Tate Brown analyzes MAGA's primary dominance, noting polling confirms Republican loyalty despite online noise. He critiques Vivek Ramaswamy's "propositional nation" concept and Casey Putsch's emotional alienation of evangelicals in Ohio. Brown argues the Iran war serves an intelligence strategy to build an anti-China bloc, advocating a "Dunroe Doctrine" prioritizing national interest over historical alliances. With Republicans shifting from defensive gerrymandering to offensive strategies, the discussion concludes that pragmatic candidates must replace insurgents to secure midterm gains and avoid Democratic victories driven by high gas prices. [Automatically generated summary]
This is Tate Brown here holding it down back on this beautiful Wednesday afternoon.
Obviously, it is now the afternoon.
I'm your host, Tate Brown, taking you from the morning to the afternoon on the Rumble Daily lineup.
Very pleased to be back with you guys today.
It's been raining out.
It's been raining.
The roads are wet.
I have to take my time on the drive.
A whole litany of complications that come with rain.
It's a bit stuffy in here, obviously.
It's neither here nor there.
We're powering through, but I had to throw on shorts.
The twigs are out.
I don't know what's going on, but things are getting wacky and wild.
Over here, just outside of our nation's capital.
With that, we have some massive stories, obviously.
The big story, you guys probably already saw, the headline of today's show was the redistricting, sorry, rather, the primary fight last night.
So there was a litany of primaries, primarily focused on Indiana.
That was where most of everyone's eyeballs were going towards.
There was also some high profile primaries, like in Ohio, the gubernatorial primaries took place.
And everything in Ohio went to be expected.
I think everyone expected Vivek to win.
Indiana is where, you know, who knew?
The jury was kind of out.
You know, people didn't know.
You know, I'll say this about the Indiana primary fight many people kind of viewed this as a referendum on, you know, where is the median moderate Republican, maybe not moderate, but where's the median Republican, what's their feelings on Trump?
You know, because the online rhetoric, online discourse has been everyone feels betrayed by Trump and they're done with Trump and da We're going to vote for the Democrats.
We're going to do this, that, and the other.
Indiana seemed to reinforce what a lot of polling is indicating, whether you like it or not.
Polling is indicating that the overwhelming majority of Republicans are still supporters of Donald Trump.
It's kind of an interesting thing.
So, there's kind of two things happening here it's simultaneously true that nothing is confined to Twitter anymore.
Like what happens on Twitter does sort of extend out into the political world and the world at large.
My evidence for this is that everyone knows what looks maxing is now.
And this was something that was typically a Only found on the most hidden of forums on the internet, bodybuilding forums, you know, 10 years ago or so.
So there is truth to the claim that yes, X, what happens on X, Twitter, does impact the zeitgeist quite extensively.
I think that is true.
But it is also true that the majority of people aren't getting their takes from Twitter, so to speak.
They're not getting their opinions from Twitter.
The general discourse is being steered by Twitter.
But as far as how people actually evaluate politics, it's typically not occurring on Twitter.
The most obvious explanation for that is because the overwhelming majority of people are not on Twitter.
They're not on X, right?
You know, these are people that maybe, I don't know, maybe some of them have an account, but the average Twitter user makes up, I don't know, 5% of the population, certainly of the electorate.
So again, we're not in a bubble.
I don't think we're in a bubble.
I don't think so at all, actually.
Like I said, I do think X does impact the zeitgeist.
I do think that X dictates policy.
So I think a lot of Trump's policies are because a lot of his staffers are on X. They're reading ideas, policy proposals, et cetera, et cetera.
But I don't think people are formulating their political philosophy on X.
I think that's just true.
And we saw that last night in Indiana.
Again, whatever your take is on Trump, it's kind of tough to deny the results last night.
So we'll take a look at that.
We'll take a look at some more.
We had the obviously the redistricting knife fight is still underway, but the Republicans are going offense.
You know, I can't believe it, quite frankly.
I thought for sure, you know, we were going to get steamrolled in this whole.
You know, chicken with the train sort of situation, but it looks like the Republicans have emerged or are emerging from this redistricting fight with the upper hand.
I think it's really a sight to behold.
A few other stories we'll get to if we have time.
We'll be joined at halftime by Wade Searle of Life Site News.
If you don't know him, he's a fantastic reporter.
Again, Life Site News is a prominent sort of Catholic magazine.
And he has been, correctly, I think, clocking Christopher Hale's tea.
Now, if you don't know who Christopher Hale is, he's this like Democrat apparatchik who has sort of appointed himself as a spokesperson for American Catholicism.
And he just is constantly posting.
I guess you could call it misinformation because he posits a kernel of truth.
He'll post a soundbite, he'll post a quote, but then he'll extrapolate so much information from said quote or moment or whatever that whatever is actually being presented to the public is just not true whatsoever.
So Wade Searle corrected the record.
Christopher Ailey had posted this thread claiming that Marco Rubio is a.
Mormon, he's a Mormon, and that he attends an evangelical church.
