Nov. 10, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
44:52
3493 Why Donald Trump Won | Bill Mitchell and Stefan Molyneux
Defying the mainstream media and most polling data, Donald J. Trump was elected as the next President of the United States on November 8th. How could all the mainstream polls and pundits get this so wrong? Bill Mitchell joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss how he was able to see through the manipulations of the media, the Anti-Donald bias in polling and what we can expect from the new President-Elect moving forward. Bill Mitchell is the host and creator of YourVoice Radio and one most influential non-candidates in social media the election cycle - with close to 150,000 Twitter followers and millions of impressions daily.Follow Bill on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/mitchellviiYourVoice Radio: http://www.yourvoiceradio.comFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio with Bill Mitchell, the host and creator of Your Voice Radio and one of the most influential non-candidates in social media.
This recent, now we put in recent election cycle, close to 150,000 Twitter followers, 10 million Twitter impressions each day and 40,000 retweets according to a recent and occasionally snarky BuzzFeed article.
Welcome back, Bill.
How are you doing today?
I'm good.
I'm good.
I tell you...
My followers have jumped to almost 150,000 as of election night.
And this is hard for people to believe, but on election night, my Twitter feed had 80 million hits.
Wow, that is...
And 400,000 retweets just on election night.
It was crazy.
Well, and for those who haven't been following Bill's Twitter account, which you should, and we'll put a link to it below.
It's twitter.com slash MitchellVII.
And, of course, you can go to yourvoiceradio.com for his radio show.
Bill is basically a Twitter machine.
I don't think he even has a keyboard.
I think it's just a psychic link to the central Twitter borg universe.
Because what do you do, like 200, 250 tweets a day?
I mean, on average, it's pretty intense.
It depends, you know, on what I'm doing.
You know, this last month of the election, a lot more activity than there was today.
Previously, but just a lot to talk about.
And election night, I mean, people needed somebody to help keep them off the ledge a little bit and to provide some objective analysis of what was going on as opposed to just what they were hearing in the media and what they were seeing on that map.
Initially, when Florida turned blue and Ohio turned blue, I was sitting out there blue, and even Texas was blue.
People were just about ready to, you know, slip their wrists.
But I was telling them, just wait and, you know, listen to me because there's stuff going on that you guys don't see.
So it kind of worked out.
Yeah, those of us who've been plugged in deeply to this political cycle, when we have contacts, we have information.
I, you know, I sort of envy your openness with regards to your predictions of a Trump win bill.
I mean, it's very, very impressive.
I was confident of a Trump win.
It's kind of worked out.
But I don't know if, you know, an overindulgence in Star Wars when I was younger, your overconfidence is your weakness.
But I was concerned to say, it's in the bag, no problem, don't worry about it, because I was, you know, maybe this is manipulative, maybe it's not, but I was concerned that it was going to give people overconfidence, followed by less stringent action, and become a self-defeating prophecy.
But you didn't take that approach.
You were like, it's in the bag, don't worry, he's a changed candidate, he's got it done.
And, you know, so you have, you get the medal and the honor of predicting from the very beginning, whereas I was hedging in a way, though it was not my true feelings deep down, but I was concerned that overconfidence might turn it the wrong way.
Yeah, well, my experience is that, you know, if you make a bold prediction or you hedge your bet, if you're wrong, you're so wrong.
But if you make a bold prediction, you're right, they'll never forget you.
And that's kind of the direction that I went on that.
I was looking at this election structurally and historically and realizing that over the past six elections, only one party has received a third term for president, and that was Bush after Reagan.
Typically, the party gets...
And you can tell a lot by how well the preceding president does in his second election.
When Reagan's party got a third term, he had done much better in his second election than he did even in his first one.
Whereas when Obama won re-election, he had won by fewer votes than his first election, which I believe is the first time that ever happened in history where a president was re-elected with fewer votes.
So it showed there was quite a bit of fatigue for him.
And A lot of his support was really based on just his cult of personality, not as opposed to what he had actually achieved.
So for Hillary to win a third Obama term would have been historically almost impossible, especially given the other dynamics that were happening out there.
So I saw that and I saw this was a change election and change candidates win change elections.
It's just the way it goes.
And the last month The only block to that was Trump not being a reasonable candidate.
In the last month, he presented himself as a reasonable candidate for commander-in-chief, and that's all those 15% on the fence needed, and it was done.
So there's a downdraft, which is the third term factor.
Of course, the updraft is Hillary's intrinsic likability, integrity, and honesty.
So clearly, there was a battle going on in the tube of political windstorms, and that, sadly, her innate likability and honesty wasn't enough to swing things.
And of course, with Reagan, there was, of course, the boom that occurred with Reagan.
