Democrats Fear Historical 2020 DEFEAT, Trump Could Win 520 Electoral Votes In MASSIVE Landslide
Democrats Fear Historical 2020 DEFEAT, Trump Could Win 520 Electoral Votes In MASSIVE Landslide. Democratic congressman Tim Ryan warned recently that if the Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders they will lose 48 states in a repeat of the 1972 Richard Nixon reelection.Back then Democrats thought the only way to win was with a progressive coalition of college educated voters, young people, and minorities.This strategy backfired so bad that it has gone down in history as one of the worst political failures of the United States. George McGovern lost after winning only one state. Richard Nixon won with 520 electoral votes.Today the Democrats are being mobbed by far left ideology and a Democratic Socialist. Democrats and Republicans alike are ringing the alarm bells warning of a repeat of 1972.With a record economy, failed impeachment, Trump's record approval it stands to reason that we are about to witness history. While many older Democrats are already aware of what happened and what it will bring, younger activist voters never learned those lessons and are walking Democrats off a cliff. Never Bernie moderates may actually defect from the democratic party and join Trump giving him a massive landslide in November.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Democrats are facing a re-election campaign from incumbent Richard Nixon, convinced the only way they will win is with a new progressive coalition of college-educated voters, young people, and minorities.
They choose to nominate McGovern.
This was a huge mistake which resulted in one of the worst defeats of the Democratic Party in US history.
Richard Nixon won with 520 electoral votes.
Basically, the entire country turns red and only one state votes McGovern, giving him just 17 electoral votes.
Today, we're hearing much of the same from the Democratic Party, at least a large portion of it, saying, We need the educated college elite.
We need young people and minorities.
It seems like a repeat is occurring.
Democrats, at least young ones, couldn't have learned from history because these young progressives did not experience that history.
And we very well may be facing a historical defeat in line with the 1972 election.
What makes this story interesting is that the election in 1968 that got Richard Nixon elected in the first place was actually pretty close.
But his re-election was a resounding landslide.
Today, Democrats and media pundits are sounding the alarm, saying this is what's going to happen, with Tim Ryan saying we could lose 48 states if Bernie Sanders is the nominee.
Perhaps the reason the establishment Democrats and many older people are panicking Is because they did experience that history.
They know what happens when you move too far left.
But the young activists of today don't know better, so they're reaching as far left as possible and they will give Trump a landslide.
This is all made worse by the news that Bernie Sanders is winning the popular vote, though Buttigieg does have the delegate count.
And that unions, some of the most powerful unions in these key states, are opposing or putting up opposition to Bernie Sanders.
That means he won't even have labor at his back.
Meanwhile, they're calling today's economy the blue-collar boom.
I think it stands to reason that Donald Trump is on track for a record landslide victory.
But don't take my word for it.
Let's start with Tim Ryan.
A democratic congressman.
And then I'm going to teach y'all a little bit about history, but full disclosure, I am no historian.
There's probably a ton of nuance that I am missing, so I'm doing my best.
I was not alive when this stuff happened, but many people were.
And those people probably fear the same thing is about to happen, and that's why they're saying it.
But let's read.
From the Washington Examiner, quote, we lose 48 states.
Democratic Congressman says Trump would demolish a Democratic Socialist candidate.
Now, before we read, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work as a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
Why?
Well, this is a history lesson, at least to the best of my abilities, and then we'll bring it to the modern news.
But boy, oh boy, I'm reading this stuff, and they've been issuing these warnings going back to 2017, that Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party are walking us towards 1972 all over again.
So share it if you think people would be interested or if you want to help my channel grow.
Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet there are many Bernie Sanders supporters who don't want to learn from history or are just unconvinced.
Now there is an interesting counter-argument to this.
That Bernie Sanders could also be Donald Trump 2.0.
That what we're seeing might actually be an insurgency candidate who wins.
The problem?
Bernie Sanders, assuming he is Trump 2.0, is going up against Trump 1.0, who has a four-year track record at his back.
The economy is great.
I don't think it will play out the way they think it will.
I think they're gonna nominate Bernie, and if they do, they will lose 48 states.
Now, I will also add, superdelegates probably gonna swoop in to save the day, but let's read the story from the Examiner.
Former presidential candidate Tim Ryan warned that Democrats could lose 48 states in 2020 if they picked a Democratic Socialist to lead the ticket.
Ryan, an Ohio congressman who has endorsed Joe Biden since dropping out, argued that picking Bernie Sanders would be a mistake for Democrats.
He told Fox News on Tuesday that the public would not support a self-described Democratic Socialist.
I personally am very, very concerned about some of the folks who are running, Ryan said.
I think you know.
If we run under a democratic socialist banner in 50 states, I think we lose the industrial Midwest.
I think we lose 48 states.
I think we lose working class union voters who have negotiated their private health care and want to keep it, and they don't want to be forced into a public health care system.
He added, you lose those voters.
And I think some of the other issues as well.
I think that would be disastrous for us.
I think Joe Biden is the absolute best candidate for us.
I think he beats Donald Trump in the swing states and and and the industrial Midwest.
And it's going to be a new day in America.
Ryan touted Biden's electability across the country, but the former vice president struggled in Iowa and announced he wouldn't stay in New Hampshire to see the results Tuesday night, instead opting to go to South Carolina.
Ryan suggested that Iowa and New Hampshire were road games and claimed that Biden would start to see some victories when he plays some home games in South Carolina and other industrial states on Super Tuesday.
Ryan's concerns are not unfounded.
A Gallup poll released on Tuesday revealed that a majority of respondents would not support a socialist for president.
Repeating results we've seen in the past.
And there you have it.
We are on track, it would seem, for a repeat of 1972.
And let me show you a story going back a few years.
This is from Politico Magazine.
Are Democrats headed for a McGovern Redux?
Now, stick with me.
This is fascinating stuff when I'm reading about this, but I've got a ton of modern news.
Bernie Sanders is underperforming.
We've got a contested Democratic Party.
There is no unity, no coalition.
In fact, many people might actually switch to Donald Trump, dare I say.
With comedians like Dave Chappelle, Joe Rogan, Ricky Gervais pushing back on the far-left wokeness that is embraced by many of the Democrats.
The Democrats actually tore Joe Rogan up because he said he would consider voting for Bernie Sanders.
They went after him.
Joe Rogan has the most popular podcast in the world!
I'm sorry.
I think they're gonna go flocking to Donald Trump.
Now, it is fair to say that Joe Rogan's endorsement, or tacit endorsement, may actually lend some support for Sanders.
But the way they went after him afterwards?
I don't know.
I think a lot of people are gonna be just tired, just completely fed up with the woke outrage, and they're gonna be looking at a record economy.
But let me read you something.
This is amazing stuff.
From 2017, October 9th.
They write.
Four decades ago, Richard Nixon lived out the fantasy many liberals harbor about Donald Trump, stepping down in the face of possible impeachment over a slow-moving scandal long before his term was up.
Before that happened, however, Nixon was re-elected by a resounding margin, in large part because progressives made strategic errors that Democrats today appear hell-bent on repeating.
In 1968, as in 2016, Democrats narrowly lost the White House after nominating a relatively moderate establishment candidate instead of a more liberal alternative who had inspired a raging enthusiasm among younger voters.
Democrats spent much of the next four years arguing about what direction the party should take.
White working-class voters, traditionally a Democratic bloc, were sluicing away, and progressives convinced the party needed to change both its policy direction and its coalition of supporters demanded a new approach.
A, quote, loose-piece coalition of minorities, young voters, and educated white Democrats.
As strategist Fred Dutton wrote in his 1971 book Changing Sources of Power, One year later, the party's presidential nominee, the ultra-liberal Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, went on to lose 49 states in one of the most lopsided victories in American history.
It was not just a resounding defeat for Democrats, it was one of the worst defeats we have ever seen in this country.
The results of the 1972 election.
Richard Nixon with 520 electoral votes.
George McGovern with only 17.
He only carried Massachusetts and Washington D.C.
The electoral map is completely red.
And many people have been warning for years now, we are on track for the same thing.
Tim Ryan isn't the first person to do so.
But what makes this so interesting is the results of the 1968 election that got Richard Nixon elected in the first place because this was close.
You see, the Democrats made the mistake.
They thought the problem was their candidate was just too much of a boring moderate who couldn't light up that youth vote and get those people together.
They thought they needed a broad coalition and new voters, when in reality, they just needed to campaign a little bit better.
Hillary Clinton absolutely could have won in 2016 if she actually went to the Rust Belt, but she didn't.
Take a look at this.
Richard Nixon in 1968 won with 301 electoral votes to Hubert Humphrey's 191.
Now, there was a third-party candidate, George Wallace, the Independent, with 46, so it is a bit different.
But here we can see, the electoral map is not completely red.
Democrats actually stood a chance.
Now take a look at 2016.
Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton.
He did lose the popular vote, which is interesting, but around 304 electoral votes.
It really does seem like history is set to repeat itself.
Donald Trump with a narrow victory in 2016, and now warnings That the Democrats are making the same mistake they made in 1972.
The problem was not necessarily a moderate candidate.
It was your bad candidate.
But it was also the fact that Hillary Clinton didn't go to Rust Belt states.
She lost very narrowly in certain states.
She could have won.
Stay the course, improve your game, and you can win.
But a radical change, a revolution, is not the path to victory.
Which brings me to the more modern news.
You see, it's not only Tim Ryan saying this.
On February 3rd, not happy with the field, Chris Matthews of MSNBC says 2020 Democrats can't beat Trump.