Um, it's just laughable on its face, but we're going to bring on Wade at halftime, and he's going to discuss all of this kind of what is going on with sort of liberal Christianity, liberal Catholicism.
We'll get into all of that.
So, I'm very excited for that.
Obviously, I brought on Redeem Zoomer yesterday.
So, you know, to keep things fair, you know, we'll bring on a Catholic.
I think that's only fair.
I'm just joking.
I think both these guys have a lot to add.
So, with that, let's get into this first story.
Uh, this is from Zachary Danini.
He is the head of data science for Vote Hub.
Vote Hub has been a pretty good resource throughout a lot of these election battles, primaries, et cetera, et cetera.
And he posted here it's been a wipeout so far in Indiana.
So, obviously, last night in Indiana, there was a slate of primaries to determine their state Senate nominees.
And Trump weighed in.
It's common that Trump will endorse candidates in a lot of these primaries.
Again, I think Trump's sort of The ultimate way to determine who he's going to endorse are there's two instances in which he'll endorse three instances.
So, the first instance, and this is the most common reason he'll endorse a candidate, is simply because he perceives that they are the heavy favorite.
Now, the reason he's doing that is because he cares about his record.
He's like a boxer, he wants a good record.
If you have a losing record, it reflects poorly on you.
And I think that's the primary reason.
And he's not necessarily rare for doing that, but the Trump endorsement carries.
So much more gravitas than any previous presidential endorsement, purely because he is seen and correctly so as the torchbearer of MAGA.
And obviously, MAGA has been this insurgent movement inside the Republican Party for 10 years.
I don't need to get into all that.
You understand why a Trump endorsement is different than any sort of previous president's endorsement.
It's a stamp of approval.
And a lot of voters look to Trump as the tastemaker of MAGA.
And, you know, people have criticized that.
People have pointed out that he's made some pretty poor endorsements over the years.
And I think that is very fair, to be honest with you.
I think it's very fair.
And the second, so the first one I don't necessarily think is rare.
The second one, the second reason why he may endorse a candidate is he perceives them as more loyal to him.
So there's a common frustration among a lot of people that Trump will endorse a candidate that's less ideologically aligned than another candidate, even if this candidate is favorable.
You know, a good example of this is in the Kentucky race for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky.
You know, everyone was saying, you know, one candidate was going to be the ticket.
You know, he's ideologically aligned.
And then the other candidate was a bit more of an establishment chill.
Now, Trump started obviously weighing in and effectively was looking to endorse the not so aligned candidate.
I mean, he's still going to be fine.
He's being an upgrade for Mitch McConnell, I suppose.
But, you know, a lot of people ask why that may be.
There's a variety of reasons.
Again, one of them is that Trump wants to play ball with Congress.
Trump, you know, is looking for loyalty.
And again, I'm not like, I think this is a bad endorsement.
That's with Nate Morris.
I think he's fantastic.
It looks like he's not going to endorse Nate Morris and then he's going to give him a gig in the White House.
So he's still, you know, not destroying this guy.
Clearly, it's friendly.
No, you know, there's plenty of love there.
But the reason Trump is doing so is what I imagine, and this is what some reporting has indicated, is that the Senate leadership will go to President Trump and say, We want this guy in.
He's going to be easier to work with, et cetera.
And Trump, not wanting to rock the boat with the Senate, because again, as it stands now, he can barely get anything passed.
He says, OK, it might be more worthwhile to endorse the more establishment candidate.
You can disagree with that strategy.
I think I do.
I think it's best to just, again, pick your ideological firebrands that align with you because they actually might be more useful at pushing.
Other senators in your direction.
The counter argument could be maybe he knows something about, I don't know, his temperament and that maybe he's not capable of doing that.
I don't know.
All that to be said, that's the two reasons Trump primarily endorses candidates.
And again, I don't think it's great, but it is what it is.
You've got to take the good with the bad.
The third reason he may endorse a candidate is actually for ideological reasons.
If he just absolutely hates a senator or a House member, if he absolutely hates them, then he'll endorse their opponent, regardless of who they're associated with, what they're used to.
Utility is what their usefulness would be, um, what their ideological alignment is.
You're seeing this right now, for example, in Kentucky with Thomas Massey, where Trump hates Thomas Massey's guts, and so he's getting behind his primary challenger.
Now, again, he doesn't really pass the first, you know, this gentleman running against Thomas Massey doesn't necessarily pass the uh, the first two bars, but he does for sure pass the third bar, which is he's running against someone that Trump hates.
So, those are the three reasons that, um, you know, you might see Trump.
You know, lop an endorsement over to someone.
And to be fair, I think he's learned for better or for worse that sometimes his endorsement can sink a Republican.
And that's very specific instances.
But a good example is Spencer Pratt running for mayor in Los Angeles.
You know, Spencer Pratt would be great for Los Angeles for a variety of reasons, primarily because Karen Bass is horrible.
She's like literally a moron.
