Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Paul Krugman, Anti-Trump FEMA, Abby Phillip, Government DEI, Election Integrity, Biden's 81 Million Votes, 2024 Democrat Vote Drop-Off, Trump Supporter Family Tensions, MAHAnow Website, President Trump, Tom Homan Border Czar, Mass Deportations, Rick Scott Supporters, Bernie Sanders, Working-Class Voters, Kamala Loss Analysis, David Axelrod, Smarty-Pants Voters, Joe Scarborough, White Progressive Voters, Bill Pulte, Donna Brazile Better Liars, Diverse Trump Supporters, Stephanie Ruhle, Susie Wiles Chief of Staff, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
This is probably the best day you'll ever have in your life, but if you'd like to take it up two levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mugger, a glass of tank or chels, a steiner 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, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Go.
That's some good stuff right there.
Are you ready for this?
Number one, do we say happy Veterans Day?
I guess we say happy, right?
So let's take a moment to show some respect to all of our veterans of various wars and whatnot.
It's your day today, but still, some people have to go to work.
And luckily for you, I do not take holidays off.
So here I am, as always.
Well, the stock market's hitting some record highs.
Bitcoin was up to $82,000, last I checked.
Tesla stock is screaming.
Trump Media stock is doing great.
And Paul Krugman predicts economic doom.
Paul Krugman.
Paul Krugman is pretty sure that Trump's going to destroy the economy.
Because when you want to know what's going to happen in the future, you've got a Paul Krugman.
No, Paul Krugman is kind of famous for having bad takes on economics despite having a Nobel Prize in it.
So I wouldn't worry about the economy as long as Paul Krugman thinks it's an economic noob.
Did you know that the University of British Columbia is reporting that they figured out how a small device could turn CO2 into valuable fuel and all you would need is a temperature differential.
So how cool is this?
If you have a temperature differential, then you can create energy.
So that's what a sterling engine is.
It's where you've got a big difference between, let's say, an ocean would be a certain temperature and maybe the land would be heated by the sun, maybe 50 degrees hotter or something.
So if you have a big difference in temperature, you can make enough electricity That you can convert CO2 into fuel, and you could even do it on the moon.
Not the moon, but maybe Mars.
So there might be a way to use sunlight to produce fuel on Mars.
How cool is that?
I don't know.
To me, it just seems really cool every time we come up with a new way to make Mars practical.
So I guess we'll be turning CO2 into fuel and who knows what else.
Today we're waiting for, unless it's already happened, I haven't heard it, but Judge Mershon is going to rule on the immunity question and whether or not there's going to be a trial and whether to cancel it.
I feel like it's going to be good news for Trump, but I don't know.
The legal system seems to be a little bit corrupt, so I don't know.
We'll wait for that.
I love watching the news find out that Trump was right about something that they called fake news.
So at one point, Trump was claiming during the recent hurricane that Republicans were not getting the same amount of resources as Democrats, because FEMA being run by the government has more Democrats in it right now.
And of course, he was widely debunked.
And it turns out that somebody got fired because they were, in fact, in writing, telling people not to knock on the doors of people who had Trump signs in their lawn.
So Trump was right.
I don't know if he was right about the scale of it, but he was right that resources were being allocated based on political preference.
That was actually true.
And I was watching a little clip of all the people We're calling him crazy for claiming that.
One of them was Abby Phillip on CNN. And Abby Phillip first came to my attention for pushing the fine people hoax.
And since then, she's been promoted, of course.
If you push fake news, you get promoted.
And now she's got a regular show.
And she seems to be the one most protecting the obvious hoaxes.
And honestly, she looks like she believes them.
So when I see her saying, oh, that's a fake story and that's a hoax, she's wrong a lot of times.
But she actually looks like she believes what she's saying.
So I don't know what's up with that.
So I don't know how you could believe the finding people hoax if you were in the news business.
But she seems very dedicated to believing all the hoaxes.
There's a report titled Equity Everywhere, some group called Do No Harm.
Looked at the DEI policies of the government, federal government, and found out there's just a ton of them.
There are more than 80 federal entities with some kind of DEI in them.
And the idea here is that Trump's going to rip the DEI out of the government, which I'm pretty sure he'll do.
But the reason he would do it is because it's illegal.
It should be illegal to have racial preferences and hiring or anything else, but it's all over in the government and in the corporate world.
So here's what I'm really wondering about.
Several big companies of Pared back their DEI efforts, mostly from pressure from the public.
But what happens when the government makes it illegal to do it in the government?
I've asked this before, but I think this might be a big deal.
Because if you're like me, you think this DEI stuff can never be removed.
It just sort of became like a stain on the country, and it'll just sort of always be there.
But there is a possibility that if you make it illegal in the government, it's going to be really hard for a corporation to do it.
Because how do you defend something that your government says, no, this is illegal, this is racial discrimination, so stop doing it?
Are they going to keep doing it?
For a while, yes, they will.
But it makes me wonder if there are any lawsuits or anything that would be more easily won if the government has declared it illegal.
Seems like that would help.
We'll see.
There was some fake news on the internet.
It showed a screen image that looked like a Trump post saying that he offered amnesty to hot women.
He offered amnesty to hot Latinas and Eastern European women.