Interestingly, he also invokes 1972.
They say, Matthews went on to criticize Bernie Sanders, saying he's not going to be president, and that the Vermont Senator's campaign reminds him of the 1972 presidential election, in which the Democratic nominee, George McGovern, won only one state in Washington, D.C., against incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon.
He said that McGovern's campaign feels a lot like Sanders, and argued that both, quote, excited the party.
He also felt like Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was riding high before getting bogged down by a lot of scrutiny.
Now, I'm not super concerned with Warren because she's kind of out of the race.
But my understanding is Chris Matthews is, you know, at 74, he lived that.
He lived through McGovern.
He knows exactly... He has the experience.
Now, I don't.
I'm 33.
Wasn't alive.
So I can only imagine if he thinks it feels the same way, It probably does.
And look, I gotta tell you, man, this conversation around 1972 has started to pick up steam.
This is the repeat.
Another story from the Washington Examiner.
Democratic contest looks like catastrophic mess of 1972.
Here's the challenge.
You've got these young activists convinced their new freaky ideology, which most people don't like, is the path to victory.
Elizabeth Warren started embracing that woke nonsense and now she's fallen off a cliff.
Kirsten Gillibrand did, she fell off a cliff too.
Bernie Sanders has tried to avoid it to a certain degree, but he's got AOC and other woke nonsense at his heels.
But more importantly, let's not even talk about ideology and culture war.
Let's talk about labor.
They say that the socialists are all for the working class.
They're there to support labor.
What happens then when it's labor unions coming out against Bernie Sanders?
These activists dominating the party have no idea what they are talking about.
Las Vegas union bosses are lining up to stop Bernie's momentum.
What's your response to that?
Why are the unions against Bernie Sanders?
Why are so many working class people supporting Donald Trump?
Why do they call this the blue collar boom?
How is Bernie Sanders supposed to win if he's just getting college educated urban elites?
He won't.
Dare I say, it's possible.
It's possible that Bernie is a new Trump.
He's a populist and he takes that victory.
Surprises everybody.
It's a first time for everything.
And just because we saw something similar doesn't mean the same thing is going to happen.
But I think if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it.
It's not just Las Vegas.
This story is shocking.
In New Flyer, Culinary Union warns members Sanders would end their health care if elected president.
This is one of the most powerful unions in the state, warning their staff about Bernie Sanders.
Washington Post reported in August of last year, Bernie Sanders changes how Medicare for All plans treats union contracts in face of opposition by organized labor.
Let me ask you this question.
These socialists that we see on videos, in videos, they tend to be young college kids.
How come we never see construction workers, carpenters, you know, masons, plumbers, trade union members?
We never see it.
It's always young, scrawny Antifa types wearing their little, you know, flag shirts and waving their little flags.
But it's never actual labor.
The people who support Bernie Sanders are not They're not the working-class individuals in this country.
They are not the blue-collar Joes, for the most part.
The people who are on the ground and championing Sanders are these progressive, ultra-elites.
Now, don't get me wrong, there absolutely are working-class people behind Bernie Sanders. 100%.
But Bernie's flip-flopped so hard from where he was in 2015, I'm willing to bet he lost a lot of that support.
And like I stated earlier on, if he is just like Trump, why would anyone choose him over Trump when they got a Trump already?
They got somebody in the White House advocating for them, for rural areas, for the white working class, for the working class in general.
Unemployment is at record lows.
African-American unemployment, Latino unemployment, everything is going great.
Bernie Sanders can say he has his coalition, but at the end of the day, money talks, BS walks.
I don't think... I don't think any of this is going to matter.
I think what we're seeing is woke activists who know how to use media, manipulating the game to try and get what they want, but they will face a historic... An historic?
Whatever.
A major defeat come the end of this year.
It's not just that these unions oppose Bernie Sanders, but the Wall Street Journal reports this story is from September of 2019.
Democrats labor to stem flow of union voters to Trump.
Trump won in 2016 in part by peeling off rank-and-file union members.
Now, Democrats hope to lure them back.
Sorry.
Over the past couple of years, since Trump won, there have been Democrats pushing back against Bernie Sanders.
Now, don't get me wrong.
Many unions are pro-Bernie Sanders, but they're split.
The Democrats don't have a unified union message, meaning Trump's got that advantage.
And more importantly, as we move now to the modern era, one of the reasons I think we're on track to see a 1972 repeat?
Even the progressive website Vox.com says, did Bernie Sanders underperform in New Hampshire?
Voter turnout is at the center of Sanders' theory.
of the case for his campaign, and it wasn't stellar in New Hampshire.
As I've stated time and time again, Bernie is supposed to be bringing out this new coalition, right?
College-educated, you know, the youth vote, the minority vote.
He's not.
The youth vote was down.
First-time voters is down.
Progressives have repeatedly said Sanders will win because he's going to get people who have never voted before to vote.
And even a tiny, tiny percentage increase will guarantee his victory.
We didn't see it.
Now look, in Iowa, voter turnout was not good for anyone.
In New Hampshire, voter turnout was great.
But if Bernie's gonna win on this strategy, he needs young people and first-time voters, and those numbers were down.
At least from preliminary projections.
So it doesn't, it does not stand to reason that's actually what's going to happen.
And now we have Congress.
It's not about the presidency, you know, for the most part.
We have Congress.
And this is also obvious.
I gotta admit, I was really bored by these stories today, and I'm like, you know, I think it's really interesting that everyone's screaming 1972, and I gotta agree with them.
But what's funny is, you know, I see this story in the New York Times.
Moderate Democrats fear Bernie Sanders could cost them the House.
Lawmakers who flipped Republican districts in 2018 worry that a Democratic Socialist at the top of the ticket could doom their re-election chances.
Duh!
I'm just so bored with this being so obvious.
Moody's Analytics, which I cite so often, said Trump could actually win 400 electoral votes if, you know, the economy holds and if there is low voter turnout.
I'm curious though, if Moody's factored in, what would happen if there was ideological opposition on top of the support for Trump over the economy?
Look, many people are going to vote for Trump because they can see it in their pocketbook.
They're looking at the gold lined in their jeans and they're happy about it.
I've talked to so many people who said 2019 was their best year ever.
But there are a lot of people who are also in this for the cultural reasons.
You know, I did a podcast with Jack Murphy recently, and he said that this is really about cultural issues, less so policy.
Well, probably for him and many, many people who flipped from Obama to Trump.
It's political correctness.
Bill Maher and Megyn Kelly said so when they talked a few weeks ago, that Americans will take it from the mouth of a werewolf if he pushes back on this.
What about socialism?
Factor in the anti-PC individuals who like Dave Chappelle, who like Joe Rogan, who like Ricky Gervais.
Factor in the policy junkies who are happy with the economy.
Factor in the working class, the union members, who say everything's going great and I want to keep my private health care.
And then factor in the people who freak out and are terrified of socialism.
And it stands to reason You've got everything lining up perfectly for a 1972 repeat.
And I didn't come up with this.
I'm not going to say who did.
I mean, it was in the media.
But even a Democratic congressman is saying we could lose 48 states.
That's right.
It could very well end up being 1972 again.
And there's one last factor that I think is going to play a role in this.
This story from the Hill.
Manchin is not ruling out endorsing Trump for re-election.
Now, it's strange the story would emerge, or that he would say this, considering he just voted to convict Trump in the impeachment process.
He's a Democrat.
But what about the Democrats who defect?
What about the potential for Democrats to actually endorse Trump over Bernie?
What about the moderate Democrats, now calling themselves the Never Bernie Movement, who flock to Trump?
What about the Yang or Bust Movement?
What about the people who absolutely refuse to vote for Bernie?
Now, I said it early on.
I said it a week or so ago.
I think we might see 70 million votes for Trump.
I think Trump might have a massive, massive victory which shocks the left and forces them to course correct.
And now it seems like it might be even worse than that.
But don't a- No, look, look.
All I can do is read the opinions and conjecture from so many other people, look at history, and try and make predictions to the best of my ability.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, but let's be honest.
It doesn't guarantee everything's going to play out the exact same way.
I just really think it's more likely that Trump wins 520 electoral votes than it is that Bernie Sanders stages this revolution and the country goes socialist.
The Democrats have been warned.
They've been warning themselves, but it doesn't matter.
There's no party unity.
There's no real party.
Like, what does it mean to have a political party?
You rally around a core set of ideals, right?
The Democrats don't.
They're trying.
Hey, the moderates are trying.
But take a look at Bloomberg's track record.
Take a look at Biden's track record.
They're getting accused of everything in the book by the woke far left.
It's not going to play out the way they think.
The fracturing will result in potentially McGovern 2.0.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
In this past week, there have been a series of attacks against conservatives or Trump supporters, and I'm going to try to be very careful how I phrase this, but I believe it is fair to say a Bernie Sanders supporter just tried to burn down a Republican HQ in California.
A man broke in, tried burning the place down.
They claim they're accusing him of arson.
I think it's fair to say this guy was a Bernie supporter.
I know a lot of people on the left and a lot of Bernie supporters are going to get mad about this, but let's not play any games, man.
This is not the first time a Bernie supporter has done something violent.
It's not the first time Bernie supporters have called for violence on camera exposed by Project Veritas.
It's not the first time general far leftists have attacked people or tried to cause damage.
It is certainly not the first time GOPHQs have been attacked by the far left.
And just last week, a guy in a van ran his van through a voter registration tent being run by Republicans.
And we have two other stories today.
A guy was wearing a joke MAGA hat.
It said, Make 50 Great Again.