There was the end of the Cold War.
There was the optimism that occurred.
Now, some of that was a bubble.
And I certainly was not a huge fan of Reagan's no-fault divorce stuff when he was in California.
I was not a huge fan of the legalization of 3 million illegal immigrants, which then became 10 million illegal immigrants, 10 million voters in general for the Democrats, which turned the California red.
And now they're talking secession, to which I think some Americans are like, hey, let's help you push, you know, activate that San Andreas Falk.
You can have your own island!
But it was quite a bit of momentum that was occurring.
And, of course, the Bush-Gore was very close, very close.
And, I mean, it, of course, went, for those who don't know, it went into law land and it went into recount land for quite some time.
But this, at least from the Electoral College standpoint, wasn't close at all.
No, it wasn't close at all.
I think we're going to end with 306 for Trump as far as the Electoral College.
And he may still win the popular vote because there's still about 8% of the vote that hasn't been counted, and most of that is in red areas.
So, yeah, Trump may still win the popular vote as well.
He's only about 200,000 votes down now.
And the fact that he didn't win outright the popular vote It's mainly because California and New York went two to one for Hillary, so they kind of biased the sample.
But, you know, I think that it's great that we have the Electoral College because it means that most of the country got the candidate they wanted as opposed to three major cities, you know, New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, which is dominated by liberals getting to pick who rules the rest of the nation.
So it really worked out.
Now, it seems to me that the strategy pursued by the mainstream media, which I think was, and this sounds a little conspiratorial, but I actually feel that the term conspiracy theory needs to be retired because now it usually just sounds crazy, but we're just waiting for confirmation, which will inevitably come.
But it seems like the mainstream media, and particularly the polls, were engaged as a weapon of war, as a kind of psyop of demotivation for the Republican side.
But I think that what actually happened was by being so hysterically aggressive towards Trump supporters, by painting him as evil, as Hitler, as a monster, as racist, what they did was they drove Trump support underground.
Now, if you're in a battle, there's one thing you really, really need, and that is to have an accurate estimate of your enemy's strength.
And by driving the Trump supporters underground by, oh, no, I don't support Trump.
I really do support Trump, but I'm not telling anyone.
They basically said, oh, that the army, they're able to field very, very few people, except for these crazy people on the Internet who says there's hidden Trump supporters.
You don't want to drive your enemy's army underground.
You can't count them anymore.
And then you slack up.
Yeah, I think there's a lot of truth to that, Stephan.
The Achilles heel of the Democrat Party has always been that they spend so much and they lie so much and they end up eventually believing their own spin and their own lies.
And then they base strategy upon the false premise.
And the strategy ends up blowing up in their faces because they base it upon their own lies.
It's just kind of a weird, you know, dog chasing their own tail sort of scenario.
And I think that what happened, everybody on Twitter was worried about the cheating.
Oh, they're going to cheat.
They're going to cheat.
And I think what may have happened is that they had plans to cheat.
Now, the cheating that we needed to worry about was not some people sitting in an office in Broward County filling out fake absentee ballots or I think the Democrats were only going to try to pull something like that off if it was their plan Z, where there was no other way they could win.
And I think that what happened was they ended up believing their own polls where they were going to win this race by four or five points.
And I think they said, you know, we don't have to do the electronic cheat because, you know, we've got this.
We've got this.
And then they didn't have it.
Because like you said, you know, it's like they just sent their scouts over the hill.
And you remember the old shows where the Gladiator shows where You know, the gladiators would be walking across the field and all of a sudden the enemy popped out from their little hidey holes, you know, and they surrounded them.
And that's kind of what happened here is, like you said, they drove the support underground in their polls.
They didn't see it.
And then on election day we got them and they didn't have their cheats ready.
Well, and the idea that there was going to be cheating on election night to me is kind of rich because there was, to me, so much cheating before election night.
I mean, having the entire mainstream media pretty much in the tank for you, having your questions for debates fed to the candidate.
I mean, there was so much that was going on, you know, this sending out these bird doggers, right, hiring these mentally ill people or crazy people to go and start violence at Trump rallies and then complaining that only the Trump people are violent.
This woman who claimed that Trump attacked her when she was 13, who then had to withdraw, that was all published.
And all of the ridiculous, in my mind, these sexual assault allegations and so on, which, you know, half an hour's reporting can dismantle fairly easily.
There was so much cheating that went on ahead of time and they still, still couldn't win.
And I think that just shows the support that Trump really had, that they simply couldn't guess because they live in such an echo chamber of disinformation that you're right, they start believing they really are at war with East Asia.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.
I tell you what, I knew on election night, there were a couple signs I knew that we were probably going to win, because I assumed we were going to win anyway.
way.