We'll be granted amnesty.
Everyone else has to go back.
Everyone else has to go back.
And people believed that that was true.
That he was going to grant amnesty to hot women and send everyone else back.
Now, I'm not opposed to the idea.
I'm just telling you it's not true.
If we wanted to talk about the merit of the idea, well, that's another conversation entirely.
I saw a report that...
Trump and the GOP are aiming for a shock and awe start to their administration.
In other words, to make sure that on day one they're doing some big, successful things.
Now, what do I call that?
I have a name for that.
I call it the new CEO move.
And Trump did it the first time he got elected as well.
And what it is, is really important that your first impression on a job sort of becomes the permanent impression.
So whatever you're doing in the first week or so, if it's a big failure, then you're going to look like the big failure administration.
But if your first week is full of wins, then it looks like, whoa, the wind's up their back, he's a legend, everything he touches turns to gold, you better make a deal with him.
And it can really make a difference, not just in the popularity of the party, but in how much they can get done.
Because if you become the person who's solving problem after problem, and then you show up to negotiate the end of some war here or there, it's going to be different.
Oh, this is the person who solves every problem.
Okay, I guess our war is over.
So yes, it does look like Trump is gearing up to make big, big moves on Really fast.
And it should be a lot of crowd-pleasers.
You know, closing the border, crowd-pleaser.
Ending the war in Ukraine, crowd-pleaser.
There's a lot of good things you can do right away.
Ending DEI, at least to be a crowd-pleaser for me.
Here's a question that will plague me.
One of my wrong predictions...
The wrongest that it could be wrong was that there would be so many claims of election integrity cheating that we wouldn't know who was president because we'd have to work through all the claims.
But it turns out that we're hardly any.
And now we are left to wonder why.
Is it because Trump won?
So everybody who would have complained just said, hey, I think I'll just be quiet about this.
We got what we wanted.
I don't think so.
Because we didn't know he'd win when the election was happening, so if there had been claims, they still would have stacked up.
And apparently there are a number of, you know, anecdotally there are a number of stories where the observers stopped something from happening that would have turned into a claim if they had been able to, let's say, move the observers out of the room or something like that, but they weren't.
So I guess we'll never know, or maybe in some future election we'll know, if it was the existence of the observers, plus the very clear and loud threats from the Republicans that if you mess with this election, you're going to jail.
Was that enough?
Was that enough to just stop the cheating?
And then the other question is, Maybe the cheating would only be in, you know, one precinct.
You have to worry about Maricopa all the time.
What if it just happened in one place?
The current projection is that Carrie Lake is behind and won't be able to catch up in the counting.
So she might lose in Maricopa, but people have some questions.
Why is it taking so long in Maricopa?
Why doesn't the result look like what you'd expect it to look like?
I'd expect if Trump won in Arizona that Carrie Lake would win as senator.
But what if Trump wins and Carrie Lake doesn't win?
Well, then you can have a question.
Now, that doesn't mean that's impossible.
There's plenty of precedent for, you know, split ticket kind of stuff.
But it would raise a question.
Maybe we need to explain this.
Because in my view, she seems like a very strong candidate.
If you could just look at the candidate and say, oh, that Gallego guy, he's really got it in.
He's got the goods.
But I don't think that's the case.
So there are questions.
It would be wonderful to find out that even Maricopa was completely copacetic and everything worked.
There's a, I just saw it in the comments, there's a Meme going around showing that all of the states that Trump won require ID to vote, and all of the states he lost don't require ID to vote.
The implication being that all of those states cheated, and they had non-voters voting, people who didn't have ID. And I would say that you cannot conclude that.
So the results do not suggest that.
What the results do suggest is that blue states don't require ID and red states do.
So Trump wins the red states.
He doesn't win the blue states.
It doesn't mean anything about ID. It doesn't mean they cheated.
It would look exactly the same if there was massive cheating or no massive cheating.
Trump would still win the red states.
And he'd still lose the blue states, with or without cheating.
Unless it was, you know, something really weird happening.
Anyway, so I'm willing to accept the possibility that I was 100% wrong and that there would not be massive cheating in the election.
I just don't know why.
Is it because it was never going to happen?
Was there never any cheating in prior years?
Or would this be the one year that the cheaters say, we better take this one off?
Is it possible you got a cheater's holiday?
Meaning that maybe they always cheat and have since I've been born, but this was the one time they said, you know, We're either going to have to cheat a lot better or take an election off because we're looking pretty closely.
Don't know.
And then my next question would be, the one thing that I don't think observers can check, not easily, is what happens if something happened within the machines?
What happens if everything that you could observe was fine?
But then when the final count got transmitted to some central place, maybe it got tweaked on the transfer.
How would you know?
Now, the fact that we're not hearing any complaints along those lines would suggest that maybe there's some way to know.
And I wasn't aware of it.
Is there a way to know if the electronic machines are correctly tabulating?
Now, many of them have a paper ballot as well, so you can compare.
In those cases, yes.
But once you transmit it, can you be sure that it transmitted correctly?
I don't know.
So I have many questions about was I ever correct in my assumptions about how leaky the election was or was I completely correct and they cleaned up the rack because I knew they were being watched, which would be very convenient for me to be, you know, wrong or right, right?