It was his birthday.
And a woman attacked him, punching him in the face, leaving a gash.
Perhaps she was wearing a ring of some sort.
And then apparently some other guy was wielding a cane sword and going after Trump supporters.
But this story I think is the most important.
Because we have seen from Project Veritas Bernie Sanders supporters straight up saying that they want to put conservatives in gulags, that they're planning the crazy stuff but keeping it secret.
Sure enough, this dude, this is in Eureka, California, breaks into the Republican headquarters, tries to burn it down, steals the Trump flag, and lo and behold, he's got the big ol' Bernie sticker on his bike.
Let's read.
From KRCR News ABC7, a man arrested on a slew of charges including attempted arson of the Republican Party of Humboldt headquarters is back out on the street after spending only a day in jail before posting bail.
On Saturday, February 8th at about 4.53 a.m., officers at the Eureka Police Department responded to the office on Fifth Street for the report of a man smashing the windows.
The witness gave a description of the suspect and said he was last seen riding a bicycle toward the bay.
Officers quickly arrived on scene and saw the man on the boardwalk.
They said the suspect fled from them on the bike.
But after a short pursuit, he was detained.
According to the EPD, the suspect was found to be in possession of a Trump political flag.
His bicycle had a Bernie political sticker prominently displayed, police said.
Police said they found the man, later identified as 43-year-old Michael Valls of Eureka, riding his bike near the foot of D Street.
Police said Valls tried to flee from officers but was ultimately taken into custody after a brief struggle.
He was found to be in possession of items linking him to the vandalism on 5th Street, police said.
Upon investigation, police said they discovered that three large front plate glass windows had been shattered with what appeared to be multiple blows or thrown rocks.
Police also said a Trump political flag had been taken from inside one of the shattered windows, which matched the flag found in Vol's possession.
Inside the building, as if it had been thrown through one of the shattered windows, was a liquid chemical, according to police.
Humboldt Bay Fire responded and determined the liquid was flammable, the EPD said.
Samples of the liquid were collected, photographs of the scene were taken, and possible sources for video surveillance of the incident were identified.
The reporting party was contacted, and through an infield show-up, and she identified Valls as the suspect she saw breaking the windows of the GOP building.
Valls was arrested and booked into the Humboldt County Correctional Facility for attempted arson, burglary, felony vandalism, resisting arrest, and providing a false name.
According to the jail on Saturday, Valls was being held in lieu of $25,000 bail.
North Coast News contacted the jail again on Monday, who said Valls bailed out of jail on Saturday.
So they actually have video of what happened, but we can see the image, presumably of Valls, you know, smashing the window.
They say this is one of several times the Humboldt GOP headquarters in Eureka has been targeted by suspected vandals.
Numerous videos posted of every time it's happened in the past.
Check this one out.
August of 2018.
They didn't even spell indict right.
They spelled it I-N-D-I-T-E.
Oh man, I don't know if you watched my video yesterday, but there was a survey done through SlateStarCodex showing that the far left is much, much more likely to have been diagnosed with some kind of mental illness.
So I'm not surprised.
You get stupid people across the board, but how many of those stupid people get violent?
Indite is spelled I-N-D-I-C-T, not I-N-D-I-T-E.
So, Perhaps that, you know, people don't know how to spell all that well, correlates somehow to the insanity of when they actually go and attack a GOP headquarters.
So, look, I know Bernie Sanders supporters are gonna get really angry about this, but Bernie Sanders was forced to denounce the violence in the past.
Back in 2016.
I think it was in 2016.
Because his supporters are violent.
Not all of them, but too many.
Now, they run this smear about the Bernie bros on the internet, as if there's this horde, a swarm of bees that sting you when you dare come after Bernie.
I don't believe that.
That's nonsense.
If people are mean to you on the internet, grow up.
But this is legitimate.
This is not the first time the headquarters have been targeted.
It's not the first time the GOP headquarters around the country have been targeted.
It's not the first time Bernie supporters have been violent.
Bernie had to denounce it.
But now, following the attacks in Florida, GOP Republicans are vowing revenge.
That's right.
Republicans getting ready to go vote.
Because as much as the media wants to call it their revenge, it's really just them saying they're going to vote now.
Because I honestly don't think you're going to see a whole lot of conservatives doing anything like this.
This is why the Proud Boys have made such serious errors.
Because it gives the media everything they need.
Now, of course, the Proud Boys say things like, you know, they're defending themselves.
I can respect that.
Antifa marches around harassing you and targeting people.
Of course, people are trying to defend themselves.
And you walk right into the hands of the media, who will ignore this, because these stories should be of national prominence.
A Bernie Sanders support?
First of all, where's MSNBC or CNN on this one?
They hate Bernie.
They should absolutely be picking this up.
Surprisingly, nobody picked up the Veritas reporting either.
But I think that's more about not wanting to legitimize Veritas.
The mainstream media does not like that organization.
Well, because they've been made to look bad.
Veritas has exposed many of them as well.
But there's nothing stopping them from saying Bernie supporters literally are committing acts of terrorism.
Or at least this one guy is.
So I wonder why that's not happening.
Could you imagine if this was inverted?
If a Trump supporter targeted a Democrat HQ or a Bernie Sanders HQ or a guy waving a Trump flag did something like this.
It would be front page news.
Primetime.
Every single show.
Republicans would be on the defensive.
Well, let's hear about this grand old revenge from Politico.
Republicans vow revenge at ballot box after volunteers nearly hit by van.
That's basically the story.
For those that aren't familiar, a guy said he was standing up to Trump or someone had to take a stand, crashed his van through this Republican tent.
You can see in this photo it's knocked over.
People narrowly avoided getting hit.
And then he started filming, jumped out, flicked him off.
He told police exactly why he did it.
Well, now in Florida, Republicans are vowing revenge at the ballot box.
But I love how they try to sensationalize it, at least a little bit.
Sorry.
Trump supporters are not the ones going around marching, wearing all black and smashing things.
There's been a lot of weaponized press in national media over the Proud Boys getting into one fight.
This is what I find so fascinating.
And this is what I'm going to say to you guys right now.
The Proud Boys are... Well, they have.
They've not really been in the news for a while.
But they walked right into the media trap.
This is what they wanted.
A Bernie supporter, or a guy with a Bernie sticker on his bike, I think it's fair to say a supporter, literally just tried to torch the GOP headquarters.
Burn it down.
Another weird leftist just crashed his van through a tent.
No major mainstream political news.
No large viral conversations.
Now, Politico is talking about the aftermath.
I'll respect that.
But you get into one street fight, Antifa shows up to an event in New York, so the Proud Boys end up confronting them.
And what happens?
Front page news, New York Times, BuzzFeed, everybody gonna pick it up.
That's right.
Life's not fair.
The media is biased, and they will weaponize everything they can against you.
Now, I think the Proud Boys should not have done what they did.
They engaged to a certain degree.
They tried claiming it was self-defense, but they ran towards Antifa, and so there it was.
They lost their hard defense.
I think the prison sentences they got were insane.
Like, four years for a street fight?
That's nuts.
Now this is what's really crazy.
I couldn't believe it when I saw this story.
That not only did this guy try to burn down the GOP headquarters, they let him out a day later.
Are you nuts?
Let's talk about how deranged these people are.
This story blew my mind.
Ex-NYPD cop punched at his Nashville birthday party after red cap mistaken for MAGA hat.
He got a punch in the face.
He's got some bleeding going on.
They say a retired NYPD detective says a woman punched him in the face in Nashville over the weekend because his hat looked like a MAGA cap.
Staten Island resident Daniel Sprague told the Post he was celebrating his 50th birthday when his wife and friends at the stage on Broadway on Friday, with his wife and friends, when he was assaulted by a woman he did not know.
I was outside with my friends when someone grabbed me from behind, spun me around and punched me in the face, said Sprague, who retired from the NYPD in 2009.
At first I thought it was a friend until I got hit.
I couldn't believe someone could get that upset.
In reality, his cap was emblazoned with the words, Make 50 Great Again, while his shirt was decorated with an American flag that read, Making America Great Since 1970.
It was a joke.
It was his birthday.
They were joking about Trump hats.
They were joking about Trump.
Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy's actually a Trump supporter, for sure.
But this is how insane these people have gotten.
I was at a protest once.
And I saw a woman wearing a hat that said something like, Make America Gay Again.
But it looked just like a MAGA hat, and I was surprised.
I was like, you're gonna get beat up.
These people don't know who you are.
They don't care who you are.
They just chase you down and beat you as soon as someone yells something about you.
I have seen people walking around clueless and then one person just points the finger and yells and the crowd descends upon them screaming and chanting and no one has any idea what's happening.
None of these weird mindless zombie people know who they're protesting or why.
They are just strange cultists who chant over and over again and don't listen to words.
They are quite literally NPCs.
And this NPC saw a joke hat, didn't read it!
You're wearing a red hat?
Imma punch you in the face, she says.
The bar's bouncer booted them both from the property before he had a chance to call the cops, but he filed a report the following day.
All night, people were giving me thumbs up, smiles, or showing rage.
Until they walked up close and saw what the hat said.
Then they would wish me a happy birthday.
He was baffled by the vitriol and said he showed respect for politicians he didn't like.
He said, I love Trump, but I wouldn't hit someone who had a Bernie hat on, said Sprague, who spent more than two decades in the NYPD and retired as a member of the elite emergency services unit.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I wasn't an Obama fan, but if he walked into a place where I was, I would show him and the office respect.
The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department confirmed that they took a report on the incident.