And she's getting outflanked to the left in her own battle.
So there's like this Indian lady running, you know, it's going to be like Zoran 2.0.
Running for mayor of Los Angeles.
Now, if Trump weighs in and endorses Spencer Pratt, that'll sink him like a rock in that election.
Because again, this is a very liberal city, obviously.
You know, hasn't voted for a Republican.
I think the last Republican they voted for was Reagan in 84.
Things have obviously changed quite a bit in Los Angeles.
So it's fair to say that, again, if Trump like got by, you know, some people are like, why won't Trump get behind Spencer Pratt?
It's like, because he's being pragmatic.
Trump needs to stay as far away from this race as possible.
If anything, he should take the Zoran approach with Karen Bass.
He actually had Karen Bass, he hosted her recently, and you were seeing some more leftist elements in Los Angeles who were furious.
They're like, why are you courting Hitler 2.0, Orange Hitler, or whatever?
And that has actually galvanized the base to support this more left wing, leftist candidate.
So Trump should just stay out of it.
If anything, he should try and sandbag Karen Bass because that might open up more moderates who may just pull the lever for Spencer Pratt because he's running a pretty good campaign so far.
I'm just being, you know, trying to be fair and neutral.
You know, he's not running as a, like, okay, you know, a lot of Republicans have this problem when they run in blue areas, they run to the as far right as, you know, possible within the Overton window.
The reason they do that is because they're so radicalized by how bad Democrat dominated municipalities are that they just want to counter signal as hard as possible.
And I sympathize with that, you know, like, I lived in New York City for five years.
Like, trust me, I am on board.
And I do think there's a point to be made that, Conservatives that live in deep blue areas are typically the most radical purely because they're constantly on the receiving end of horrible policy, and that can have quite the galvanizing effect.
Spencer Pratt is being wise, he's being pragmatic.
He's not really talking about national issues.
This is what Zoran actually found some success with a lot of politicians in New York City will constantly chime in on national policy, on international policy, and Zoran just consistently points back and says, Here's what I'm going to do for New York City.
It was horrible.
You know, his policy positions are horrible, but there's something to be said about that.
I mean, the primary, rather, the primary debate between, or, you know, the mayoral debate between Cuomo, it was Cuomo, Adams, Sliwa, and Memdani.
You know, they asked this question what would be the first country you would visit when you become mayor?
And Cuomo and Adams both said Israel.
I don't know what Sliwa said.
I don't remember what Sliwa said.
Probably something off the wall, maybe somewhere with a large cat population.
And then Memdani just said, I wouldn't, Leave.
I would just stay in New York City.
And once I saw that clip, I was like, it's over.
Mandani's probably going to win because that's just a fantastic answer, quite frankly.
That's something both Republicans and Democrats can learn is, you know, Israel or whoever else, like, let's just focus on your constituents.
I think that's very valid.
I mean, we had a gentleman on the show last night who obviously is supporting the effort to dethrone Lindsey Graham.
And yeah, Lindsey Graham's one of these types where I know every single aspect of his foreign policy, but I don't actually know what he's done for South Carolina.
So, all that to be said, Let's just jump right into this first story.
Obviously, this is as we were speaking from Danini.
Trump backed Republicans are steamrolling the anti redistricting faction inside the GOP caucus tonight, sending a clear warning to Republican legislators in red states across the country keep blue states at your own risk.
As you're seeing here, again, Republican Trump endorsed candidates were steamrolling last night.
Now, there's two reasons that was happening.
Obviously, one was the Trump endorsement, which does still benefit a lot of these local, but Trump is still very popular.
I know, like on Twitter, everyone is like fed up with him or whatever.
But You know, at the grassroots level, Trump is still very popular.
There's nothing you can really do about that if you're a Trump opponent.
It is what it is.
He's delivered on a litany of policies that are important to people.
And overall, they just feel like he represents them better than anyone else in the GOP.
And yeah, I mean, I would sort of sympathize with that.
So the Trump endorsement still does carry some weight.
But in addition to that, the specific Senate members that were up for reelection were anti redistricting candidates.
And that was, if you look in the press in Indiana, that was.
Where a lot of these primary battles were centered around was why are you not going on offense?
Why are we constantly on our back foot?
And it just resulted.
I mean, look, Christopher Hines or Haynes here.
I'm not entirely sure to pronounce his last name here.
He said tonight is turning into a total landslide for MAGA in Indiana.
Rhino Greg Walker is on the verge of losing his primary as well.
Four incumbents are heading for defeat at the moment.
Michelle Davis here, obviously just stomping Greg Walker.
Now, you may be saying, oh, well, You know, it's 300 votes.
That's a five point swing.
That's not a bloodbath.
For incumbents in state Senate races to get primaried at this volume, yeah, that's a landslide.
That's a blowout.
So it is what it is.
Scott Greer had some great commentary.
I feel like I read one of his tweets every show.
It's almost like the Scott Greer co host show.
Great take.