But, you know, when I got the confirmation was when we saw that for that poll, the exit poll from Fox News, because a lot of the exit polls are really hard to read, especially the ones from, you know, if you watch the exit polls from MSNBC, it was all like, you know, Hillary landslide.
I mean, MSNBC, right.
But I saw the exit polls from Fox.
And the one that stood out to me was when they said, which candidate is the change candidate in this election?
And Trump won like 88 to 12 or something like that.
I'm like, this is a change election that's over.
And then when Indiana and Kentucky returns first started coming in and people say, well, Indiana and Kentucky, those are red states.
What can you tell from that?
Well, for instance, in Indiana, the RCP average had Trump with a 10-point win in Indiana.
When the returns first started coming in, he was 50 points ahead in Indiana.
And I'm like, you know what?
That's the monster vote.
That's crossover Democrats.
That's Bernie voters voting for Trump or staying home.
That's what's going on there, and we are going to win this election.
And that's how it turned out.
Now, just so people can understand, you for months have been talking about the methodology of the polls, the methodology of information gathering about this election is hopelessly skewed, hopelessly biased.
Can you just step people through the major mechanics that people use to jig these numbers in favor of the Dems?
Right, right.
Well, the best example of that would be IBD, which ended up getting the poll right, you know, very close to right.
And, but...
Yeah, what would take place, for instance, IBD is one of the few pollsters that shows you their raw sample versus their reweighted sample.
And during the primaries this year, we had what was basically an R plus one turnout, meaning that there were about a million more Republicans that voted in the primaries than Democrats.
And that's actually greater than that because Trump wrapped up his nomination a month before Hillary wrapped up hers.
So, you know, things really slowed down for us in the last month.
So it could have been 2 million more voters than the Democrats had.
Now, during the 2008 cycle, the Democrats had about a D plus 8 primary turnout.
And then when they won on election day, it was a D plus 7 turnout.
So very similar.
But then we had an R plus 1 primary turnout.
And all these pollsters were polling D plus 8, D plus 10.
I saw D plus 16 polls.
It was completely insane.
And so you realized that what they were doing was they were saying, you know, Hillary is going to get the same sort of support or even stronger than Obama got.
Because they said she's going to get the same black support, the same millennial support.
And the same plus a bigger turnout with women.
And therefore, we're going to give her even a bigger sample advantage than Obama had.
And I'm like, that's not happening.
I mean, there's no enthusiasm here.
You looked at the empiricals on the ground.
You looked at the rally turnout and merchandise sales and book sales and social media presence, and there was no evidence of enthusiasm for Hillary anywhere.
And yet you had this evidence...
For Trump enthusiasm all over the place.
But one more point real quick.
About the rally size.
People are like, oh, you can't tell from rally size.
Bernie had big rallies and everything like that.
Well, Obama had huge rallies in 2008, but as you recall, he didn't have big rallies in 2012 at all.
He had a hard time filling a high school gym.
But yet he still won, so what's the difference?
Well, what those rallies show you...
Is not just, you know, voter enthusiasm.
This is very important.
They show you new voter enthusiasm.
Because the people who will stand in line for six hours to go to a rally are new voters that want to experience the whole thing.
They want to touch it, they want to feel it, they want to be a part of it.
So they're willing to go to stuff like that.
Old hat voters, voters that have, you know, voted lots of times, they're like, yeah, I've been to the rallies, I've done that, you know, I'm not going this time, it's a hassle.
So that's what took place this time, is when we saw these huge rallies, that was the monster vote.
That was the new voters that were coming out for Trump that had never voted before, especially the white middle-class voters, the white blue-collar voters were coming out for Trump.
And that's what you saw a lot of at those rallies.
People say, oh, these rallies are, you know, largely a big, you know, majority of white voters.
And as, oh, who was it?
I can't think of it.
One of the pundits had said that the Republicans always want to get the minority vote, and yeah, that's important, but if the Republicans could just get the white vote to turn out, they would win.
And that's what happened here, is that not only did Trump improve his numbers with the black community, with the Hispanic community, but he dramatically improved them with the white community, and that's what won.
Well, and I hope to some degree, and it certainly is hope against hope when it comes to the leftists breaking out of their little circular train track of repetition in their brains, but I hope that this is going to push back against some of the identity politics.
Because, you know, the left is always talking about the right being racist and sexist and all that.
But the reality is that Hillary won fewer voters than Obama did in 2012.
And, you know, it turns out HasVagina is not really the very greatest platform that you could imagine and doesn't overcome a truly evil record as Secretary of State and a complete disaster as a campaigner.
But this reality that...
Blacks and Hispanics turned out.