Suspect grabbed his hat from his head and punched him in the face, according to the report.
He stated that when the suspect hit him in the face, he did not hit her back.
Sprague recounted the incident on Facebook and said he was waiting to hear back from detectives.
He also instructed readers not to react to negative comments on the post because it might be one of his friends breaking my chops because we have a great relationship and sense of humor.
You'll find that a lot of Trump supporters do.
If it happens to be a fool or misguided snowflake's comment by arguing with them, it will only encourage them to believe they know what they are talking about.
Right now, on the Donald subreddit, is the orange face meme, Trump's bright orange face in the sunlight.
They don't care.
They make fun of themselves.
They wear hats that are silly parodies of Donald Trump.
And they don't go around bashing random people or smashing up Bernie vans.
They don't go to Bernie's headquarters and smash windows and try and burn it down.
It's the far left doing that.
In the exposés from Veritas, what do we see?
These people are saying they want to get violent.
They need to get violent.
They want to put people like this man in a camp.
That's where they're going.
And if you don't believe their rhetoric, these people are unhinged.
They're nuts.
Look at how they act.
We have had more than one GOP headquarters in the past year vandalized.
This was one of the more extreme instances, and from an overt Bernie Sanders supporter.
And as I stated earlier, Bernie did come out in the past telling people, knock it off.
Even Noam Chomsky was slammed by the far left for denouncing the violence.
Noam Chomsky, the famous leftist, said, when we enter the arena of violence, the most brutal guy wins, and that's not us.
And they ragged on him saying that, you know, pacifism and civility are the tools of the oppressor.
This is going to get Trump reelected.
What do you think someone, what do you think is going to happen when Trump runs a campaign ad saying a Bernie Sanders supporter tried to burn down Republican headquarters?
I think you are nuts if you think Bernie Sanders can win.
Now, look, all due respect to many people who are Bernie supporters who I know Prominent progressive commentators, I think you're entitled to your opinions.
There's a lot of people who are very civil and interested in actual conversations, I agree with.
Because I think when it comes to whatever the populist side is in terms, you know, anti-elitist, anti-establishment, we can all agree in that regard.
The machine is broken, it cheats, etc.
But Bernie Sanders has so much going on that that's really, really bad for him.
78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack.
He's not gonna win.
So he's winning right now the nomination.
I think the superdelegates will come in after a contested convention and give it to Buttigieg or something.
But maybe.
Maybe Bernie wins.
FiveThirtyEight thinks he will.
Think about what happens then when he enters the general.
You've got Veritas Expose videos that Bernie never addressed.
You've got Bernie straight up acknowledging he knows his base is violent.
You've got Bernie Sanders campaign staff talking about gulags being good and wanting to put conservatives in them.
You've got Bernie supporters trying to burn down Republican headquarter buildings.
All of these things will appear in campaign ads.
Antifa videos will appear in campaign ads, and they will show that these people support Bernie Sanders.
And how is he going to win?
This is going to not only embolden Trump, but it's going to strengthen the police state.
So I tried explaining to people on the far left when they get violent.
You are basically a bunch of people running around literally with ball-peen hammers trying to strike at a giant skyscraper.
And the response from the state will be to embolden it.
Regular Americans will be scared when they see black-clad individuals running around with smoke bombs and weapons, and they will beg for more authority from the state.
That's what you are creating.
If you were concerned about the rise of true fascism, stop giving them the tools they need and approach it with civil disobedience, because then you win that fight.
I don't know what's going to happen.
We got one more story I'll briefly go through.
This is how insane everything has gotten.
Now, of course, this is in Florida, I guess.
This is from okala.com.
I don't think we need to read too much into what else happened with the story.
You get it.
A guy with a cane sword, which I'm pretty sure cane swords are, like, super illegal, was once again, you know, was threatening Trump supporters.
So, once again, this is the story.
Look, I've gone up to dinner.
I've met a lot of Trump supporters.
I've sat and talked to them.
They got opinions.
You don't gotta like their opinions, but at the end of the day, they got opinions.
I've sat down and explained certain things, and so long as they're interested in having a conversation, people are actually interested in learning and better understanding the other side.
But what happens when you have a deranged group of unhinged individuals, which according to the survey I talked about yesterday, are more likely to be mentally ill?
Maybe it's that this ideology attracts the mentally ill.
But I think this is going to be the downfall of Bernie Sanders.
Moderates are insulated from this to a certain degree.
In fact, the moderates should be calling this out, talking about how we need to oppose this radical violence.
And what's Bernie Sanders going to say?
He's going to literally have to highlight it and say, yep, yep, I'm sorry.
My supporters shouldn't be doing this.
Do people go around with Buttigieg signs smashing windows?
Do people go around with Biden or Klobuchar signs smashing windows?
Does Bloomberg have an army of black-clad individuals with crowbars smashing windows?
The answer is no, they don't.
So for everything wrong with those candidates, and you might not like them, it's the Bernie Sanders base that are doing this.
Not all of them.
Not every Bernie Sanders person.
But they're not doing anything to stop it.
When Veritas exposed them, what happened?
Zip!
They locked up their social media accounts and the official memos, or I believe this is what was said, story went out, telling people just keep their mouths shut.
You mean to tell me you had these people saying these insane things working directly for your campaign offices, and your memo is just, shh, shh, don't let them find out?
What do you think's gonna happen when it comes to General?
You know what?
I hope Bernie Sanders wins that nomination for two reasons.
The Bernie Sanders supporters were cheated last time, they're being cheated again, so you know what?
Fine.
Y'all deserve to win if that's what the Democratic Party wants.
But for the other reason is to see how the media and how the Trump-based Republicans are going to highlight all of these things Bernie has ignored to completely obliterate him in the general election.
Newt Gingrich just said that this could be a total disaster for Sanders where he wins like one or two states.
Could you imagine if Sanders gets the nomination and it goes to the Electoral College and the entire country just turns red except for like California?
That would be nuts.
I'm not entirely convinced that'll be the case.
People really do dislike Trump.
Dare I say, hate him as you can see with this GOP attack.
But I'll tell you what, man, the average American who doesn't like Trump, the never-Trumpers, will run crying back to Trump if Bernie Sanders gets the nomination.
At least that's what I think.
Now, Bernie might light up some new progressive voters, but hey, Iowa voter turnout was down.
New Hampshire voter turnout was actually really high, higher than 2008.
But first-time voters, youth voters, and moderates weren't there.
Bernie Sanders isn't bringing in new voters because new voters were down.
He's not bringing in young voters because young voters were down.
He's just bringing in older Democrats who maybe feel like now's their chance.
But that voter turnout was bigger among moderates, with 53% of the vote going to moderate candidates.
I want to see what happens in the general when they refuse to acknowledge what this person did.
It'll be in every campaign ad.
All of the attacks.
Stick around.
I'll see you all in the next segment coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
One of the most controversial aspects of today's culture war has to do with transgender athletes competing against biological females, and one of the most prominent stories about some female high school runners in Connecticut is escalating, as the story reads, female high school runners are suing Connecticut amateur athletic bodies to block transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports, saying, quote, it's not fair to compete against boys.
This case is showing us how the current iteration, modern civil rights law, is untenable.
It can't function within itself, and I'll explain why.
Now, as most of you know, and we'll read the story, female-bodied individuals, I'm gonna be very specific here, so forgive me, I know a lot of people are like, don't use, no, no, listen.
These young females are competing in running against biological males who identify as women, and my understanding is that these biological males have not done any kind of transitioning outside of some social transitioning.
So, no hormones or anything like that.
Quite literally, biological male running against biological female, and lo and behold, the two biological males, the trans women, have won.
And I believe they shattered some records.
Now, these females are saying it's a violation of Title IX.
That is, they are being discriminated against by being forced to run against what they say.
They say boys.
I'm telling you, very contentious culture war issues.
I beg you to please bear with me as I try to navigate the language appropriately.
Here's the point.
Civil rights law in many states, and I believe in Connecticut, says that you can't discriminate based on gender or gender identity or sex, depending on how they frame it.
New York, for instance, says sex and gender identity.
So here's the problem.
It's been ruled in many courts that it is not gender discrimination if there exists an equal but parallel system for the opposing gender, sex, etc.
So if you have a women in STEM club and a man tries to join it and you say no, that's discrimination.
But if there's a women in STEM club and a men in STEM club, the argument is there is an equal opportunity for both to join their respective leagues.
It would not be discrimination.
When it comes to sports, there is men's and women's sports.
Therefore, these females are claiming it's discrimination because they're becoming spectators in their own sport competing against males.
But now we get to the interesting point of civil rights law when it adds gender identity.
You now have one law simultaneously saying it is discrimination towards both groups.
So look at it this way.
There is no space for these females to compete only against females.
Therefore, if in either circumstance they have to compete against males, it's gender discrimination.
Technically.
But then the issue... So, this is confusing, I gotta tell you.
The issue is, biological males are coming into female sports on the basis of gender identity, saying you can't discriminate based on their identity.
In both circumstances, it is discriminatory.
To the trans women, and to the biological females.
There is no way to rectify this, I suppose, outside of the courts.
So what we're gonna need is court precedent setting those limits.
And here's where it gets really tricky.
I've talked about this time and time again.
New York City, for instance, defines gender identity as self-expression for the most part, meaning there's infinite genders.
New York officially recognizes 31.
Will they have to create 31 leagues in New York if someone sues?
I honestly have no idea.
Or will they get rid of all leagues based on what I just told you?
Like I said, if there's a female and a male, it's not discrimination.