Megan Basham, I love her to death.
I think she's fantastic, but she had some commentary here and she said, you know, Kaliza was saying Donald Trump remains the king of the Republican Party.
And then Basham says, wrong lesson Republican voters chose Trump because they were.
Tired of feeling like their leadership had no interest in beating the Democrats.
They were tired of feeling like even when they won, they lost.
The shellacking tonight didn't happen because of Trump.
His candidates have lost before.
It happened because the base is tired of settling for representation, content with losing slowly.
I think there's some truth in that, but Scott Greer weighs in here, and I think this is correct.
I think this is an important asterisk to add to her tweet.
Scott said, hardly any of these candidates would have lost their races without Trump endorsing their opponent.
Their betrayal was made clear to voters through those Trump endorsements.
Pretending the endorsements didn't matter is wishful thinking.
So.
I absolutely agree.
I think that's ultimately what was going on there, and I think that's a fair assessment to make.
Bumba Dum, great poster, fantastic poster.
He added some commentary onto the Christians tweet that I had read earlier.
This is how you stick it to the GOP, by the way.
You don't vote for Democrats, you vote out the rhinos refusing to do their job.
This is, I think, the correct take to have here because you are 100% valid and not even wanting to reward a lot of these Republicans with your vote in a general election.
That's completely fair.
I understand that sentiment.
You can't go backwards to move forwards.
I think that would be the assessment here.
I've made the case multiple times why I think this is just a bad strategy.
And I'm not going to get on here and call people retards or idiots for, you know, sort of flirting with this, you know, flirting with this idea.
I just do think that politically it is not wise.
I think it would just put us, set us back.
Like, again, if you are in the camp where it's like, let's punish the Democrats in 2020, or sorry, punish the Republicans in 2026 midterms and then vote in a Republican in 2028, it's going to be much more difficult with a.
Democrat Congress, because again, once that president gets elected, there's not much he's going to be able to do.
So, again, it's better to stick with the devil you know versus the devil you don't know.
I brought on, you know, South African gentleman Ernst von Ziel, Conscious Caracal, and he kind of laid out why South Africa has not seen a sort of galvanizing of the right wing whatsoever.
He's only seen, South Africa's only seen just the menu for liberal candidates expand, left wing Marxist candidates expand, while the share of the population that would vote for a right wing party.
Has just shrunk precipitously because you're not just talking, it's not like the electorate stays the same and then you can like make adjustments.
The Democrats alter the demographics of the country to make it more favorable for their party to win elections.
So that's kind of the reason why I'm just so hesitant to utilize the strategies because, again, the Democrats, what we saw under Biden, where they flooded in, you know, upwards of 20, 30 million illegal migrants, even if it's 10 million illegals, still massively alters the demographic composition of the country, which again affects elections actually.
Pretty directly, exhibit A, Los Angeles.
So I agree with this consensus.
I think it's a good take.
Prowler, he's a great poster here.
He said, There's a two part lesson in Indiana.
The Republican Party, however bad it can be at times, is something we can work with and improve, which is absolutely true.
I just made the case again.
The Republican Party is at least ideologically in the same neighborhood, right?
Even the establishment GOP is ideologically still in vaguely the same neighborhood as us, where the Democrat Party, you would basically need to rip it to its studs and rebuild it from the ground level, which I just don't think is possible because at this point, It's a multi ethnic, kind of left wing coalition, and there's just not really much room.
Left wingers hate right wingers, by the way.
Like, what utility would left wingers even have for right wingers?
They think we're all racists and Nazis.
This idea that, like, we could build some sort of left right coalition, you know, like, you know, rise above the political compass and then, you know, have like this broader populist movement quickly falls apart when you just simply ask the question, what would the left gain from that?
Because, again, the left is pretty radicalized at this point, and they're able to achieve electoral victories without moderating their platforms whatsoever.
Abigail Spanberger, case in point.
So, Okay, even if the Republicans or right wingers agreed to this, not Republicans, but if right wingers agreed to this, why would the left wingers agree to this?
What would they have to gain from this?
Because they hate us.
You know, it is what it is.
I just hate this tendency that right wingers have where they feel like they need their beliefs validated by left wingers in order for those beliefs to be valid.
You see this all the time.
Like, for example, when any celebrity or athlete says something even vaguely right wing or conservative, they immediately, like, you know, hoist this guy up as our champion or whatever.
And they get burned every single time.
And I think the reason this is happening is because the left wing is still, for the most part, in the driver's seat of culture.
And so, you know, a lot of people, a lot of people on the right just feel a bit of insecurity and they feel like, yes, I need a left winger to be valid.
I need Anna Kasparian to validate my, you know, my beliefs.
So then that way I know that they're popular.
It's appealing to the hive mind consensus, right?
You feel like you're on an island if you don't feel like your beliefs are being represented in the mainstream.
So then you look for people in the mainstream that can validate your beliefs.
And that's.
On the ultimate culmination of that sort of thinking, and this happens at the very bottom level, this happens with like black people, right?