It turns out a lot of Hispanics who moved to America, who ripped up their lives, who went through legally, who went through years and years of trying to get to America, actually want America to stay the country they moved to.
I don't know how that's hard for people to understand.
If I'm going to overturn my entire life, learn Japanese, move to Japan, it's not because I want Japan to turn into Iceland.
It's because I wanted to stay the country I actually moved to.
And this idea that the Hispanics who've left Mexico because they don't like Mexico and like America really, really want lots and lots of people to come from Mexico and turn America back into the Mexico they've fled and upturned their lives to get away from.
How is this hard to understand?
It's not all identity politics.
Sometimes people have values that they want to pursue and maintain.
That aren't in accord with where they left.
Sorry for that rant.
I didn't even know there's a question in there, but it just bothers me.
No, it's absolutely true.
And this is another mistake that the Democrats make.
Number one, they believe their own spend.
Number two, they always take it too far.
They always overdo it.
For instance, with Obamacare, if Obamacare had fed America, or no, Obama had fed America Obamacare a piece at a time, It sort of boiled the frog, as they say, where we sort of got used to it over time.
It might have ended up being much more popular, but they overdid it.
They gave it to us all at once, and it freaked people out.
It was too much.
And I think that this is what happened with Obama's open borders policy.
The people that were here legally, the people that actually could vote as a Hispanic community, saw these, you know, hordes of people streaming across the borders and all the gangs and all the disease and the crime, and they said, man, we don't want those people in our neighborhoods.
We like our nice people.
Peaceful neighborhoods.
These people are all going to move here.
They're going to take our jobs.
They're going to bring crime.
Or they're going to come here and they're going to be unemployed.
So when they're unemployed, they're going to have to resort to crime.
They're going to be robbing our homes, raping our women.
This is what they saw.
And they know this group.
This is what they moved to get away from is the corruption and the crime in Mexico.
Right, right, right.
Because, you know, they looked at those people streaming across the borders, and it's like, those don't look like doctors and lawyers to me.
Those look like people that want to come and rob my house, you know?
And so it was just kind of, I think that the...
It's funny that the left is always talking about the right being racist and bigoted.
And yet the left is always the ones that are putting people in baskets.
Baskets of deplorables.
That is so symbolic for the way they view people.
They don't view people as individuals.
They view us as groups that can be manipulated.
And this is what finally broke down.
But I tell you, Stephan, here's what has the Democrats the most afraid of all.
It looks like we're going to win Michigan.
We're ahead in Michigan.
We took Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Okay, we broke the Democrats' decades-long stranglehold on the Rust Belt.
Now, if Trump can get in there and do a good job for those people, Democrats could be out of power for a long, long time.
Because without those three states, they just can't win presidents.
Wait, wait, Bill, Bill, just say that again, but slowly.
We're going to set it to music.
Can you just, Democrats, one more time, one more time.
Okay, here's the thing.
We won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
Without those three states, Democrats can't win presidential elections anymore.
They just can't.
We almost won Virginia.
We almost won Minnesota.
Minnesota was damn close.
Without those states, Democrats can't control Congress.
They can't control the White House.
And if Donald Trump can come in and deliver on his promises and do a good job, the Democrats may be out of power for a very, very long time.
It's even better the second time around.
Thank you.
Now, so my very brief view of the Rust Belt State goes something like this, that manufacturing has been eviscerated.
And it takes being a real intellectual.
It takes being a real academic or a real reporter or people who just don't move in those circles to ignore the fact that America over the past decade or two has lost 50,000 manufacturing jobs every single month.
And manufacturing is sort of for the middle of the bell curve of intelligence.
You know, wonderful, decent people.
It's their step.
They don't have to go to college.
They can learn a trade.
They can go from high school into these jobs and have great, solid jobs, raise their families, have wonderful lives with communities and all of that.
This has all been eviscerated.
Now, there was, of course, the promise under free trade.
Oh, there'll be some transition.
Don't worry.
You may be out of work for a while, but it's going to come back.
And so when people are looking at transitional unemployment, what do they look for?
Well, they look for government support.
I need some government support to tide me over.
I need some unemployment.
I need some welfare that's going to tide me over.
And then all of these wonderful new jobs with better pay and better benefits are going to just sprout up.
And then, you know, after, what, 20 years or so, I think that people are kind of getting, those new jobs ain't a-sprouting.
They're not coming back.
And so now they don't want the Democrats to give them free stuff anymore.
They're sick of it.
They're tired of it.
It's something that we all want.
Ooh, look, free stuff.
And then after a while, it's like, I don't even want to get out of bed.
I'm so depressed and feel so inert.
You know, we are human beings.
Our souls, our minds strengthen through resistance, like our muscles.