But what if males are in all of them, and there is no place for females, so will they have to allow females into the male division?
It doesn't make sense.
Here's where it starts to break down.
It's going to be really interesting to see how the courts rule on this for one simple reason.
If they side against gender identity and in favor of biological sex, saying that trans women cannot compete in women's sports, that sets the stage For all trans individuals.
So, when I was talking about New York City, I chose the most extreme example.
I said, what if somebody identifies as a trans otherkin furry, right?
So they show up to Starbucks, apply for a job, they get the job, and when they come for their first day, they're dressed up in a giant dragon costume.
And I talked to a lawyer about it.
And he said, that's absurd.
A judge would very obviously throw that out.
My question then was, on what grounds would the judge throw it out?
Because it's perceivably, to that judge, illegitimate?
Yes.
Okay, hold on then.
Is it possible to then say a judge could find literally any trans person to be absurd?
Yes.
Because that's the judge's discretion.
And so the point I was trying to make, and first, you know, I was talking to this lawyer, because, you know, it was a general civil rights lawyer.
I wanted to get a generalist view of this outside of the political culture war stuff.
And they said, that would never happen.
Yes, the law does say that it's self-expression, but a judge is never going to allow someone to dress up in a costume or do something weird like that.
And I said, who defines costume?
Who defines whether or not someone really is trans?
If you argue that a biological male putting on a dress and makeup is fine, Then where's the line at which it becomes absurd?
Now obviously I understand someone wearing a weird costume and claiming they're a mythical dragon creature is extreme.
It's way beyond wherever that line could be.
But what if you slowly start incrementing?
At what point will they say, this is not legitimate?
Because a lot of people who perform drag, for instance, are extreme caricatures in costume.
They wear fake bottoms, so their legs look really, really big, and their hips look really, really big.
Would they be allowed to say, that's not real clothing?
The law specifically states, you can't be discriminated against based on what you wear.
So there's an interesting line, and perhaps it will be set by a judge, and people will agree on it, but I don't know where that is.
Let's read the story.
I'm sorry for ranting for a long time before actually getting to the story.
Daily Mail reports.
The families of three female high school runners filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to block transgender athletes in Connecticut from participating in girls' sports.
Selena Soule of Glastonbury High School, Alana Smith of Danbury High School, and Chelsea Mitchell of Canton High School are represented by the conservative non-profit organization Alliance Defending Freedom.
The organization argues that allowing athletes with male anatomy to compete has deprived their clients of track titles and scholarship opportunities.
We can see this is one of the very famous photos of the two transgender individuals running and winning.
And I think it's important to note, it was at least reported in the past, these two individuals are not on hormone therapy at all.
They're literally just biological males identifying as female.
Quote, forcing them to compete against boys isn't fair, shatters their dreams and destroys their athletic opportunities.
Attorney Christiana Holcomb said in a news release, having separate boys and girls sports has always been based on biological differences, not what people believe about their gender, because those differences matter for fair competition.
And forcing girls to be spectators in their own sports is competitively at odds with Title IX.
A federal law designed to create equal opportunities for women in education and athletics, Holcomb said.
Connecticut's policy violates that law and reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women.
And now I want to stop, and this is the big question.
There's an argument on one side.
It discriminates against women.
The argument on the other side, it's discriminatory against people based on gender identity.
Especially when they say trans women are women, therefore, which side do you pick?
It's two different marginalized groups, self-described marginalized groups, arguing that they are further being discriminated against.
The law says you can't discriminate against either.
I don't know.
Pick one.
The lawsuit was filed against the Connecticut Association of Schools' Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference and the boards of education in Bloomfield, Cromwell, Glastonbury, Canton, and Danbury.
The Connecticut Association of Schools' Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference has said its policy follows a state anti-discrimination law that says students must be treated in school by the gender with which they identify.
So then, what about someone who can't choose what their biology is?
Should these women... Well, actually, no.
Here's the big problem.
The biological females are at a distinct physical disadvantage.
They can't just decide to compete against males in the other league.
They'll lose.
So now, the safe space created for females because they can't compete at the same level as biological males has been stripped away.
I think that's a sound argument.
So what do you do?
Perhaps the answer is a league, a transgender league.
I don't know.
Perhaps there should be hormone requirements.
Some institutions, I think the Olympics does that.
But where you draw the line, it's... I don't know.
Don't ask me.
This is going to be a messy one for people to figure out.
The Daily Mailwork goes on.
The lawsuit follows a Title IX complaint filed last year by the Girls' Families and the Alliance Defending Freedom with the U.S.
Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, which is investigating the policy.
The lawsuit centers on two transgender sprinters, Terry Miller and Andrea Yearwood, who have frequently outperformed their cisgender competitors.
The two seniors have combined to win 15 Girls' State Indoor or Outdoor Championship races since 2017, according to the lawsuit.
The three plaintiffs have competed directly against them, almost always losing to Miller and usually behind Yearwood.
Mitchell finished third in 2019 state championship in the girls 55 meter indoor track competition behind Miller and Yearwood, so being deprived of a gold medal.
Yearwood of Cromwell High School and Miller of Bloomfield High School have both defended their participation in girls events.
Yearwood told the Associated Press in February 2019 that there are many differences among athletes that may give one a physical advantage over another and that she does not think she has an unfair advantage, saying, one high jumper could be taller and have longer legs than another, but the other could have perfect form and then do better.
One sprinter could have parents who spend so much money on personal training for their child, which in turn would cause their child to run faster.
But let me just stop you right there.
We separate the sexes in sports based on averages And there is... Look, I'll put it this way.
You know there's no rule banning women from any major league sport.
Did you know that?
Baseball, hockey, basketball, football.
My understanding, at least, for most of them, there's no rule.
And women have actually tried out to be kickers for the NFL.
Some have gotten close.
The problem is, you are looking at the top, top tier.
The best of the best of the best.
So when it comes to athletics, lo and behold, what everyone knows, at the extreme high end of the spectrum, you have men.
They tend to be taller, faster, more fast-twitch muscles, etc.
Because of that, we have created another division that averages out for the best of the best of women.
That's the point.
So, I mean, it's odd to me because I know like all of you get it.
I don't know in what world these other people live in, but all that's really happened right now is that you've taken women and you've taken away their space to compete against other women.
That's it.
Now, I know a lot of people are going to say, trans women are women, fine, fine, fine, whatever.
The point is, females have no place to only compete against females.
That was the point in the first place.
And I'll also point out to address their comment about how one jumper could be taller and have longer legs.
Yes, congratulations!
Maybe you've just now realized that in basketball, they all tend to be really, really tall.
Save for a few exceptions, like Muggsy Bows, who was like 5'3", but could jump ridiculously high, the overwhelming majority of NBA players are really, really tall.
And there's some, like, funny stat where it's like, if you're 7 feet tall, you have a 17% chance of playing in the NBA.
Now, why is that?
It's because physical differences, and they're all men.
Of course, there have been very, very tall men, but they're all men.
So the point is, when we're talking about sports and we're talking about the best of the best, guess what?
Yes, someone might have shorter legs and then they fall out of the top rankings and they're no longer represented.
I guess you want to create a world where everyone is completely equal and only skill determines whether or not you win, right?
Alright, well the problem with that is that there's even differences in people's cognitive abilities.
But I suppose if you're from one of these blank slate ideologies where you think genetics play zero role in how people develop, you'll think this makes sense.
But it doesn't.
It's a mix of nature and nurture.
To what degree?
I don't know.
I'm not a scientist.
Don't ask me.
But there is an obvious mix.
Some people are tall, meaning it's easier for them to dunk.
There you go.
What do you want to do about it?
Yearwood's mother said the athlete had no immediate comment on Wednesday's lawsuit.
Miller did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
I gotta say, Daily Mail really needs a copy editor.
Of all the sites I've read.
The attorneys are asking the court to prevent the transgender girls from competing while the lawsuit moves forward.
Connecticut is one of 17 states that allowed transgender high school athletes to compete without restrictions in 2019, according to transathlete.com, which tracks state policies in high school sports across the country.
Eight states had restrictions that make it difficult for transgender athletes to compete while in school.
Now I'm going to stop here.
requiring athletes to compete under the gender on their birth certificate, or allowing them
to participate only after going through reassignment procedures or hormone therapies, according
to Transathlete.
Yearwood and Miller have said they are still in the process of transitioning, but have
declined to provide details.
Now I'm going to stop here.
Guess what?
There is a problem in this law.
The law isn't about discrimination as a blank idea.
It's about men and women.
There is a trans man athlete named, I think, Mac Beggs.
I keep getting the name wrong.
And a lot of people often think this is a male fighting females.
No.
Mac is female, transitioned to male, and wanted to compete against men.
Almost no one would have a problem with that.
But because of laws designed to block things like this, it results in Mac, who is taking testosterone, dominating wrestling, and beating cisgendered women.
The issue is, general discrimination laws about identity do not make sense.
Men have distinct physical advantages in athletics.
Period.
A woman, a female, who takes testosterone will also gain distinct advantages.
This is why you don't see the same stories going the other direction.
You don't hear about females who start taking testosterone and then dominating the male field, because biological males will still have an advantage over a trans man.
Therefore, the law needs to reflect specifically how men transisting to women will play out, and how women transisting to men will play out.
There can't be a blanket law, and this is the big problem with the current discrimination laws, and it's another reason why this is untenable.
You can't simultaneously have... You can't discriminate against, you know, people based on sex, but you can't discriminate based on gender identity because then you take away the sex-based bracket, right?