So I have to ask myself, I better question my whole take on this.
However, Let's look at that claim that there are 15 million fewer votes this time, and that therefore that proves that 2020 was rigged, because where'd all those votes go?
Well, according to Newsweek, there is no missing 15 million votes.
So they've said it's false, and others have said it's false.
Now, here's their argument.
The disparity between 2020 and 2024 appears to be a mixture of ballots still being counted, certain voter blocks switching, contests yet to be called, and slightly lower, yet still very high, national turnout.
So the quoted number of 15 million, quote, missing Democrat voters is not real.
Do you buy that?
Does that explanation totally answer all of your questions?
Well, let's look at it another way.
As of Sunday morning, Trump had more popular votes than I think any Republicans gotten in It's so long that you can't remember.
So Trump got about almost 75 million popular votes so far.
I think they're still counting them.
And that was even more than he got in 2020, which was also a record over 2016.
But not that much.
That looks more like just the difference in population.
But President Biden still has scored the largest raw count of the popular vote of any contender in history in 2020.
So Trump seems to be winning with 75 million, whereas Biden was winning one with allegedly 81 million.
Do you think that between last election and this election that there would be 5 million-ish fewer people to vote against Trump?
Does that sound real?
I would say the claim that there are missing votes, in my opinion, is still completely alive.
The claim that there are 20 million is definitely debunked, and the claim that there will be 15 million missing votes, I think that's definitely debunked.
But if we get down to, let's say, one to five million votes that you expected to be there that aren't, that would be more than enough to throw any election.
I mean, it would only take a million votes, if they were in the right places, to completely change an election.
So we're not going to be able to rule out the missing vote hypothesis.
I hate that.
I wish we would know for sure, because I think, you know, if it's within a few million of prior elections, It will be easy to dismiss it and say, well, people weren't as excited this time.
You know what I mean?
If you just got a few million that are unexplained, any explanation will be fine because it'll be a small percentage of the total.
But it doesn't mean there was no shenanigans.
It just means we don't know.
Anyway.
Rasmussen asked voters what were their most important issues.
And 32% said illegal immigration.
That was the top answer.
27% said rising prices.
Now those would be my opinions as well.
Rising prices I put in the domain of the economy in general.
And of course border security.
So on the two most important things Trump had You know, the better policies people thought.
So that alone should have explained how we won.
If you needed any other reason, how about the top two things that voters wanted Trump was offering?
How about that?
That'd be enough.
I mean, we have 50 different reasons that people are offering for why things went the way they are.
Well, one of them could just be one of them addressed the top interests of the country and the other one didn't.
So, what are the other issues?
24%.
That is nearly one quarter.
It's very close to 25%.
And if you heard from me that 25% of respondents on a poll had a certain opinion, what would you think about that opinion, without even hearing it first?
You would say 25% of the people who respond to any poll have the dumbass answer that you can't even understand how anybody could be that dumb.
24% said that the biggest issue was protecting our democracy.
Protecting our democracy.
It's like a completely made-up issue.
And it turns out that more Republicans voted for protecting our democracy by putting Trump in charge than Democrats.
So it's this completely made-up fake news propaganda thing that we've been listening to for a year or more.
And 24% of the country actually bought into the idea that that was real.
Do you know what else 24% of the country could be convinced is true?
Abso-fucking-lutely anything.
Anything.
24% of the country, you could absolutely convince that there is a live UFO in the Oval Office.
Yeah, you could.
Anything.
You could convince 24% of the public that Biden died a year ago.
Anything.
There's nothing you couldn't convince them.
24% can be convinced of anything.
And so sure enough, the people having their mental breakdowns think that Hitler got into office and they're losing their freedom.
But when asked to list the freedoms they've lost, everything goes quiet.
And they say stuff like abortion, which is fake news, because Trump says he's not going to do a national abortion ban.
Very clear about it.
So they have to make up entire issues that are the opposite of Trump's policies in order to be afraid.
Why would you do that?
Why would you make up a problem that's the opposite of the person's policy?
It's like you're just looking to hurt yourself somehow.
Anyway, and 14% said abortion rights were the number one question.
And then I say, yes, it's the number one question for the states, not for the federal government and not for Trump.
So 14% couldn't even find the right topic, basically.
25% get the wrong answer.
14% don't understand the question.
It was like you didn't even understand the question, or you had no idea what's going on.
Anyway, a lot of people have been asking me in the last few days, how am I going to explain my support for Trump when I see my Trump-hating family?
Do any of you have that problem?
Are any of you dreading the holidays or already kicked out of your family because of your Trump support and you're wondering how to deal with your crazy family members?
All right.
Well, here's what I would do.
I would, first of all, see if you can grab a clip from, I believe, today.
Is it today or soon?
Biden will be meeting with Trump.
There will be, I assume, pictures of them smiling and shaking hands.
And then they'll have a private conversation.
And then Biden will brag.
He'll brag.
About how well they turn over power, peacefully.
Now, when your relatives say, how could you elect Hitler and take away all our democracy?
The first thing you should say is, you realize that as soon as the election was over, the Democrats who were making those claims acted like it never happened.
Right?
They acted like it never happened.