And so I think that they finally get those jobs.
They're not coming back.
Someone's coming along saying, I'm going to get you jobs.
And they're like, okay, good.
I can let go of government support because here's going to be somebody who's actually going to get me a job and revitalize my community and revitalize my life and give me purpose and a sense of control again.
And if he delivers, I don't think they're ever going back.
Yeah, yeah, I agree.
I tell you, you know, if you're starving, you'll happily eat a bug, you know, if you're starving.
But if you're not, then the idea of eating a bug is kind of disgusting.
And I think that this is what happened in the Rust Belt, is that people are just tired of eating bugs.
They're tired of just surviving.
They want something better.
And it's like Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
If the Democrats keep everybody just at the survival level, which is the lowest level, it's just part of self-actualization is to move up Maslow's hierarchy of needs to the self-actualization level where you actually are proud of your life.
You're not just existing.
You have a career.
You have a future.
And Democrats always talk about creating jobs.
We don't talk about creating careers.
The reason why Obama had some decent job creation was that he took somebody who has had a one full-time job where they had full benefits and they were raising their family and their spouse didn't have to work and everybody was happy and And that person lost that job and had to go out and get three part-time jobs just to make ends meet.
Didn't have healthcare, had to go over to Obamacare.
Tremendous stress.
Brought that stress home, you know, fights in the family and so on and so forth.
And in Obama's world...
You know, you lost one job and created three.
Well, you just created two jobs.
Hallelujah!
You know?
And that's not what people want.
People don't want just jobs.
People don't want to just survive, but they want to thrive.
And this is what Trump was running on.
It's like, if you elect me, you're going to win so much, you're going to get tired of winning.
You know, they talk about how you influence people with words.
And the word imagery of winning, everybody gets that.
And so that's what Trump was running on.
He was running on a platform of thriving.
And I think that's what the people in the Rust Belt wanted to experience, and that's why they elected him.
And I think Obamacare was an underestimated influence on this election.
I have real sympathy for the insurance companies who are currently being dragged around like some helpless water skier tied, lost his skis and is just bouncing around the water because the regulations and legislations are changing so continually.
But when people, of course, didn't get to keep their plants, when they didn't get to keep their doctors, when this promised $3,000 reduction in their premiums didn't materialize, but instead, and they claimed it was 20 or 30 percent, but I mean the numbers I'm seeing were far higher, multiples higher than that, increases in their premiums.
When you stop messing with people's health, particularly the aging population, you really hit them where they live because there's no subsidy for bad health.
You know, you lose your job, you can get unemployment insurance, you can survive.
But if you get sick and you can't get or you can't afford or it's sketchy to get the health care or you're worried about the future...
Your future ability to pay for healthcare, that really hits people.
Because normally, of course, the old are fairly keen on government programs, and a lot of them are sort of surviving on that.
I don't know.
because we're subsidizing it is like saying, no, no, no, I'm a very fast runner because I'm driving in a car.
It's like, no, you're not a fast runner.
The subsidies do not make something work.
And I think seeing the one-sixth of the US economy that the government took over with Obamacare beginning to unravel, the promises that weren't made, the savings that not only failed to materialize, but went the complete opposite way, the doctors lost, the plans lost, and Hillary not saying much about it at all, I think gave people the real sense that something better change or, I think gave people the real sense that something better change or, you know, that grim reaper might be the next person they get to Yeah, exactly.
Well, you know, in 2012, Hurricane Sandy saved Barack Obama and gave him a chance to look like a leader one week before the election.
In 2016, Hurricane Obamacare may have cost the election because it just reminded everybody, wow, you know, do we really want four more years of this?
Also, I think that people were just tired of the Clinton brand.
You know, all of the scandals constantly...
And, you know, the media thought that Comey coming out and letting Hillary off the hook at the end helped Hillary, but actually it hurt her.
It reminded people that, you know what, Trump is right.
We have got to drain the swamp.
This is just ridiculous.
There's no way the FBI investigates 650,000 emails in eight days and comes up with a conclusion.
People are just like, no, you know, we're done with this.
And it's just like these protests that are taking place in these cities that are, you know, basically...
I asked her to protest by Soros in the cities.
You know, Trump isn't our president and all this other crazy stuff and the violence and the vandalism and all that.
All they're doing is reminding America, yeah, we picked the right guy because this is not what we want.
You know, we don't want to live in a computer game post-apocalyptic.
Post-apocalyptic, that's the word I was looking for, world that has got basically zombies running around turning over trash cans and peeing on police cars.
We want a peaceful world for our kids to grow up in.
So they're just showing us...
what we didn't want, and thank God we voted Trump because he's the opposite direction from all that.
