let me ask you this.
What happens if Carrie Lake loses?
So that's still possible, right?
Or actually probable, I think, given her current situation.
If she loses, what are the odds she wouldn't be the vice president pick for Trump?
Now, he'd still have to get through the primaries before that matters.
But what are the odds that that wouldn't happen?
Now, Let me tell you a play that Trump could do that he won't.
But if Trump wanted to change his reputation from, you know, half of the country thinking he's the worst thing that ever happened to Earth, here's how he could do it.
Run for election with Carrie Lake as his vice president.
Win the election and resign.
Win the election and resign.
And then Trump would give you the first female president.
And he would be George Washington.
He would be George Washington.
He would walk away from power after putting a woman in power.
Just think about it.
Imagine him being the person who put a woman in the presidency.
His own decision, nobody else's.
His own personal, nobody else in the world decided.
He personally could make her president.
And then he does it.
It'll never happen.
I agree it'll never happen.
But it's there.
It's there. It's free money.
He could retire as George Washington.
People would go nuts.
The heads would explode.
Now, I agree with you, the people who like Trump like him because he's not like that.
He's just always Trump.
He's Trump today, he's Trump tomorrow, he'll be Trump next week.
And that's part of his appeal, honestly.
So I don't think he can do that.
Alright, here's another way Trump could easily win the election.
But it also requires him to do something Trump isn't going to do.
But here's how easy it would be.
You know, I have to be honest, I may have pushed those vaccinations too hard.
And I apologize for that.
Now, he could still say, it's up to you, I got him, I did what I thought was the best thing to do, but I have to admit that this didn't work out as well as I thought.
He could actually just claim that that didn't work out.
The second thing he could do is admit that he's getting people all worked up about racism and he wishes he hadn't.
All he'd have to do to talk about border and immigration is just stop saying they're sending their worst people.
Will you just stop saying that?
The first time he said it, I feel like it was good provocation.
Like it really brought all the energy to him and they'd fight over whether that was true or hyperbole and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Maybe it kind of worked for him.
But at this point, it just looks racist.
I don't think that's why he says it.
But he has to know by now how it sounds to the other team.
All he'd have to do is say, you know what?
The people coming across the border are like a gift to this country.
We should have more, but we should do it the right way.
It's just so easy.
I mean, he could win everything just by being uncharacteristically humble.
Which isn't going to happen, right?
But I find it fascinating to know how easily he could win everything.
All he'd have to do is just act normal for a while, and even if it's acting, he knows how to act.
So he could do it.
And all the people who say, I'll never vote for him because of the thing he did or the thing he didn't do, it all depends who he's running against.
If he runs against a Democrat, you're going to be like, ah, damn it.
It's not my first choice, but I don't want that Democrat over there.
So if he gets in the race, he could definitely win the race.
I think getting in the nomination would be the hard part.
Winning the race might be the easy part in the end.
But I would say this.
If Trump acts exactly like he's always acted, he probably would lose to any Democrat.
Right? What do you say?
If Trump acts the way he's always acted, he would lose to any Democrat.
Because he lost to Biden by acting that way.
If you lose to Biden, whatever you did was the wrong thing to do.
But again, what makes Trump Trump is he doesn't change.
And there is value in that.
There's value in knowing exactly what you're going to get.
And I kind of like that, actually.
But it doesn't work in this situation.
Change is the only thing that would get him elected.
Only change. And I don't think that's on his menu.
So, there you go.
But did he lose fairly?
I don't know. I'm going to say yes.
Because in my opinion, cheating is part of our election system.
And if the Democrats outcheated the Republicans and that made the difference, they won.
They won. Because anybody who says that the Republicans aren't trying to cheat, well, you're not a serious person.
Somewhere there's a Republican trying to cheat.
Somewhere. I don't know if there are more of them or fewer of them than Democrats, but let's be adults.
It's a big country with a lot of people in it.
Somebody's trying to cheat somewhere on both sides.
Uniparty theory? I don't discuss uniparty theory because I don't take it seriously.
I get the idea that they end up being similar.
They all want war. They all want to raise your taxes.
I get that. But I think it gets there through a variety of ways.
Calling it the uniparty doesn't add much to the analysis.
Will anybody primary Trump?
I think so. Don't you?
I think Trump's going to have to get through...
I hope so, actually.
I hope so. I don't think...
Let me say this.
I don't think Trump should be the nominee without a primary.
What would you say? Because I think the Republicans need to sort that out.
Don't they? Yeah, normally you don't...
I mean, if he were a sitting president, I'd say no primary.
But given that he lost, and he lost to Biden...
If you lose to Biden, you have to primary.
And if your people you recommended for the midterms didn't work out, you have to primary.