Because otherwise they couldn't smile and shake hands and peacefully transfer power.
Right?
They should be telling the country if everything they've been saying up to that point was true, that your democracy is going to be gone, what Biden should be doing is holding a mourning as if like a death in the Oval Office.
He should refuse to talk to Trump, now or ever.
They should look for every possible way to reverse the election, and they should be working as hard as they can To save us from losing our democracy.
But instead, Biden's going to be smiling like a dumb fuck, shaking hands and bragging about how he gave over power peacefully.
To Hitler.
To Hitler.
Peaceful.
Peaceful transfer to Hitler.
So if you're talking to your relatives, say, I'd like you to explain to me how the entire government just started acting like it was normal that Trump was going to be president.
How'd that happen?
Because the frame you want to give your family is that we live in a hoaxocracy and that neither the left news or the right news are even intended to be accurate.
They're meant to be narratives.
If you go in and say, I read real news and you read fake news, your argument will fail and you'll be kicked out of the family.
If you go in and say all news is fake when it comes to politics and The way that I came to like Trump is not believing anything and making up my own mind.
And then you show that the news and the politicians were clearly lying.
Because they're just treating them like a normal president now.
Clearly they were lying, obviously.
The next thing you don't want to do is point them to the americandebunk.com site, because that's got a good write-up of everything from the fine people hoax to the other hoaxes and how they were played.
So what you could do is say, here's the frame I would put on it.
People are going to ask you and your family, how could you do this?
And what you should say is, I'd love to explain it.
Would you be willing to actually listen?
And then instead of talking about policies, You talk about the propaganda and brainwashing situation on social media and in the news and say that both sides are just full of propaganda and fake news and that if you wanted to find out how badly you'd been duped, Look at theamericandebunk.com.
And then you could say, and I'm not saying that I haven't been fooled by any hoaxes.
I'm sure I have.
But if you don't understand that you're in a full 100% saturated hoaxocracy, then you're kind of lost.
You won't understand the Trump support.
You have to understand that none of the news is real.
Or nothing makes sense.
The moment you realize the news is not real, and not trying to be real, that's important.
They're not trying to be real.
Then everything makes sense.
Everything you observe suddenly makes sense once you realize that.
Did you know there are two websites for people to make suggestions to our government?
One to discuss policy.
It's at policiesforpeople.com.
Policiesforpeople.com.
So if you've got an idea for a policy that you think Trump could do something about, executive orders are great, but it could be anything else, that's up.
If you want to discuss who should be nominated, You should look at mahanow.org.
So, as in Make America Healthy Again, mahanow.org, and then slash nominees-for-the-people.
I think you'll be able to find that at mahanow.org.
So at least one of these was set up by RFK Jr., maybe Nicole Shanahan, I'm assuming.
I'm not sure about the other one.
I saw something that said maybe both of them were the work of RFK Jr.
But I've been saying for a while that what makes Trump special, among other things, is that he listens to the public.
Just better than anybody ever has.
He can read a room.
He adjusts.
He does ask for opinions.
Here's something that you hear everybody say when they say they've spent time with Trump.
They will say that he is interested in your opinion and listens very carefully to it and solicits it.
And that was exactly my experience.
So, you know, famously, I always tell you, I met him in 2018 because I was a supporter.
And in the summer, the politics gets slow.
So I think the White House was just, you know, bolstering support among supporters.
So I got invited in and I got to just sort of hang with him for half an hour and just shoot the breeze.
Where Trump took the conversation was my opinion.
So instead of telling me, you know, what you'd expect if you listened to everything from the Democrats, you would expect that he's a narcissist and that I would walk in and he would tell me how great he is, slap me on the back and send me home.
Right?
Like, with having no interest whatsoever in me, he would just, you know, tell me he's great, give me his weird handshake and send me home.
It's the opposite of that.
He sits down and he starts asking me questions about my business model for Dilbert.
Then he asks me some political questions, you know, the stuff that was in the headlines.
He asked me who he thought he was going to run against.
I said Kamala Harris.
He said he thought it would be Biden.
He was right.
You know, the second bite of the apple, I was right.
But he was right that it would be Biden the next time.
And he listened to my answers very carefully.
Like, you are very aware that he is giving you his full attention and is actually interested in the answer to his questions.
I don't know how many other presidents do that.
And so it certainly kicks the hell out of the whole narcissist thing.
Because if you've ever met a narcissist, they don't do that.
They don't say, let's spend this half hour listening to you.
They fill it up with their own thing.
Anyway, so I think this is great that there's a website that you can make those suggestions.
Looks like the border security guy is going to be Tom Homan again.
Republicans seem to love Tom Homan, so he was in that job under the first Trump administration, and he's going to close down that border and deport things, deport people as Trump requires.
Jim Jordan was asked about the mass deportations.
He had a pretty good answer.
You might want to use this one yourself.
So Jim Jordan says that there are 1.3 million people in the country who have been ordered deported already because they lost their asylum claims.
And he says that Trump will start there.
Well, if the courts have already ordered 1.3 million to go home, how long would it take to round up the criminals And the 1.3 million that the courts have said have to leave.
It's going to take all four years.