Well, you know, it's funny, the drain the swamp thing, I was thinking when Florida was sort of teetering in the balance, well, the whole state exists because all they did was drain swamps.
I think they're on Trump's side.
That's all they do is wake up in the morning and say, "Oh, that swamp's a little closer.
We better drain it, hoping we'd have alligators." And I think this post-election, it's very predictable that there was going to be riots post-election, And we know that because the left always projects.
Whatever they accuse you of is what they're actually planning in their secret, dark, bitter hearts of darkness and doom.
I mean, so when they said, well, you're going to accept the outcome of the election because it's – that's because they thought they were going to win and they were going to use that concession to force people to conform to, you know, if there was evidence of cheating and so on.
And so when they accuse other people, well, particularly when the left accuses somebody in power of sexual impropriety, I don't know that they want to step on that landmine, but when they say, well, you're not going to accept peacefully or you're not going to accept the results of the election, you know for sure, without a doubt, and you can bet money on this if you want, you know for sure that they're not going to accept the results of the election if they lose, and this is the kind of stuff that is going on at the moment, and yeah, you're Right.
It just reminds people that it's now turned from anti-Trump to anti-democracy.
The one, okay.
The second, that's a little bit more destabilizing when it comes to how society makes its fundamental decisions.
Yeah.
I think that what you've got in the Democrats, the far left, and what you've got is the same thing as you had in Never Trump.
You know, in Never Trump, you had a few people making a lot of noise.
And quite often on the far left, you've got a few people making a lot of noise.
But most people, you know, like I said on Twitter a long time ago, that America is basically 20% far left, 20% far right, and 60% in the middle that just want to make America great again.
And those people came out and voted this time because, you know, people, they say that your happiness is a measure of what your life is like compared to what you expect it to be like.
And living in America, people expect us to be special and exceptional and And number one, and a great country.
And when we're not, that creates a lot of unhappiness out there.
That's why when people were asked, are you happy with the direction of the country?
72% of the people said no, because this is not what we expect America to be like.
And so I think that Trump offered them a chance, an envision, a visualization that we could get back to what they expect in their hearts America to be like.
And that's why people came out.
I just want to say thank you to President Obama.
When he took office, he controlled both houses of Congress, I think a great amount of state houses and the White House.
In eight years, he destroyed the Democrat Party.
We control the vast majority of state houses now.
We control the Senate.
We control the House.
We control the White House.
We're going to Really control the Supreme Court.
Thank you, Obama.
You jerk.
Well, I think there are so many people who are worthy of thanking, of course, the mainstream media, I think, by driving Trump supporters underground.
When you scream the most foundational and vicious vitriol and verbal abuse at people, it turns out they don't like you very much.
It's funny that way.
You've, of course, been an executive recruiter.
I'm sure you don't scream at people how evil they are if they don't accept the job that you want to place them in and expect them to come back to you for the You know, if you run a convenience store, you don't install tiger traps and icy fire hoses and hose down your customers and expose them to tooth and claws and then expect them to come back.
It is only in the weird upside-down world of politics where people don't face the free market, but they don't face voluntary interactions that somehow this torrent of verbal abuse is going to turn into a successful outcome.
And it was sort of implied with Obama.
I mean...
I feel to some degree that he was an affirmative action candidate in that people hoped that Obama was going to help heal racial divides.
But of course, if you hoped Obama was going to do that, then you were hoping a government program called Healing Racial Divides was going to do anything differently than all the other government programs did.
They achieve always the opposite.
Hey, we're going to have the welfare state and then there won't be any more poor people.
Oh, we created a permanent underclass of poor people.
Oh, okay.
Well, you know, more spending will help that.
Race relations, I think, are in a terrible state right now, and I think it was wonderful to see Trump reach out and see support within the black community.
When the left is in power, people see groups as monoliths, as you pointed out, as collectivist monoliths, like one brain, many, many heads.
But the great thing about seeing Trump and his adroit moving through various aspects of the Hispanic and Latino communities, which are not monolithic, and a lot of them hate each other, Moving into the black community and showing that there are a lot of pro-Trump supporters among the blacks and among women, he really did begin to shatter the leftists, put everyone in a big giant bucket.
And, you know, I guess the deplorables recently, the deplorables have escaped the bucket.
They're out of the bucket.
They're out of the basket.
What are we going to do?
And I really liked that about him, that he moves among people as individuals rather than viewing them as collectives.
Yeah, yeah.
It really is great.
And here's the thing, is that Donald Trump is a, he's not an ideologue, he's a resultist, okay?
He's a guy that thinks in the future.
Thinks to the result he wants and then works back there and comes up with the minimum amount of steps that he needs to get there.