Where, you know, the primary reason Candace Owens got hired or became large in the first place was because she was saying all the same things that, you know, a generic conservative would say, but she was a black woman, and we don't have very many of those.
And it's like validating to see someone that's not you, you know, parrot your beliefs.
That's very, you know, it is what it is.
That's at like the ground level.
Now, the culmination of that way of thinking is, Well, maybe left wingers might see, you know, if left wingers really just sat down and talked to me and heard me out, maybe they'd realize we actually have a lot more in common than you'd think.
Not the reality at all.
No serious left winger is entertaining any sort of alliance with the right.
The only people that the left will like tactically, sorry, the only left wingers that will like tactically ally with right wingers are like crazy people, like actually crazy people that really don't have much power and they're just effectively useless for us anyway.
So it's just not worthwhile.
The high profile party switches that we've seen, like RFK and Tulsi, were effectively known for one ideological stance.
So I don't consider them dyed in the wool left wingers.
I mean, Tulsi Gabbard had fairly conservative social positions her whole career.
RFK, in his instance, no one even knows what his politics are outside of Maha.
And I don't think anyone really cares because, again, these are kind of more like renegades.
I don't think renegades really classify in this discussion that we're making.
We're talking about allying with left wing bureaucrats to create some sort of left right coalition.
I could go on and on about why that's a disaster, a disastrous idea.
Again, what does the left gain from it, et cetera?
Also, they're not going to give us any of the policies that we want.
If we come together and form a policy cocktail for the right, the majority of right wingers, their primary issue is immigration.
And what universe is the left who literally champions abolishing ICE and celebrated when ICE agents were almost excited and celebrating when those ICE agents shot the people in Minneapolis because they were like, finally, we now have a reason to.
Call for the abolition of ICE.
On what planet does, like a Graham Platner, for example, ally with the right wing and then drop his immigration positions?
It's not going to happen because the North Star for left wingers is they hate white people.
That's just the primary reason that they even operate in the political spectrums that they do, is because fundamentally everything points back to the fact that they just hate white people.
And so I don't understand if you get into a coalition, you get into an alliance, what policies do the right have that are like threatening to the left that they would actually pick up and say, all right, well, we got to break bread?
No, they just would rather take power and then rule forever.
They don't need us.
They don't need us.
And I don't know why right wingers think we need them, you know?
That we have two completely different temperaments, two completely different worldviews, two completely different instances of morality and ethics.
I mean, I could go on and on and on.
Two different demographics, quite frankly.
So, again, I just don't understand where people are getting this philosophical disposition from.
Granted, I don't think it's a very popular one.
I think it's primarily an online thing.
That being said, it's still a problem because, for example, Tucker Carlson, who I mean, I still like Tucker as a guy.
I mean, I've extracted a lot of value from him over the years.
But this arc that he's on right now, where he was doing the interview with the New York Times and he was like, you know, Graham Plattner's interesting.
You know, I disagree with his immigration stance, but, you know, these guys are interesting.
And it's like, with all due respect, that's just not going to work in practice.
It's just not going to work.
You know, it's nice.
It's nice to have this sort of idea that we get this kumbaya moment, like take it to the elites, but it's just not how it works.
These people hate us and they would kill us all if they had the option, if they could get away with it.
So it's neither here nor there.
One thing I wanted to point out, speaking about Los Angeles, A governor for California, I would argue the leading gubernatorial candidate in California, although the polling doesn't necessarily reflect that yet.
Right now, there's still two Republicans on top.
Tom Steyer is tied with Chad Bianco in some polling.
I imagine Katie Porter will eventually rise to the top of the gubernatorial election polling at some point, but now I'm a little bit skeptical.
Look at this ad.
This is what I mean, why this is our ideological opponents.
This might be one of the worst political ads I've ever seen in my entire life.
Take a look at this clip.
Oh, I would say take a look at this clip, but I have the tab muted, I guess.
This could cause a problem for our interview portion if we don't have audio feeding through.
That could be an issue.
That could be a major issue.
I don't know what's going on with that.
That'll be interesting.
We'll get to the interview.
If we can't wrap it up, I'll go away for a split second, grab a producer, we'll sort out the audio, and then we'll move on.
Anyway.
Horrible ad.
Go watch it.
What's it?
At Keith Edwards has it.
At a loss for words, this is bad.
This is very bad.
I think that's fair to say this is very bad.
So I'm going to set the table here for this interview with Waits Searle.
He's fantastic, great, great guy, patriot.
I met him in person a few times, I believe, and he's a great guy.
He's a really great guy.
So I'm really happy to bring him in for this interview.
He put this post up here of Christopher Hale, just consistently just like lying all the time.
This guy's just lying all the time.
It's unbelievable what's going on.
He's literally just a clinical liar.
Let me see.
Maybe it's the audio here.
That could be what it was.
I don't know.
But audio wasn't feeding into the computer, so I think that might have been what's going on.