Now, here's what's different today than yesterday.
Yesterday, if DeSantis had said he was going to primary him, you'd say, well, that's being kind of a dick, and maybe you're not helping your party, right?
What would you say today?
Today it doesn't look like a dick move.
Today it looks like saving the party.
If DeSantis said he was going to primary Trump, he could say, this is the last thing I wanted to do.
It's the last thing I wanted to do.
But it's the only way to save the party.
That's a really strong argument, given that the person he's primarying just lost to the worst candidate in the history of candidates whose name wasn't Fetterman, right?
If I primary Trump, I would just say this.
He lost to Biden.
And then they'd say, but what policies are you bringing?
And then I'd lean in and say, he lost to Biden.
And then they'd say, yes, yes, yes, but what are you going to do with taxes and Ukraine?
And then I'd lean in and say, he lost to Biden.
And I'm not even going to give any more argument.
Honestly, he lost to Biden.
Right? Whatever you want to say about the propriety of the election and the pandemic change, the election procedures, and that made a difference, yes.
Yes, it made a difference.
But he lost to Biden.
I don't know how you get past that.
How do you compare Trump to DeSantis in the primary?
They don't even compare, do they?
Because, you know, Democrats are going to be sort of...
Republicans are going to be sort of automatic for a competent Republican.
All you need is somebody who isn't going to embarrass you.
And you get all the Republicans.
And, unfortunately, Trump embarrasses some Republicans.
So you just can't get those.
Who does DeSantis embarrass?
Nobody. There's no embarrassment factor.
So he just has to be solid, and he gets 100% of Republicans.
But Trump can't do that.
Trump can't just do a solid job and get 100% of Republicans, because people are kind of pissed.
He'd lose to cheating again.
I don't know. I'm optimistic that our elections are more watched than they've ever been.
And we don't have much of a complaint this morning, except for the one county that everybody's watching carefully.
So we'll see. We may be in good shape.
We may be in good shape.
Scott also believes the stripper loves him.
Very optimistic fellow.
No, I don't believe anybody loves me.
That's sort of my general...
My baseline. I don't mean in the public world.
I know that many of you have a positive feeling about me.
I mean my personal life.
Like in my personal life, I just assume nobody really loves me.
I just... I'm not saying you should.
I don't think it has to do with any of my specific situations.
I just don't assume it.
I just assume it's all transactional.
I saw some people on social media who were saying that the way that men love women and the way that women love men is different.
And I have to say it matched my own views.
I don't know if it's right. But the idea is that women love what men can provide.
It's a transactional, conditional relationship, and that's all it is.
Whereas men fall in love with women.
They're just in love with a woman.
And so the woman can do kind of anything good or bad, and it wasn't transactional in the first place, so the good or the bad won't change your opinion about anything.
You still want to stay married.
Whereas if the man doesn't provide the things, then...
You know, could I inform some of you fucking idiots about what incel means?
Can I fill you in?
Incel means involuntary.
Involuntary. Do any of you fucking idiots think that a rich, healthy man in America can't get laid?
I'd like to see your opinion.
Do you believe that a rich, completely fit, good BMI... Ordinary person in America, do you think I can't get laid in 2022?
Say so. All right, so somebody says no.
All right, here's how this works.
Everybody who's healthy and has money can get laid if they're male.
I mean, I can't speak for women.
Maybe it's the same. But do you buy that frame that men have to provide?
By the way, Chris Rock was saying the same thing.
I think Chris Rock said the only people who are loved unconditionally are women, dogs, and children.
They're the only ones who get unconditional love.
But men, you've got to deliver.
So for men, it's just what you're providing.
Now, when I said I don't assume that anybody loves me in my personal life, that's what I meant.
That's what I meant. I meant the moment I stopped providing, the love would go away.
Of course. Of course it would.
But I've never assumed differently.
Have you? Is there any man here who thinks that they would still be loved if they withdrew all of their benefit from the person they think loves them?
Now, maybe if you had like an accident, you know, if you had a tragic accident, you couldn't do what you wanted to do, then yes.
You know, you probably would still be loved, but she'd still have an affair.
Because she would love the other guy better, if maybe you could provide more.
So, yes.
And I find this really helpful.
I find this helpful.
I find it helpful to assume that men aren't loved, because then you don't get disappointed.
One of the things that I get a lot of heat for is having two divorces.
To which I say, I wanted to get married.
It was good for a number of years.
And then when I didn't want to be married, I changed the situation.
And so did the other person.
It's not all about one person.
So I didn't get married because I thought they would last forever.
I never assumed that. Do you know why I didn't think I would be married forever?
Give me the reason. Why do you think I didn't ever believe I would be married forever?
Because of the age difference.