And somebody who has grown up in government, their goal is not to save money.
Their goal is to spend every dime because if they don't, then their budget gets cut the next year.
They're not looking for the cheapest way to do something.
They're looking for the most expensive way to do something because the bigger their budget, the more power they have.
And they're there for the power.
And you have a guy like Donald Trump who spent his whole life basically trying to make a profit, trying to build the best product and We're good to go.
The benefit was that people would hear him say that stuff and they're like, you know what?
We're getting the real deal from this guy because there's no consultant or focus group in the world that would have told him to say that.
So he was the antithesis of Romney who was basically trying to be whatever each particular group he talked to wanted him to be.
Whereas Trump was pretty much always the same thing.
He was never pandering to us.
He became the anti-politician and people were so sick.
Of slick politicians we're telling us we want to hear.
You know, so even though sometimes he would say things that were offensive, in a way, I think that might have actually been a net positive for him, because it did make him seem so unslick and so unhandled.
Well, and I think this is something that the left really cannot process, and it's really, really important for people to understand.
The left has moved so far from Judeo-Christianity, particularly from Christianity, that they view wrongdoing and an apology as a huge negative.
Like if you apologize to the left, they'll double down on you and you just – you don't apologize to people who are just abusive and horrible and just trying to play gotcha games.
You don't – you just play into their hands.
You don't apologize.
And so for the left, if somebody apologizes, they view that as a sign of weakness, that they've gained power over him, that he's now irredeemable and no one's going to vote for him and so on.
Whereas, of course, Christians are very clear that human beings are born to sin and that we all are going to say things and do things that we regret and – And it doesn't matter that you've done them.
It matters how you handle it afterwards.
And when he came out and he said, I hate what I did.
I'm a better man now.
I'm always going to work to improve.
I'm incredibly sorry for what I said.
That is very powerful.
Now, the left views that as, ah, we got him!
And no one's going to ever vote for this guy.
And the Christians are like, yeah, I've been there, and I'm probably going to be back there tomorrow, because we're all going to sin, and we all need to be redeemed in the Christian worldview.
And again, the people on the left just simply don't understand that.
They say, oh, Christians are never going to vote for him now.
It's like, no, they're voting for a mirror, because that's their experience as well.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Trump, and I said this right from the beginning, Trump...
Did the perfect redemption curve in this campaign.
And what I mean by redemption curve is it's like a literary device or a movie device where the anti-hero becomes the hero.
Han Solo goes from smuggler to galactic savior.
Jack Sparrow goes from pirate to the guy that saves the day at the end.
And what happens is when someone goes through this transition, people connect with them and they start rooting for them.
And then when they achieve that hero status at the end, the level of emotion is much stronger.
And you've got to remember, people don't buy logically, they buy emotionally.
And after they own it, then they have to justify or rationalize their experience with logic so they don't get buyer's remorse.
And one of the things that these protests are doing for Trump going forward is that they are actually providing The logical rationalization to people who made that emotional decision that, yeah, we made the right choice here because we don't want this crap.
And so they're actually helping us.
So, Bill, now that you, of course, are in the prognostication game, what do you see through the transition period, I guess, through to early next year and shortly thereafter?
We won't ask you to go, you know, more than seven or eight years down the road with your picks for the price of Apple stock.
But what do you see happening in the transition?
And what do you see happening in the first, I guess you could say, 100 days of Trump?
Yeah, I think that Trump is going to pick a very impressive cabinet.
I think people are going to be really excited.
About his cabinet.
Because unlike Obama, he's not going to be picking donors and sycophants and just ideologues, far-left ideologues in his cabinet.
Trump is going to pick the best athlete for each position.
And I think people are going to be very impressed with that.
I think that as far as, for instance, one of the third rail issues in this whole thing has been illegal immigration.
I think that what Trump realizes is that, you know, he can't just hit every us with everything at once on the immigration enforcement because people would freak out.
People have compassion, you know, for these folks, even if they are here illegally.
So what he'll do is he'll do the most popular things first and gather goodwill with that and then move on to the more difficult things later.
So I think he'll go right after getting the wall built immediately.
He'll go right after deporting violent criminals.
You know, all these thousands or tens of thousands of violent criminals that Obama let loose in our neighborhoods without telling anybody.
He'll get them out of the country.
He will start imposing penalties on employers for hiring illegal aliens.
Uh, he'll start to, um, get rid of sanctuary cities.
Uh, he'll start to get rid of welfare for the illegals.
You know, one of the things I said on Twitter was, you know, if you don't want somebody to break into your house, don't offer to buy them lunch when they do, you know?
And this is, this is one of the things that is happening that, uh, America has become what's called an attractive hazard.