Anyway, you know, someone, you know, Marco, so Marco Rubio being dispatched to the Vatican over and above JD Vance is a huge story.
This guy says, actually, quite politically savvy.
Marco is also Catholic, but Hispanic and fluent in Spanish.
He has the perfect high ranking administration official to have meet and negotiate with the Holy Father, given both of their respective sympathies.
And I think that's broadly true, and that could be where the Trump administration's head is at.
But then Christopher Hale comes in and he says, no, Marco Rubio is a Mormon and currently attends an evangelical church, which is just like not true on its face.
Wait, Searle says Mark Rubio is Catholic, not Mormon, which is true.
I don't even know what he's talking about.
Christopher Hale, the man pushing this lie, also pushed a story in April claiming Pentagon official Elbridge Colby had threatened Cardinal Pierre in a January 2026 meeting, which turned out to be fake.
What is Hale's goal here?
Who funds him?
So I think we'll get into who funds him with the guest.
But let me see if I have audio first before we get into the interview, because that's ultimately going to make or break this interview.
Let's see here.
Hey, Wade, can you hear me?
Okay, I have an audio issue on my end.
I'm going to sort it out real quick and I'll come and grab you, all right?
All right, gentlemen, and one or two ladies that are watching, I'm going to go see what I can do and get this audio tweaked, and I'll be back with you here shortly.
There's been some sort of technical issue where it's not just audio not feeding in from the browser.
There's, I think, an audio card failure of some sort.
So there's not any audio coming from the computer at all.
So unfortunately, we have to shelve our interview with Wade.
So I think what we'll do is maybe like pre-record a separate interview and then we'll have him on next week as well.
Because the story that he was talking about is quite fascinating.
And so my apologies to Wade.
I know it takes time out of your day.
So terribly sorry.
But make sure you go follow Wade Searle.
Hang on, let me pull up his, because this dude, I mean, he's one of the best.
He really is one of the best.
Let me pull up his twatter here.
And then, like, we will bring him on next week, so don't worry.
But make sure you go follow him at Wade Searle underscore.
Go follow him, flood him with followers.
I want to see him at 30,000 followers by EOD.
But we'll get him next week.
I'm not worried.
We'll get him.
We'll catch him.
So with that, we're just going to keep moving along here.
I still have a lot of stories we can get to.
So, we were touching on before the unfortunate technical issue, we were touching on the primary results and sort of what those indicate about the state of the GOP, et cetera, et cetera.
Let me load up, let me load up Upper Deck unit quick so I can make it to the second half.
That's the only way I can actually get through the second half of the show is if I load back up the luxury box.
So, with that, let's move on over one state over from Indiana to Ohio.
If you're still here, Give us what your thoughts are in Vivek and chat.
The polling was indicating it was going to be a washout for KCE Putsch.
You know, here's the thing here's my take on the whole Ohio gubernatorial race.
Vivek, I made my position on him quite clear.
I think he's a snake.
I really don't like him.
I'm sure as a guy, he's probably nice.
I'm sure he's like a good dude, I suppose.
And, like, I'm sure if we'd met, I mean, he'd be a friendly guy.
So, I don't want to disparage him as a man.
I'm saying as a politician, I think he is subversive.
And again, I've made this case multiple times.
If you've watched the show, you're familiar with it.
If you're even a Tim Cast IRL viewer, you're familiar with it because I've made this case on the show multiple times.
I think rhetorically, he is taking us back to like 2010.
He's taking us back to 2010.
He is pushing back on any rhetoric whatsoever that would sort of solidify the concept that America is a nation.
That it's not a propositional nation.
And what is a propositional nation?
That it's the talking point people use when they're advocating for a propositional nation is they'll say, well, America is not a distinct people.
It's an idea, right?
America is an idea.
The implication of that, obviously, being that if you're born and raised in the Congo, but as long as you have those American ideas, then you're functionally an American.
And the problem with that line of thinking is typically the people that will push the propositional nation.
Angle the people that will postulate that America is simply an idea.
We're not actually a distinct people or nation.
What they'll do is they will sort of outline what actually they think makes an American.
And typically it's very vague.
And in Vivek's case, it's very vague because at least a lot of these propositional nation advocates will say that Christianity is a core tenet of what it means to be an American.
But in Vivek's case, he can't even say that because he's not.
He's not Christian.
He's Hindu and he's a devout Hindu at that.
Sort of the postulations that he'll make is like, oh, well, you know, the American idea is people that love freedom and liberty.
Okay.
Well, that's like 90% of the world.
Sorry, that's like 90% of the world.
That's why the entire world is trying to move to the United States, by the way.
That's what we have if we open the borders, 30, 40 million people just pouring into the country.
Because the entire world, for the most part, there are exceptions, obviously, but by and large, most people in the world do crave freedom and do crave liberty and do crave good governance.
I mean, hello.
That's very obvious.
Now, the problem with that is these people that crave freedom, crave liberty, crave good governance don't often behave in ways that would facilitate those ideas being supported at the government level.