Even if you wanted to do mass deportations, and I don't actually think anybody wants to, if you really talk to people privately, do you need all 20 million to go home?
We're going to be 10 million short workers if you do that, and they're paying taxes.
So most people, I think, in the real world, if they were in charge, They would go after all the ones that are a big problem or have been legally ejected.
And you'd be in good shape.
So if we just do that, we'll be fine.
And then Jim Jordan was emphasizing again that Trump's going to focus on getting the work done and he's not going after political enemies.
I do wonder if it even makes sense for Trump to deny that he's going after political enemies.
Or would it be better for them to think that he is?
And so they shape up and then just not do it.
So, part of me wants to say, you fools, don't you know that Trump is not going to go after political enemies?
But first of all, I don't know that.
Who knows?
I do know that there would be huge resistance to it from Republicans.
I would resist it.
If it were just lawfare and it's just revenge, oh, I'm going to resist that hard.
I don't want to be associated with that in any way.
But there may be a few characters that have earned a little special treatment.
It's not going to be Rachel Maddow, and it's not going to be Joy Reid.
I mean, honestly, if Trump went after Joy Reid, I would stop everything I'm doing and say, I don't know what this is, but you need to stop that right away.
Like that.
That does not fly.
You don't get to go after somebody who said bad things about you.
Nope, nope, nope.
But there are other people like the January 6th committee who probably broke real laws.
I mean, it looks like it from my perspective.
I don't have proof of that.
But I think there is evidence of information that was held back.
There are some claims there that I think need to be looked at.
Because if the January 6th committee was corrupt, and it certainly looks like they were, the damage to the country is just enormous.
So I think that needs to be looked at.
But no, certainly not people in the news.
Well, we're looking for a Speaker of the House, and I guess it's down to, who is it, Cornyn Thune and Rick Scott.
I'm looking at the people who are backing each of them.
I'm noticing that Rick Scott has the backing of Elon Musk so far, RFK Jr.
I think Cerno, Mike Cernovich was for Rick Scott.
I mentioned that Rand Paul was endorsing him.
I look to Rand Paul as my guide on this decision.
And as I told you before, wouldn't you love to be in this position?
To have lived your life in such a way that you are so credible that somebody will just take your word for a very important decision.
That's where Rand Paul is for me.
So if Rand Paul says, I know these three people, this one's the right answer, I'm done.
I'm done.
Is there somebody that has higher credibility who has a different opinion?
I haven't heard anybody.
There are lots of other people backing other people.
Rick Scott is actually in the minority now.
I think Thune has the most backing.
But who's backing Thune that I would say, oh, oh, if you're backing Thune, I guess I'm in.
Who would that be?
Who's backing Cornyn?
And again, I don't know anything about Thune or Cornyn.
But who's backing Cornyn that as soon as I hear that name, I'd go, oh, oh, I'll take a look at Cornyn.
If you told me that Elon Musk had backed one of them, I'd say, oh, I better look at him.
If RFK Jr.
was backing one of them, I'd say, I'm going to look at him.
If Cernovich was backing somebody else, I'd say, oh, better look at him.
But if you give me Rand Paul, Cernovich, Elon Musk, and RFK Jr., and they're all for Rick Scott, I don't have any further questions.
That's all I need here.
Because if you've got somebody who's more credible than the people I just mentioned, and also plugged in so they would know the characters, there's nobody more credible than those people that I just mentioned.
So to me, even not knowing anything about the three people who are up for it, I feel like the decision's easy.
I do.
All right.
Bernie Sanders continues to entertain.
You know, I have a love-hate relationship with Bernie Sanders because I think his policies are not necessarily good for the country.
But, you know, the country apparently decided that he's not going to get his way, so that's okay.
But he is a good truth-teller.
He is a populist.
I do believe he wants what's good for the country.
And so he's fun to watch.
And he says that Harris lost because Democrats abandoned the working class.
And I think the DNC national chair labeled it BS and Nancy Pelosi got mad at him for saying that.
Now, there are a lot of reasons given for why things didn't go well.
And as I've said, the answer is everything.
Every single thing the Democrats did was bad compared to Trump.
They were less organized.
They had less time.
They had a worse candidate.
They had a candidate who couldn't talk.
They had policies that were ridiculous.
They had a VP who wasn't as good as Trump's VP. Trump got nearly assassinated.
She got the job without going through a primary.
There wasn't actually anything There was not a single thing that Harris did better than Trump.
Am I wrong about that?
Is that just me being biased and, you know, my confirmation bias is kicking in?
Or is that just objectively true?
And a smart Democrat would have admitted if they were talking to you privately.
I think every single thing about her campaign, if you lined it up on a chart, okay, okay, you know, this to this, this to this.
The only place she might win...
Is in ground game and in funding.
And guess what?
I sound like Biden now.
Guess what?
The ground game didn't matter and the superior funding didn't matter because Trump got the free publicity better.
Which he teases her because he says he'll pay off her debts.
He has lots of money left over.
He has money left over.
So he handled his money better.
He did everything better.
He had better slogans, he had better focus, he had better debates, in my opinion.
So if you're looking for the mystery of how Trump won, How about the strongest politician that we've ever seen ran against the worst politician we've ever seen, and every single thing he did was really good, and every single thing she did that mattered, because it turned out the funding didn't matter, was suboptimal.