Because what I could provide Was money and comfort, but also a physical part, the physical intimacy.
As I aged, it was 100% likely I could not provide the physical intimacy.
And that by the time that happened, whoever I was with would be rich by then, just by the relationship.
So the thing that I knew had to happen...
Is that the things I was providing would be taken for granted because they would eventually be transferred in enough quantity that they could divorce me and be rich at the same time.
So my benefit of keeping them alive went to zero because they could do it themselves and they were already rich.
And any benefit I could bring from my awesome physical intimacy would eventually shrink to zero.
Am I right? What else am I providing?
My great personality?
There are plenty of guys with good personalities.
Was it that I'm so fun to be with that somebody just has to be with me in a room?
Nope. Turns out there are plenty of people who are fun to be with in a room.
I didn't have anything.
So I said to myself on day one, I'm bringing this amazing physical intimacy that I provide, a financial bubble that anybody would want, A lifestyle of somebody who's a celebrity.
Don't you think that some people sort of, you know, would like a little bit that their partner is a celebrity, especially if it's a male?
Yeah. I mean, there are all these little benefits, things I could provide that other people couldn't provide, but it was 100% guaranteed from day one that what I could provide would shrink to zero.
So therefore, since I believe in a transactional world, at least where it involves men and women, I knew that marriage was a rental and not a buy-to-own.
Now, if you thought marriage was a buy-to-own, but you were in a similar situation to me, well, you missed the signs.
You missed the signals.
The signals were all there.
You weren't going to get younger, but she was definitely going to get richer.
Right? It was all there. You should have been able to predict it easily.
All right. Judy says love is not transactional.
Well, as soon as your guy stops giving you stuff, check in with me.
See how that worked out. Are you going to continue renting?
Yeah, I think renting is all that makes sense from my age.
I'm at the age where every woman wants to marry me if she can stand me for five minutes.
Do you know why? Why does every woman want to marry me if they can even stand me for five minutes?
Right, because I'm near death and I'm rich.
I'm near death and I'm rich.
That's like a really good deal.
Transactionally, that's something that most people would say, you know, this might suck for 10 to 15 years.
But if I can gun it out for 10 to 15, I'm rich.
I'm rich. Yeah.
So I'm very, very popular.
So to whoever it is who said I'm an incel, it's definitely not involuntary.
I can get laid three times a day.
It wouldn't take any effort whatsoever.
None. Alright.
Get another dog.
Why would you leave your shit to your shitty new wife?
Eh. Who else is going to get it?
you might like your wife.
Someone as old as you, Yeah, that's a possibility too.
But two of those times we'll be with David.
What? Did anyone in particular help you change your mind in how you view women and relationships?
That's a good question. No.
No, I can't think...
I don't believe there was any guru or anything.
And by the way, I don't have...
This is nothing new. My views on this are at least 25 years old.
But I definitely had different views when I was young, as I explained early on.
Early on, I thought if I did what women said they wanted of men, that that would make them happy.
Have any of you ever fell for that?
Have any of you men fell for that?
The women will tell you exactly what they want.
And then you say, ah, I just have to give them that and then they'll be happy.
You've fallen for that trick?
Yeah, it took me decades to realize, you know, like my pattern recognition wasn't kicking in.
All the pattern was so clear.
It takes you a while to realize that the operating system of women is to be perpetually unhappy because men think, if I just solve this problem today, I'll be good tomorrow.
They don't know. They never catch on that tomorrow it's a new problem.
So the operating system of women is to drain resources for men by being dissatisfied.
That's what works within a relationship.
So dissatisfaction is a requirement of the system.
It's not today's problem that you're going to solve.
And once you realize that's unsolvable, You realize that women are essentially toxic unless you have a combined objective to have children.
Too strong? That women are toxic to men unless you have a shared mission.
Too strong? If you do have a shared mission, it could work out great.
A shared mission would be, you want to have kids?
You have the same lifestyle preferences.
You like your friends.
You like doing the same things.
Lots of good reasons to be married.
Now, anything I say bad about relationships does not apply to all people.
I mean, that's the thing we always get wrong.
The problem with marriage is we think it applies to all people.
At best, it works for 20%.
Like, really well.
It'll work well enough for more than 20%.
But 20% are killing it.
And the rest kind of struggling or wish they hadn't done it.
Now, women are toxic to men unless they have a shared mission.
And then the man doesn't mind the resources being deployed because that's where the man wants them to be deployed.
I think I just red-pilled the living hell out of Erica the Excellent.
I was just looking at your comments.
Alright. That, ladies and gentlemen, is all the red-pilling and persuasion you need for today.
Go watch the rest of the news and find out how much it sucks compared to the awesomeness that was this.