Case in point immigrants typically vote for the Democrat Party.
By large numbers.
So, you know, I'm reliably told that, again, you know, everyone is just seeking freedom and liberty, better life, good governance, et cetera.
But they don't vote in a way that would indicate that they truly have a strong philosophical understanding of what undergirds those values that they, you know, these people claim that they do.
So there's a myriad of issues with the propositional nation, the primary one being that it just separates the world between Americans and future Americans.
Which is a huge issue, huge problem for, again, for a variety of reasons that I've examined on the show multiple times.
That being said, Vic is not proposing any political positions that would be actually seriously threatening to the left in any meaningful way.
I think this is the ultimate way to discern if a politician is going to be good, effective, and good for us, good for ideas at pushing the football down the field, and a politician that will be useless.
And you don't necessarily have to be an establishment shill to be useless.
Be of a wide variety of stripes to be useless.
Now, Casey Putch, while I do think he's a genuine guy, and I do think to a degree he's well meaning, I do think he would ultimately be useless.
And that may be a harsh word to say, but I think it's accurate.
My primary reasoning for that is I mean, this is the way he conducts himself.
So he posted on Twitter here was my MAGA flag.
This is how Trump voters feel.
How does everyone in America get their country back from all these left and right?
Psycho billionaires.
So he posted this, you know, if he posted this during the Iran war, you know, you might be able to write it off and say, well, maybe he's part of this coalition of like MAGA OGs that are just frustrated with the direction that Trump has taken this country and therefore they're outraged.
One, like burning your flag is just kind of gay.
B, he was doing this in like the middle of last summer.
So this is what is like probably around the time of the initial Iran strike when everyone was still on board by and large.
And that initial strike ended up being fairly inconsequential.
Like Iran didn't retaliate.
We did, you know, land a lick on their nuclear program.
Obviously, you know, obviously we went back into Iran, but this was just, it's just catty.
This is something you would expect to see from libtards.
When you post something like this, right, when you post something like this, it does not have the intended effect.
The intended effect is that Trump, Trump supporters, Trump admin staffers will see that and go, wow, we need to change course.
Holy crap.
Like these, these, you know, well to do conservatives are fed up with the way, you know, I'm governing.
But That's the intended effect.
The actual effect is they say this guy is just a crazy person.
I don't need to listen to him.
And liptards will amplify your post to undermine Trump.
Because part of the reason a lot of these people that have turned on Trump, these high profile people that have turned on Trump, are receiving so much engagement, they're receiving so much viewership, et cetera, et cetera, is because the incentive structure since 2016 has always bended towards hating Trump.
So as long as you hate Trump, you will be rewarded.
That incentive structure has never changed.
What's happened is the people that populate the anti Trump coalition has changed, right?
So you have a lot of people that are formerly MAGA that are now anti Trump.
They hate Trump, they're burning the flags or whatever.
They just fall right into a well established incentive structure.
And that incentive structure is to hate Trump.
No room for nuance.
There's a lot of people that I like, that I respect, that are not happy at all with the direction Trump has gone.
But their critiques of Trump are still tempered.
They're not emotional.
They're constructive.
And they're able to effectively apply pressure.
I won't name names.
I don't want to blow up their spot.
But there's people in the admin.
I think this is really the key here there's people in the admin.
That listen to these guys because they know they're not emotional crazy people.
And that when they apply, when they have critiques, when they have concerns with aspects of the Trump agenda, these staffers will listen.
And if they have the wherewithal, they will alter course.
That is true.
And there's a litany of, I mean, I can name them, there's dozens of them that are high profile that will tactically apply pressure to the Trump administration.
And it does sometimes culminate in policy change, sometimes it doesn't.
Probably above any of our decision making processes.
There's not much you can really do about that, unfortunately, because again, this has just been a goal of the establishment for 40, 50 years now.
The entire, I mean, the idea that Trump just woke up and was like, you know what, Israel told me to, so I'm going to blow up Iran.
First of all, we assembled the largest fleet, largest armada in history around Iran prior to any missiles being launched indicates that this was the culmination of a 40 year long. Pincer movement that we've been putting on Iran.
If you look at every one of our decisions in the Middle East from the 90s until now, it has all been about containing Iran.
There's different sort of geopolitical fields of thought as to why this is.
So, obviously, there's a contingent that are just outright Zionists, Israel maximalists.
And their reasoning, their intention for toppling Iran is because it would make Israel the unrivaled sort of power in the Middle East and would allow them to run the show, right?
That was sort of the conventional thinking.
And I think that.
I think the Zionist sort of contingent makes up the largest proportion of elected bureaucrats that are in favor of the Iran war that have been clamoring to go through war with Iran.
It's primarily ideological.
It's primarily has to do with their, you know, vehement support for Israel.
And I mean, I've made my position clear.
I think it's disgusting.
I do think that it is true that Israel does wield quite a bit of outsized power in the United States.