So it's sort of like you can pick your own reason, because you got 50 of them.
Everything was less.
Everything they did was less.
All right.
David Axelrod says that the only group Democrats gained with in the election were white college graduates.
So how would you like to be the Democrat Party, the party of minority interests and the working class, and the only people you gained with were the people who were supposed to be your enemies?
Are you supposed to be working on behalf of rich white women?
Is that the Democrat Party?
Is the party of rich white women with good educations?
So he said, Axelrod said, the Dems have become the party of suburban college-educated smarty pants.
Now, why would it be that that group...
Would be moving in that direction when all the other groups are moving the other direction?
Now, your first thought would be, well, abortion, obviously.
Nope, it's not abortion because it didn't affect the other women.
And all women would be in the same boat abortion-wise.
So if there's only one group of women who went toward Harris, it's not because of abortion because that would be more of a general move.
So it wasn't that.
Here's why I think the suburban, college-educated, smarty-pants women are the ones who moved toward Harris.
They're the most hypnotized.
Because everybody who watches the news or social media is under some kind of influence, including me and you.
But if you went through college, you're really getting it.
Like you're really, really, really getting it.
But then the question would be, what about the white men who went to college?
Because apparently they didn't go in Harris's direction either.
They also went more toward Trump.
What about them?
Why would the men Who had the same, largely exactly the same influence, go in a different direction.
Now, you might say abortion, but like I said, abortion doesn't seem to explain much.
It didn't seem to influence the election that much.
Here's what I think.
I think men are harder to bullshit, and they care less about woke stuff.
And that was probably the difference.
In other words, men had a natural defense to being hypnotized to be woke and being hypnotized about anything else.
So they can be hypnotized.
Men, of course, could be just as hypnotized as women.
But I think they had a little natural immunity.
In this case.
It's a hypothesis, by the way.
It's my sexist hypothesis.
And part of it is that men, when they speak privately, it's different than what they say publicly.
I don't know about women.
But I just think men were less hypnotizable.
And maybe that was the whole story.
Anyway...
There's a claim in the New York Post that some say that Biden, when he was still running, his internal polls had Trump winning 400 electoral votes.
Now, this comes from an ex-Obama official, so we don't know if that's true.
But wouldn't that have been amazing if Trump won 400 votes?
But you know what is the best thing about Biden dropping out?
Here's what I wouldn't have wanted.
I would not have wanted a President Trump who won because the competitor was having dementia.
There's no credibility there, right?
If the person you beat didn't even look like they could have done any job, including working at McDonald's, like literally couldn't have done a job at McDonald's, if that's who you beat, then you're not really that credible as a leader.
But if you beat, you know, the, as I call her, vagina Jesus, Harris, she's got the black woman thing going on, and the black Indian thing going on, and she's, you know, she's young, and she's picked, and she's proven, and she's had some, you know, experience in the right kind of jobs.
If you beat her, and you beat her, like, conclusively, well, then you get a mandate.
That's a mandate.
I don't know if beating the dementia patient gives you a mandate.
People would claim it, but you wouldn't feel it.
With the Harris victory, you actually feel the mandate.
If he beat Biden, you just say, well, everybody would beat Biden.
I mean, he wasn't even there.
So it turns out that the best thing that could have been done for Trump is trading out Biden.
Nothing could have been better for Trump and the Republicans than having a clean win.
You know, you could argue she only had 107 days, but I'm going to go with Bill Maher because I think he spoke the common sense on this.
Are you kidding us?
She was the Vice President of the United States and she had 107 days and we were all concentrating intensely.
Of course she had time to introduce herself to the country.
Now, she didn't have time to work her way into your mind so deeply that it's like Trump, the first name that comes to your mind when you think of a variety of things.
But I don't know if that would have helped.
You know, the indication is the more we knew about her, the worse she was.
So I think maybe the short time to do the thing worked in her favor.
It was probably the best they could have done.
Keep her out of the news.
Anyway, then we'll see.
Morning Joe is blaming white progressives for Harris's loss.
And so this is Morning Joe.
So he's actually, it's almost like he's criticizing himself, but doesn't realize it.
He goes, what on earth is Latinx?
No Latino person uses the word Latinx, but people spouted this because they felt they had to.
And so he's basically saying that this one group, the white progressives, got everything wrong.
To which I say, morning Joe, where are the white progressives getting their news?
Where are they getting their news?
They're getting it from Joe.
The news people are absolutely just dead set that people are making up their own mind without information.
The only information that voters have comes through social media and the news, and most of the social media is based on the news.
So if they can't see that they are the problem and that the candidate is actually downstream from them, they're just never going to be able to correct, which is great, because if they don't correct, that's good for me.
So as long as they're pretty sure the problem is white people, They're not going to correct.
Now, here's what I mean.
I think if you watch the fake news long enough, you know it's fake news.
And that's really the big problem.
We live in a hoaxocracy.
All right.
Then I saw an article by Michael Tomoski who's speculating that why Trump won is that Even though we think the mainstream media is all anti-Trump, that really the right-wing media is stronger than the left.
Do you buy that?
Do you buy that the right-wing media is now stronger than the left-wing media?