What I mean by that is if you build a pool in your backyard and you don't build a fence around your backyard and one of the neighborhood kids comes in and drowns in your pool, then and you can get in trouble with the law for creating an attractive hazard.
And for illegal immigration, America has become an attractive hazard.
I mean, we're just...
You know, they get free everything when they come here.
And so I think if Trump removes that attractive hazard, there's a lot of people he won't have to deport.
People will just go away.
Because, you know, if you can't earn a living and you can't get a government check, you know, if you want to survive...
You just change the incentives and you don't need to go door-to-door.
Yeah, you don't need to go door-to-door and round people up and have a Trail of Tears type...
If you have a bathtub and you pull the plug, you don't need to bail it.
It will just empty on its own.
Right, exactly.
And I think that's going to happen a lot.
So I think that basically building the wall, deporting the illegals, getting rid of the sanctuary cities, getting rid of the attractive hazards, penalizing employers that hire illegals, cutting off welfare, I think that'll take up Trump's first term, basically.
And the situation will be much better.
Also, increasing enforcement, strengthening ICE, hiring more agents on the borders.
All those things will be much better.
And we'll add tremendous goodwill for the American people towards that.
And nobody would look at a bunch of gang members being deported and say, oh, that's not compassionate or whatever.
I also think as far as if we do get down to deporting just regular folks, it's going to be a FIFO inventory method, first in, first out.
So, I'm sorry.
That's what I meant.
Life out.
Last in, first out.
So the last people that got here are the first to go.
Those people who have been here living peacefully for 15 years and have caused no trouble, they're going to be the last ones to be approached for this.
The first ones, the ones that just got here in the last year, so on and so forth, they're going to be the ones highest at risk, I believe.
I think it's also important to remember that there will be massive market implications to the drain of people going back to Mexico, where, of course, they can work to fix their own country, which is important.
I mean, the most ambitious and smart people constantly leaving Mexico doesn't leave a high talent pool for fixing the problems that are in Mexico and tends to accelerate that.
But, I mean, we could do a whole show about this.
I'll just very briefly mention that.
I mean, just look at rents.
I mean, if you have tens of millions of people or millions of people, let's just say, leaving America because they're illegally going back to Mexico or other Central American countries, just imagine what's going to happen to the rents for poor people with that diminished demand.
And that is going to be an enormous bonus to people who are poor and legal who want to better their lives.
A number of job openings are going to open up significantly, which means that demand is going to increase, which means that wages are We're good to go.
government money rather than cost government money people's taxes are going to go down and I just think that's really really important for people to understand it's the ripple effect of people leaving is going to be enormously beneficial for the poor who remain absolutely you know it's kind of like weeds and trees okay in my garden in front of my house I mean I can just completely weed the garden and go out there a week later and all of a sudden there's like a three-foot weed growing in the middle of my you know rose garden It's like, wow, you know, that's amazing.
But I can just pull that weed out.
It's very weak.
It tends to be hollow, you know.
It's just not a strong thing.
But the trees in front of my house have been growing for years.
And the slower something grows, the longer it tends to last.
And I think that Trump's approach to the whole immigration thing will not just be an all-at-once sort of thing, but just to gradually do it over his four years so that it's a lasting change and not like a weed that just, you know, grows up fast and dies fast.
Also, I was going to just say one more thing.
Oh, yeah.
About negotiations.
And a lot of people were afraid with Trump about these tariffs that he's going to put on things and so on and so forth.
And one of the beauties you need to understand is it's kind of like playing poker.
If everybody at the poker table knows that this particular player never bluffs, when he bets big, everybody folds.
And here's the thing.
When Trump, as a negotiator, they know that this guy does what he says he's going to do.
When he said during the debates, I'm not going to go to this Fox News debate, he didn't go.
So they know that he's going to follow through.
A lot of times they'll fold when he bets big.
And if he says, I'm putting a 30% tariff on you, a lot of times they'll come to the negotiation table and that tariff will never have to go into effect and have the same result because they'll renegotiate because they know that he'll do it and they don't want it.
Right.
I guess they're so used to executive orders that they don't remember that the president can be chief negotiator as well.
Well, thanks, Bill, for a great conversation.
Just wanted to remind people, go to twitter.com slash Mitchell, two L's, V-I-I.
Follow his stuff and be prepared to read a whole bunch of fantastic insights.
Your Voice Radio, we're going to do another show after this, yourvoiceradio.com to check out his show.
And thanks again for the conversations that we've had in the past, the conversation we had today.
Thanks, of course, for the enormous work and reputation that you put on the line in pursuit of truth and enlightening people.
I know you gave people a lot of hope, a lot of positivity, and that's a great legacy to lead with and to lead into the future with.