But at the same time, well, yeah, I'll read the last of this, you get the point.
Actually, I think that is the end of it.
Okay, I'm not gonna beat a dead horse on this one.
You get the point.
I don't know how this will play out.
All I know is... The last point I wanted to make, I'll just make it.
The differences in sports cannot be a blanket law about gender discrimination.
It has to specify.
You cannot allow, you know, men transitioning to do X, you cannot allow females transitioning to do X, because it just doesn't work.
But because the law tries to be neutral and equal, you end up with this conundrum.
Therein lies the big challenge.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against discrimination based on sex.
But there's going to be a whole slew of exceptions popping up, and exemptions.
And it's going to get really, really confusing.
Would it be discrimination if a firefighter said, I'm not going to hire a woman who's short?
What if they said they're discriminating based on your height?
I honestly don't know.
I don't know how this plays out.
I just know that we created women's sports, like we as a society, on purpose because of averages.
It makes no sense to now disrupt that.
And their argument makes no sense either.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
That is a different channel.
And I will see you all there.
The US military is prepping for a coronavirus pandemic, and they don't take this lightly, because recently experts warned it could reach pandemic proportions.
It is better that we overreact than underreact, especially As the amount of infected increases and the death toll climbs, now over 1,000, nearing 1,300, with over 60,000 infected, and we've already seen reports it could be 10 times higher, keeping in mind that it could travel and grow exponentially.
I want to read you this story first, but I have to show you this context.
U.S.
must prepare for thousands of COVID-19 cases in coming weeks, experts warn.
What you need to understand about the coronavirus is that it could have up to a 24-day incubation period.
That means there are probably many, many people who are asymptomatic right now but are already infected.
We saw how rapidly this spread in China, and they quarantined an entire city.
Several cities, in fact.
Unfortunately for us, it may be too late.
Now, I don't want to act like it's our fault, though.
Some people might say, why wasn't the U.S.
military preparing for this sooner?
Why don't we act sooner?
We didn't know.
We didn't.
By the time we got wind of this, because China was probably withholding information or lying, there were probably already many Americans on their way back here who were infected.
I do think, in my opinion so far, it was a mistake to bring back people from the quarantined cities.
But what can you do at this point?
Hope you're all ready.
This is about to go wild.
Let's read the story from the Military Times.
They report, U.S.
Northern Command is executing plans to prepare for a potential pandemic of the novel coronavirus now called COVID-19.
According to Navy and Marine Corps service-wide messages issued this week, an executive order issued by the Joint Staff and approved by Defense Secretary Mark Esper this month directed Northern Command and Geographic Combatant Commanders to initiate pandemic plans, which include ordering commanders to prepare for widespread outbreaks and confining service members with a history of travel to China.
The Navy and Marine Corps messages issued Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively, reference an executive order directing U.S.
Northern Command to implement the Department of Defense Global Campaign Plan for Pandemic Influenza and Infectious Disease 355113.
The document serves as the Pentagon's blueprint for planning and preparing for widespread dispersion of influenza and previously unknown diseases.
Northern Command said Wednesday, it was directed the Joint Staff, it directed, The Joint Staff February 1st to commence prudent planning and their assigned role synchronizing the department's plans for pandemic, flu, and disease.
But in no way, quote, does the planning indicate a greater likelihood of an event developing.
A military professional planning for a range of contingencies is something we owe the American people, Navy Lieutenant Commander Mike Hatfield said.
Now I can respect that and completely agree.
I just kind of think we should have made these moves about a week ago, but...
You know, people often don't want to overreact, but I've mentioned it before.
It's not my opinion, not my idea.
Someone else was saying, I was reading that because we don't, because we underreact, these things get worse.
Perhaps we should always err on the side of caution.
Quote, we coordinate with other combatant commands to assess potential impacts in the event of a pandemic, and we ensure the U.S.
military is poised to respond as required, Hetfield said in a statement.
The military profession fosters a culture of planning, and the fact that we are coordinating planning efforts across the geographical combatant commands is consistent with how we operate, respond, if directed.
So they're definitely trying to downplay everything, saying, you know, keep it chill, right?
But here's the actual, much more scary story from the Epoch Times.
Leading health experts warned on February 12th that the United States could see thousands of cases of the new coronavirus and a significant surge in the spread of the virus in the coming weeks.
Speaking at the Senate, let me actually zoom in here, it's a little small.
Speaking at the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday, Asha George, Executive Director of the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense said that the United States should be preparing ahead for cases of coronavirus in the thousands.
I don't think we should be planning for these onesie-twosie cases that we've been seeing thus far in the United States, George said.
We have to plan for the possibility that we have thousands of cases.
George, one of five panelists, warned of a large-scale outbreak nationwide.
There has been no sign of sustained human-to-human transmission among known cases of the virus in the United States so far.
But let me stop.
There was a report the other day that the amount of infected increased by 14,000 in a single day.
Now, that doesn't mean that 14,000 people were infected.
It means that those people were already infected and we didn't know, and that's even worse.
A lot of people are shocked, saying, look how many people just got infected.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
That would be a good thing.
I mean, it would be a bad thing, but it would be better.
It's even worse that we didn't know they were infected.
There were suspected cases, so hopefully they were quarantined or under watch.
But that couldn't mean they've already transmitted the disease, the virus, to many other people.
The 14th case of COVID-19 was confirmed by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Wednesday.
The individual was one of the Americans evacuated from Wuhan and quarantined in Southern California's Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego County on February 7th.
Why did we do that?
I'll tell you what, man.
I will take one for the team.
If I am overseas and all hell breaks loose, I'll stick around.
I'm not gonna bring that back home with me.
But maybe the military wanted, maybe the U.S.
wanted to do it.
I don't know.
Another evacuee at Air Station Miramar tested positive for the virus on February 10th.
But Scott Gottlieb, a former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, told the Senate committee that he expects a COVID-19 outbreak to emerge across the United States in the next two to four weeks.
I'm going to stop right now.
This is a report from a former FDA commissioner to the Senate.
We're not playing games.
It's not the end of the world.
But you've got two to four weeks.
So I would urge all of you to take it seriously.
I've said it several times now.
Don't ever let anyone shame you into not taking care of yourself or your friends and your family.
I hope you've gone to the store and picked up a couple five-gallon jugs.
Because I'll tell you what, when this does hit in two to four weeks, and the economy slows down like we're seeing in China, people don't want to go out and they're trying to wait it out because this is becoming serious.
That it might be too late.
More importantly, people might go and snatch up things before you get a chance to get there.
Don't wait until it's too late, because regardless of whether or not this is fear-mongering or fake news, storms happen, earthquakes happen, natural disasters happen.
I always say this, and I know a lot of you might get tired of me repeating myself when I say this in every single video.
I'm sorry, this one has to do with life or death, and we have to get over the stigma that people are scared of looking like preppers.
Don't worry about it.
No one's telling you to build a bunker full of beans, okay, and to hide without the nuclear holocaust.
We're telling you that this is happening now in China, and in the Senate, a former FDA commissioner is warning it's coming in two to four weeks.
It might not, but I will tell you this.
If in two to four weeks you say, Tim, you were wrong, nothing happened, I'll say, don't look at me!
FDA Commissioner said it, but more importantly, I'm glad I'm wrong.
I will happily be wrong.
I'll tell you what, if you buy some supplies now that last you for a few years, what do you gotta lose?
They're still gonna be good for you for if anything else happens.
Take it seriously, the warnings are here.
We should be leaning in very aggressively to try and broaden diagnostic screening right now, particularly in communities where there is a lot of immigration, where these efforts could emerge to identify them early enough.
That they'll be small enough that we can intervene to prevent more epidemic spread in this country, he said.
Gottlieb said that despite efforts from U.S.
customs officials to suspend travel between the U.S.
and mainland China and Hong Kong, as well as screen those who had returned from Wuhan, the Chinese city at the epicenter of the outbreak, some people infected with COVID-19 would still have entered the United States.
Listen, it is perhaps too late.
The mortality rate is around 2%, but it has killed people who are, you know, younger.
The doctor who was in his 30s.
It is airborne.
It can enter your eyes.
You will get sick.
You are very likely to be okay.
You'll get sick, you'll get over it.
But many people won't.
It is happening, alright?
A former director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Julie Gerberding, added the United States can expect more cases among people who did not travel to China, but who have been infected by those who had visited the region before travel bans were implemented.
Gottlieb said that it is likely that health screenings in airports missed infected travelers due to the extensive incubation period of the disease.
Some of the modeling out of the UK suggests that we're capturing about 25% of cases at best.
So for every case we identify, there's three or four that we did not identify.
It's gonna spread exponentially.
It's traveling as fast as the flu.
The mortality rate is about 2% higher.
There's no vaccine, and it won't be ready for another year or longer.
18 months, perhaps.
I'm not gonna tell you what to do beyond what I already told you to do, alright?
Don't listen to me.
You can ignore my advice, fine.
But I've seen natural disasters occur.
This is not the end of the world, okay?
But this is just the same as if there was that algal bloom I mentioned in Ohio.
It's the same as if there was a hurricane or tsunami.
This is going to affect us, slow down the economy, it could be really bad.
It's not going to be the worst thing I've ever seen, but it doesn't mean you don't prepare for it, alright?
They say the initial results from February 9th study by Chinese doctors found the incubation period for the disease could be as long as 24 days, up from previous projections of two weeks.
Now I'll tell you, I'll write this up, I'll tell you why that's very significant.
Even if 1 in 100 have an incubation period of 24 days, the virus can be transmitted while people are asymptomatic.