The right-wing media had something like 88% negative stories about Trump and almost no negative stories about Harris.
And it is the most viewed news.
Now, Fox News is bigger than any of the individual other news entities, but it's because it's operating with Breitbart and The Gateway Pundit and Just the News.
There are only a handful of entities, and most of them are small compared to Fox News.
I see some of it.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
There's somebody in the comments yelling in all capitals that Bill Pulte's giving away money to people was a scam.
Now, I know Bill personally.
I was very close to the whole process of the giveaway.
Here's how the scam worked.
If I give you money, will you enjoy it?
Yes.
Okay, I'm going to give you some money.
Did you enjoy it?
Yes.
I think I'll do it again.
Hey, does anybody else want some free money?
Hey, I do.
All right, here's some.
Did you enjoy it?
Yes, that really helped.
That was his camp.
He literally thought that if he just gave money to people and made them happy, that they would be happy.
And then he did that.
Now, if you're yelling at me in all caps that you think there was some trick to it, that he was buying supporters, was he buying supporters?
Well, only if you want to be a jerk about it.
He was giving money away, his own money, to people and asking nothing in return except that they had described a need that sounded genuine.
And did that make him get lots and lots of supporters?
Of course it did.
So are you telling me that you shouldn't do things that are kind and generous and good for people because you'll be a scammer because you might be popular for doing that?
No.
I'd like everyone to scam me that way.
Can you please scam me by giving me money that is exactly what I need to solve my problems?
So back down, you're being like just a dumbass.
And by the way, if Bill Pulte gets picked for the HUD, I'm hoping that he would take that job.
I'm getting ahead of myself.
But if he's available for it, I think he would add one to two points to the GDP. I mean, honestly, I think...
You're looking at one of the biggest opportunities the country's ever had.
To put somebody with his mindset and his background and his skill and his brain behind housing, you know, our biggest, most expensive problem that we really, really need to fix, but is also connected to employment in the deepest way, and it's now going to be connected to the robot world in the deepest way.
I mean, you need at least a Bill Pulte And that job to get all the, you know, squeeze all the goodness out of it.
So if you could not do dumbass things like pretending that giving your own money away to people who need it is some kind of a scam, we really don't need that.
Like, you're talking about trillions of dollars on the line here.
So don't start dumb rumors that could cost the country a trillion dollars.
That's not helping.
All right.
Sure, let's see.
Oh, so here's what the writer, Michael Tabaski, said.
He said, people are incredulous how a majority of voters could have believed this or that.
And...
The writer says, weren't they bothered that Trump is a convicted felon?
He calls him an adjudicated rapist.
He said he invocated violence against Liz Cheney or 50 other examples of his disgusting imprecations.
Why didn't people see that he was obviously disqualified for all that?
To which I say, huh, sounds like somebody who wasn't seeing enough of the right-wing media.
Because if you followed the right-wing media, you would know all this is bullshit.
If you follow the left-wing media, which he doesn't think is strong, you would think all these things are real things.
These are real things.
This is just shit made up by the right-wing media.
Anyway, Don of Brazil said, we've got to do a better job of reaching the voters where they are and not try to pretend that this is won simply because Donald Trump is a better liar.
So Donna Brazile is one of my favorite pundits.
No matter where she is, she's always interesting.
I even liked her when she was on The Five for a while as the lefty person, because she's always interesting.
But look at this turn of a phrase.
We can't pretend that Trump only won because he's a better liar.
Do you see what's in that phrase?
Better liar.
She literally just called her own team liars and said they lost to a better liar.
Now, actually, she's saying, don't say this, but she's suggesting that Democrats know they're liars, but they didn't lie well enough.
And I've actually had that thought, because they went all in on the, he's Hitler, and he's a racist.
But since they'd already dialed that up to 10, they didn't have anywhere to go.
So there was nothing they could say that could move the dial, because the dial was set at 10.
They had already set it there.
So I think it's hilarious to see that she would use the phrase, better liar.
So at least the people who are the deepest into politics know it's a competition between two liars, basically.
Apparently, according to Harry Enten on CNN, Trump created the most diverse Republican Party of all time.
So because Trump won on all the categories except for the educated white women, He made the Republican Party the most diverse it's ever been in all history.
At the same time that the mainstream media is painting him as Hitler and a racist, he basically took the Nobel Prize in diversity.
I was going to say without trying, but that's fake.
That would have been incorrect.
He was trying.
He was doing it the way a Republican does it.
Do you know how a Republican increases diversity?
Ask Morgan Freeman.
Morgan Freeman will tell you how to increase diversity and decrease, you know, racial animosity.
You know what you do?
You stop talking about it.
You just ignore it.
You just do all the things that you should do.
You make the economy better.
Oh, guess what?
It helps everybody.
You improve, let's say, competition for school.
Oh, guess what?
Everybody had a better deal because of that.
If you just do everything right, keep on the wars, pay down the debt, just the things that everybody needs, it turns out that everybody likes it.
Surprise!
Things that are good for everybody are good for everybody.
And that was enough.
That's how you build diversity the Republican way.
You just say, who's telling you you can't get an ID? You can get an ID. Who's telling you you can't get a job in America?
You can get a job in America.