So that means even if it's one person, they could infect 11 or 12 or more depending on where they go.
Go down the subway, use a handrail, boom!
Thousands, tens of thousands could get infected from that.
So I'll wrap this up.
The good news is, and that's why I covered this portion first, is the U.S.
military is already preparing.
Okay?
That's why I wanted to start with this.
It's good news.
I don't know if it's going to be as bad as they say.
It could be worse.
Who knows?
But at this point, I would say overreact just a little bit, but don't panic.
Just take care of yourself, man.
We don't want more people to be hurt than needs to be.
I think it's always important to have a good message.
And I'll tell you this, too.
Take your phones.
Always buy something like a battery storage or solar chargers for your phone.
Smart thing to have.
And download a survival guide.
I'm not telling you to prepare for the end of the world.
I'm telling you It's gonna help you out to know how to deal with being lost in the woods.
Don't make yourself helpless because someone might make fun of you for prepping.
Nah, that's nonsense.
You should know how to start a fire.
You should know how to find north.
You should know how to find your way out of a forest.
You should know how to deal with things like this.
Survive.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
I gotta say it.
This one's my fault.
I literally mean this.
This one's my fault.
It's now become like a big national story.
YouTube removes clip of Rand Paul speaking out on Senate floor, citing concern he named Ukraine whistleblower.
Let me give you some context, but I must tell you, the reason the video was removed is in fact my fault.
But I'll explain.
Rand Paul talked about a man I call Voldemort, because if I say his name, YouTube will delete this video.
He talked about him.
He tried to get a question asked in the impeachment trial having nothing to do with the whistleblower.
He tried to get a question asked because he wanted to know if the Democrats were aware of Adam Schiff's staff colluding with another holdover from the Obama administration and their plans to remove Trump by any means necessary.
He did not ask about the whistleblower.
Rand Paul's question was rejected.
So he brought his question to the Senate floor where he read it and pointed this out.
If no one knows who the whistleblower is, how can you ban the name?
Sure enough, they did.
Well, that brings me to this story, which is of historical and political significance and, dare I say, is one of the most damning things I have ever seen.
And it all started a few days ago.
About a week ago, actually.
When Rand Paul gave this speech, I couldn't help but notice that C-SPAN had recorded what he had said and published it on YouTube.
Shocking, to me at least, because I thought YouTube said it was banned.
I am in contact with people at Google.
And any time I catch a video where they mention the name, I ask them, are we now at the point where the name is of political and public significance?
Thus, we are allowed to talk about it.
And they always do the same thing.
Hey Tim, no, we've deleted the video.
So sure enough, when I saw that C-SPAN was now covering a speech on the House floor, I thought to myself, surely this is the moment where YouTube will back down.
But of course, the video was live.
So in all good faith, sincerity, I reached out to Google and said, hey, I've noticed that on the Senate floor, a Senator is now talking about this potential conflict, having nothing to do with the whistleblower.
Well, there was a long pause, and then I got word.
I was told that you are still not allowed to say the name of this person whom I call Voldemort, and they have since force-privated the video so that no one can see it.
C-SPAN.
This is one of the most terrifying things ever to happen yet in our nightmare dystopia.
YouTube, Google, one of the largest, most powerful companies on the planet, has just censored political discourse from a U.S.
Senator on the Senate floor.
Think about how dangerous that will be when they start memory-holing important historical moments.
This is for the history books.
Rand Paul's defiant speech.
When the impeachment judge, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court refused to take a question, I assure you, this is historically significant.
YouTube has removed it.
Now, as soon as I got notice they did, I'm like lying in bed now, I was like, whoa!
And I tweeted about it.
And now here we are, I think it's a few days later, it's become a major national story.
Now, not the most important story in the country.
But this, to me, is horrifying.
It seems there is no point at which YouTube will back down.
Why?
What is YouTube doing that they have this policy where we can't talk about the news?
It's already hard enough for me to do the news on YouTube.
They dominate the space.
So I have a podcast and I do upload to other places.
I'm splitting up, you know, my basket so I'm not carrying all of my eggs in one.
At what point and when will YouTube honor what they said?
Initially, both Facebook and YouTube, I think both Facebook and YouTube, said that because this person's name isn't relevant, you can't say it.
Now it is.
because Real Clear Investigations released a report showing that Voldemort met with Sean Misko,
an Adam Schiff staffer, and that years ago, before Misko joined Schiff's staff,
they had discussed openly and were overheard by several sources
that they wanted to remove President Trump. They were going to get rid of him.
Sure enough, the lawyer for Voldemort had tweeted years ago that the coup had begun,
impeachment would follow.
What do you think's happening?
Why can't we talk about it unless YouTube is complicit?
And I'll tell you this.
YouTube said that when it was publicly and politically discourse in the news and everything, we could talk about it.
C-SPAN, not good enough.
Fox News, not good enough.
They've taken down all of these clips.
YouTube is lying.
They're in on the game.
So be it, YouTube.
Why don't you just ban me already?
I'm tired of... Let's read and see what National Review has to say.
YouTube removed a clip of Senator Rand Paul speaking on the Senate floor in which he asked why Chief Justice John Roberts had blocked a question of his, which some have speculated contains the name of the Ukraine whistleblower, but no one ever said that.
No one's ever confirmed the name, right?
Why can't we say it then?
Paul told Political Playbook, the tech platform's decision was dangerous and politically biased and denied knowing who the whistleblower was.
Nowhere in my speech did I accuse anyone of being a whistleblower.
It's a chilling and disturbing day in America when giant web companies such as YouTube decide to censor speech.
Now even protected speech, such as that of a senator on the Senate floor, can be blocked from getting to the American people, Paul added.
Where's the line, man?
I mean, look, it's one thing when you ban people who are running for office.
We can argue that.
Or people are banned before running for office.
But is that not some kind of powerful meddling in our elections?
But what about when you have a senator, a duly elected representative?
Speaking about matters important to the American public being blocked by Google.
Dare I say, Google is interfering.
It's insane.
Look, I don't think it gets worse than this.
A massive private corporation restricting a senator's speech.
I don't think it gets worse than this.
It was C-SPAN of all places.
YouTube told Politico that the decision was part of a larger effort to purge the name from the platform and said that the company had already deleted hundreds of videos and over 10,000 comments that contained the name.
Videos, comments, and other forms of content that mentioned the leaked whistleblower's name violate YouTube's community guidelines and will be removed from YouTube, YouTube spokesman Ivy Choi said.
She added that uploaders had the option to edit the name out of their footage and re-upload.
Why?
On Facebook, I said the name with no political context at all.
Said I met a dentist from Dubuque who happened to have the name of Voldemort.
Nothing political was said.
Facebook deleted the post without warning or notice.
It was just gone.
We're living in these times.
Because I will tell you what, the only reason we know about this instance where Voldemort's name can't be said is because it's so high profile and involves the president.
What about any other time something was said these companies didn't want?
What if they're doing this to meddle in the upcoming election because Rand Paul can't tell you what was going on, they will delete it.
And I'll tell you this right now, if Rand, I like Rand Paul, but I would like to see these senators take legislative action to stop this.
This is meddling.
If someone did something illegal, like RealClearInvestigations may be suggesting, we have a right to know about it.
And YouTube intervening to remove this name, that is beyond reproach.
This is YouTube actively participating in interfering with the public's right to knowledge, a gross violation of our freedom of the press and speech and expression.
I don't know, man.
I'm losing hope.
Because I don't think the Republicans are going to do anything about it.
Maybe if they win back the House, I don't know.
Now, Mark Zuckerberg said he's going to err on the side of free speech.
I'm calling him out right now.
As if it matters.
I don't think he cares what I have to say.
Lies.
I can't say Voldemort's name on Facebook.
Lies.
You don't care about free expression.
There is a story that this man was planning this the whole time and we don't even know who he is.
After Roberts, who was tasked with reading the question aloud, you know, okay, so we get it, we get it.
He didn't read it.
Quote.
It's very important whether or not a group of Democratic activists, part of the Obama-Biden administration, were working together for years looking for an opportunity to impeach the president, Paul said, claiming his question had nothing to do with the whistleblower.
And he's right, it doesn't.
The story's from RCI.
Real Clear Investigations.
And how about this?
Joe Biden's running for president.
If somebody who worked with the Biden administration, with Obama, was now working to help him steal an election, you'd think that would be public interest, right?
I can only imagine that YouTube and Google are in on it.
And I'll tell you this.
Go to Google right now and type in Tim Pool YouTube.
And guess what?
My channel won't come up.
Type in TimCast YouTube.
My channel won't come up.
I'll tell you what.
Take the title of this video, copy and paste it into YouTube.
My channel will not come up.
YouTube is an active participant.
Now we're able to use the platform so far because YouTube can't take dramatic action without completely destroying the fabric of the public space.
But they are moving slowly, and I assure you, Voices that oppose this, whatever you want to call it, will be purged one by one.
And if the Republicans don't step up while they still can, there's nothing we can do to stop it.
Rand Paul is a senator who was directly targeted by this.
I don't know what you can do, Rand, but I hope you do something.
I don't care what your policies are.
I care about massive unelected corporations like Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, whatever, interfering in our right of self-governance.
And this is how they're doing it.
I'll see you all in the next video coming up in a few minutes.
Thanks for hanging out.
The Electoral College may be a historical footnote soon as Virginia joins the Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
I think that's what it's called.
Virginia House passes bill to give electoral votes to Popular Vote winner.
My understanding is that they're now 61 electoral votes away from negating the Electoral College, which will be one of the stupidest things Democrats can do.
In fact, Republicans have actually cheered for this idea.
Because there are millions of Republicans in blue states whose votes don't matter.
Now, it's unpredictable.
We don't know exactly what will happen if the Electoral College gets wiped out.
But one thing I can tell you might happen is civil war.
Because you're going to have three urban areas dictating everything.
Why bother campaigning all over the place when you only need the popular vote?
You go to big cities, do your big city interviews, get your digital message out, and don't worry about going to the small towns and talking to small town folk.
That's why the Electoral College, or one of the reasons why it was formed in the first place.
Democrats don't seem to understand this, and they're only complaining because they lose.
They don't seem to realize we don't live in a direct democracy.
We live in a constitutional republic, which means the popular vote count is less relevant to the jurisdictions who are voting as members of a union.
But I'm preaching to the choir, man.
Y'all know this.
I want to show you something.
It's kind of derivative of the video I did on 4pm about McGovern in California and why I think this is a huge, huge blunder.
Let's read the story from CNN Politics.
They say, The measure, HB 177, would look to incorporate Virginia into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement established by each participating state's laws to put its electoral votes toward the winner of the national popular vote, instead of the state's own popular vote.
This idea that some American citizens should have more power than other American citizens to choose the President of the United States, I frankly find profoundly offensive.
Del Mark Levine, the sponsor of the bill, told CNN over the phone.
Because apparently they don't realize that this is not a direct democracy.
This is a constitutional republic.
It's not about people having more power in their vote than other people.
It's about jurisdictions, regions, and resources being factored in.
Now I think it is true, it's kind of silly, that some areas of big empty space get some representational power, but let's be real.
Wyoming has three electoral votes.
Are you really concerned about that?
California has 55.
You still have major advantages in the system.
Now they argue people only campaign in some states.
Have you looked at history?
Have you actually read the vote counts for other states going back to other elections?
They don't realize that California before 1992 was a red state.
They're making a huge mistake.
Let's read more.
Levin noted that presidential candidates tend to campaign only in a handful of bellwether states rather than visiting all of them, a strategy that tends to slight heavily Republican and Democratic states whose votes are less likely to be put up for grabs.
Levin hopes that such a bill will bring out voters who feel they are ignored in major election cycles and improve election day turnout.
It will.
But that means that if you have, I don't know, Illinois.
Let's say that in Wyoming there's a big mine discovered of a glorious rare earth of some sort that's needed for some production, and the production facilities are headquartered in Illinois.
Illinois, with their millions of citizens, vote for, you know, send a senator or congresspeople who pass a bill saying, we should have access to Wyoming's resources.
And we stripped away Wyoming's access to vote against these things.
Now, it is still true.
These things can happen.
But the general idea is based upon the fact that jurisdictions that are smaller should be protected.
I'll put it this way.
I don't know if this is actually true of Benjamin Franklin, but the saying is, democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for lunch.
A republic is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
The majority can absolutely oppress the minority, and it fluctuates.
We try to make this more difficult, and the Electoral College does this by giving weight based on certain areas, and just because you can stuff more people into your city or state doesn't mean that's good for the country that you can vote, because what you need to understand Right now in the delegate count with Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders, Buttigieg is winning more rural areas than Bernie.
Bernie's base is ideologically homogenous.
That's dangerous because it could polarize and result in conflict.
Buttigieg's base, slightly smaller because it's rural, but encompasses many different communities.
The Electoral College requires that someone actually be broad enough in their views to represent different groups of people to prevent conflict.
Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles have basically the same opinions.
But rural Wyoming and rural Ohio do not.
If you can win the rural areas spread out across the country, even though there's less people, you are building up a broad coalition of disparate communities, preserving the strength of the union.
Without that, we end up with big urban districts always with their same generic homogenized opinion dominating, and then you'll have Wyoming conflicting, Ohio conflicting, Nebraska conflicting, and no one will agree, and you will shatter everything.
The compact will go into effect only if the cumulative total of the state's electoral votes surpasses the 270 necessary for a majority, which would require states that voted for Donald Trump in 2016 to sign on.
Levin also noted that the pact has a July 20th deadline in order to go into effect for November's general election.
But I'll tell you what, man.
If at any point Republicans take these states back, they'll probably just dissolve this agreement.
It's one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.
It makes no sense.
It's short-sighted and a waste of time.
And they're only doing it because they lost last time.
Or it's because they don't like the... It's an excuse to win.
That's really all it is.
They don't complain when they win the Electoral College or when Obama does with a large margin.
They don't care.
It's only when they lose.
It's an excuse.
They say 15 states and the District of Columbia have joined the compact for a total of 196 electoral votes.
They say most recently Oregon joined last June.
If Virginia were to join with its 13 votes, that would bump up to 209, which would mean if Virginia does approve this, and they might not, they might not.
61 more votes.
The campaign in 2020 may well come down to five or six or seven, five or six or seven states.
That means the vast majority of Americans are left out of the presidential campaign.
And we think that is wrong.
That is insane and makes no sense.
The only way that mattered is if people in California didn't vote at all.
But guess what?
If they didn't, then, listen, man, they're acting like their votes don't exist.
If you get rid of the Electoral College, the same argument could be made.
It doesn't matter what happens because Los Angeles always votes for, you know, the Democrats.
Right.
Literally makes no difference.
The argument that only a handful of states matter acts as though you expect your state to always be blue and that the votes of the people in that state are irrelevant.
That's not true.
You're just blind to history and you can't pay attention.
It is really frustrating how dumb everyone is sometimes, isn't it?
Oh, look at this.
Let me zoom in so you can see this better.
Hopefully you can get the totals.
It's formatted poorly.
What can I say?
Alright, that, there we go, there we go.
Okay, you can't see all of the numbers.
Forgive me, it's zoomed in, but it cropped out.
We can see the Republican and Democratic numbers, and I'll just read you the others.
But I want to show you something important about California.
In 1988, California was Republican with 5 million votes.
Democratic with 4.7, uh, Democrat had 4.7 million votes.
In 1992, there was a major flip.
Mostly, in my opinion, I believe it's probably because of Ross Perot.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure 92 was Ross Perot.
We then had another major independent push in 1996.
Once again, giving the win, or not necessarily.
But if you added up, so right here it says others.
21% of the vote.
If that went to the Republicans, and it's no guarantee it would've, it would've stayed red.
California has only been blue for the past, you know, around 20 or, well, almost 30 years now.
It can change.
It's not guaranteed.
We can see as of 2016, you had 4.4 million Republicans and 8.7 Democratic votes.
They believe this will never change.
They believe they can hold this advantage.
But right now, your argument about people's votes not mattering is somewhat irrelevant.
Ignore the 2016 popular vote counts, and let's go down to the states and the states' ability to decide for themselves.
And you will see 7% of the vote was others.
There are a lot of people, and it's hard to predict, I'll be fair.
There are a lot of people in California who are Republican who have stopped voting.
Notice that in 88 there were 5 million.
With population growth since 1988, you'd imagine today it should at least be bigger, right?
Well, it's not.
Now, it's possible a lot of people left, it's possible younger people are more Democratic, sure.
But the number should, you could argue, there's a lot of reason why it should be up, but it's not.
Well, here's one prediction I would make.
The idea that these states, your vote doesn't matter because your state is guaranteed to vote a certain color.
It's true.
I mean, even I feel it.
Look, I'm in New Jersey.
I don't care.
New Jersey's always blue.
It wasn't always.
Voted for Nixon in 72, huh?
Because people feel like their votes don't count, they don't vote.
But your vote does count.
Because of these numbers, California being 61.48% Democratic, Republicans don't vote.
But what do you think would happen if you go for the popular vote and all of a sudden the Republicans in California, who feel like they'll never beat 8 million, started voting?
It's possible a lot of Democratic voters, too, also don't vote because they're like, I'm gonna win anyway, you know, so who cares?
But I think, it's my opinion, I could be wrong.
There are more blue state Republicans that don't vote than red state Democrats that don't vote.
Wyoming, for instance, is small.
500,000 people live there.
Let's say 10% of the population is Democrat and doesn't vote.
Congratulations, you found yourself 50,000 votes, Democrats.
Good job getting rid of the Electoral College.
Let's say 10% of California is Republicans that don't vote.
Well, the Republicans just found themselves 3.5 million votes.
You see how this works?
In a small red state, Democrats might not vote.
I get it.
In a large blue state, Republicans might not vote.
I think it's fair to say that will swing on them so fast.
And this is partly why a lot of Republicans, there have been a few Republicans calling for getting rid of the Electoral College as well.
Because they're looking at Texas, potentially flipping and saying, we can maintain 5 million votes, might as well go for it.
You'll also light up a ton of voters who normally don't because they think it doesn't matter.
It's true for Democrats, too.
But here's what's gonna happen.
In New Jersey, where I live, people are gonna say, ah, New Jersey's always blue, we're gonna win, I don't care.
Then they're gonna enact this coalition thing, and Republicans are finally gonna go out and vote, and all of a sudden now they're gonna find the Republicans have the majority, because according to Gallup, America is a center-right country.
That's why I believe, based on not just this, That a lot of blue-state Republicans don't vote, and that the numbers are fluffed for Democrats, and they're making a huge mistake.
But you know what?
Far be it from me to tell you what to do.
You do what you want.
In the end, I don't care.
If Republicans aren't going to come out and vote, then so be it.
If they're not able to muster the support, well, then there you go.
You got a challenge ahead of you, but I'll leave it there.