And just sort of ignore it until it goes away.
Now, the spin that I put on it is that as long as you focus on groups, like group averages, you're in sort of an absurd, crazy land that doesn't make sense in 2024 or 2025.
But if you focus on individuals, you solve every problem.
Every problem.
Because individuals have unique problems.
If you said, let me solve all the black people problems.
Well, what would that be?
Because you got plenty of black people in great jobs.
They've got great educations.
You know, they're killing it.
They're, you know, they've got good families and stuff.
So how'd they do that?
If you just say, here's somebody who's undereducated, so I need to give them a skill, it shouldn't matter what the race is.
So ignoring the differences in the averages is where we need to get to.
Trump's already there, and it paid off.
And again, it's the Republican way to do the long-term payoff.
You move abortion out of the Supreme Court, you're going to get killed in the next election.
But eventually, The states will work it out and it won't become a problem every time for the Republicans at the federal level.
And same here.
If you just make sure that you get the economy right and you're not overtly discriminating against anybody, still there is, you know, systemic racism.
Still there.
But there are so many ways to get around it that it would be like it isn't there.
So a specific example is, if you assume systemic racism exists, but you also got a good education, you know, in some job that people have in demand, you're going to do great.
And maybe even your race and ethnicity and your sexual preference might even be a plus if it's a big corporate job or something like that.
All right.
So yes, the most diverse group by simply not making a big pandering deal about it.
Stephanie Rule on MSNBC says that Musk and the disinformation from people like him and his ex-platform created the Trump presidency.
Really?
It was just Elon Musk saying things that weren't true?
He was the one.
It wasn't MSNBC. It wasn't the fact that people saw through MSNBC and they could see that he wasn't the monster.
You know, I don't know how much this mattered.
I don't know if there's any way to know, but Early on in the election, I had speculated that if you could get rid of Trump's worst criticisms, that he's selfish and he's a selfish racist, that you could get rid of that by putting him in contact with ordinary people.
Because if you spend two minutes with him, you just don't pick that up like that's anything.
You just think, oh, he's really interested in me.
He seems like a nice guy.
Oh, he's serving french fries at McDonald's.
Oh, isn't that funny?
He's in that garbage truck, just like a garbage guy.
No, he went to the black barbershop.
And sure enough, Trump did all these things where it put him in direct contact with voters.
And then even if you're just watching it, you're seeing him act like just a person.
And then all those things about he's Hitler and everything else, you're trying to reconcile that.
But the visual of him acting like a regular person who's respected and respects the ordinary people is so much more powerful than, he's Hitler, he's Hitler, he's Hitler.
It's so ridiculous that people don't believe that naturally.
So I think that that was the genius of the campaign is that they made that adjustment.
I think it really worked.
And by the way, let me say this again.
What's the name?
Is it?
Wiles is the name of his chief of staff.
Do you remember me saying for the past year that it seems screamingly obvious that the Trump campaign was the best run it's ever been?
And it's just like screamingly capable.
Like you could just...
Everything they did seemed like just the right move all the time.
Now...
That's a pretty good person to pick as your chief of staff.
You know, the woman who pulled that off.
Yeah, Susie Wiles.
So Susie Wiles as chief of staff, and he doesn't make a big deal about the first woman, that's the way to do it.
That's how you do it.
Yeah, you just pick the best people and make sure that people know they're the best people, and you just move on, and guess what?
Women now know that they can be the chief of staff, and who didn't know that anyway?
Anyway, even on CNN, though, and I'll give CNN credit for that, their opinions are not unified about what happened.
So Fareed Zakaria, he says he blames the Democrats for not doing enough about illegal immigration, or even not understanding how big a deal it was.
He didn't like the lawfare against Trump.
He thinks that moves the voters forward.
And the deeply illiberal woke culture of censorship.
So according to Farid, it was the way the Democrats acted.
And I'm thinking, okay, that's close.
But again, why did they act that way?
You know, I'm still waiting for somebody on CNN or MSNBC to say, you know what?
Maybe the voters act the way we tell them to act.
Because the voters act the way they tell them to act.
Most people don't come up with their own opinions.
That's very rare.
They watch their TV and they say, that sounds right to me.
That's my opinion now.
Anyway, according to Breitbart, 40% of women under 30 voted for Trump.
Now, it's not over half, but it would suggest that Trump is not poison to women voters.
40% is a good, healthy message that a small tweak would get him over half.
And Representative Jim Jordan says he's opened the possibility of asking Jack Smith, the special counsel, to testify.
I think that would be a good idea.
I feel like if the Republicans hold the House, I think maybe they should talk to the January 6th people and talk to the lawfare prosecutors and maybe see if there's something the public needs to know about that whole situation.
That's what I think.
Well, I'm gonna end early today.
That's all I got for you.
And I'm gonna talk to the locals people privately.
Remember, the Dilbert calendar is now available, and it's November, so this is when you want to order it.
They're being printed right now.
They'll be produced mid-November, so if you've already ordered it, look for yours to arrive mid-November.
If you order it today, it'll still get there probably by the end of November in time.
But the only link for it is at Dilbert.com.
It'll take you to the sales page.
It is not anywhere else.
All right, everybody, I'm going to talk to just locals privately.