Partially, yes, there is a large Israel lobby, but I also think there's a large contingent of Christian Zionists, I think that's undeniable.
You know, people will commonly cite dispensationalism as the cause for that.
But I think it's actually larger than that.
I think there are multiple different reasons why the Christian Zionists exist.
I don't think it's purely dispensationalism.
In Ted Cruz's case, it is.
But, you know, there are a lot of explanations that Christians give for why they support Israel.
One explanation I commonly hear, especially from people that are DC apparatchiks matter of fact, the person I heard this from is a devout Catholic.
Is they contested, he contested that his primary reason for supporting Israel is because they protect Christian sites, right?
They develop and protect the Christian historical sites.
So I'm not downplaying the role that dispensationalism has and, you know, the Christian, specifically evangelical support for Israel.
I am just contesting that that is the primary reason why any Christian would support Israel.
Again, I've heard a variety of reasons why they would.
Again, I mean, my position I've made clear I am fairly, I think I take the Truman Eisenhower approach.
I think maybe just a dual arms embargo.
Cut our losses.
And my reasoning for that is not because I'm strictly anti Israel.
I think I would rather, I think I more take the position of we should treat them like any other player in that region.
That is the Don Roe Doctrine.
The Don Roe Doctrine is whatever 20th century alliances we had should not, the priorities of those 20th century alliances should not be prioritized above America's national interest.
So America's national interest under the Don Roe Doctrine is every time we're at the negotiating table with any country, regardless of if it's Israel, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, it doesn't matter.
You have to assume that that country, their negotiators are looking out for For their people's interests.
Therefore, we should respond and do the same.
And then, in addition to that, the Don Roe Doctrine, another aspect of that, another plank, so to speak, is that your bargaining power, right?
Your ability, your agility, your ability to negotiate, your ability to extract things out of the negotiations is determined on the country's strength.
So, this is why Trump is perceived to be sort of friendly to Putin, friendly to Xi Jinping, friendly to Kim Jong Un.
Primarily because, again, he just does respect their ability to sort of.
Impose world power, their ability to mobilize.
That's what he respects.
And then you see a lot of our historic allies, they don't have an ability to project power in any meaningful way.
We saw this with Ukraine.
A lot of them tried to support Ukraine and it didn't result in any meaningful deterrence.
And so Trump, in turn, will say, Look, I love you guys.
I love your people.
Like with Britain, for example, he loves the British people.
He loves the monarchy.
He loves British institutions.
But as far as his relationship with Keir Starmer and the Labour government of Britain, he doesn't respect them very much.
And it all fits in line with the Dunro Doctrine.
That's why Israel is sort of a question mark.
Well, why does Israel seem to get favorable treatment?
Now, I do think there's some indications that Trump, actually, I know this is like, you know, probably a very unpopular position to take, but I think it's broadly true Trump has told Israel no in multiple instances.
He's clearly demonstrated frustration with Netanyahu specifically.
Obviously, the Iran war.
I think the Iran war, primarily from the Intel perspective, so from the perspective of our Intel apparatus, is an anti China.
Block, power block.
The whole Abraham Accords, right?
The whole Abraham Accords, which again was like a 30, 40 year long project of the Intel apparatus, was primarily about developing a posture against China, right?
It was about developing a posture against China in the Middle East.
And then Iran was sort of further entrenching their alliance with China.
The Belt and Road Initiative, China gobbles up Iranian exports, specifically energy exports.
So again, the United States, the Intel apparatus, Their perspective had less to do with Israel, more to do with containing China.
And what you've actually seen, and you saw this under the Biden administration, is to a degree under Obama, but especially in the Biden administration, was borderline hostility towards Netanyahu because that was the perception of the intel community Netanyahu specifically, not just Israel, but Netanyahu specifically, sort of the way that he conducts affairs and foreign policy is it forced our posture in the Middle East to be Netanyahu centric.
When the goal of the Intel apparatus was to make it an anti China bloc that stretches from Europe through the Middle East all the way down to Southeastern Asia and Eastern Asia, forming one big kind of rope, one big lasso around China and their allies.
So you had two motivating factors that led to the Iran war.
And all that to be said, it culminated in, well, a hot war, which we're now, what, seven, eight weeks in?
I think we're seven weeks in, well past the deadline.
Can you imagine the wipeout, the Democrat wipeout that would have occurred in the midterms without Enron War, if gas prices were still cheap?
Unbelievable.
I think if he gets out and, you know, gets out with somewhat favorable conditions or at least, you know, gives us instances where we can claim victory over Iran, I mean, we did kill their leader, then I think the American people will sort of tolerate that.
People's memory is quite short.
And again, it takes just a high profile political incident to occur before the midterms to, again, swing the electorate towards the Republicans.
I don't think it's that difficult.
That being said, Casey Putsch would be an example of someone that was operating more emotionally, right?
He's operating more emotionally.
He's like, I feel betrayed by President Trump.
Again, whatever your take is aside, a lot of voters don't respond to that.
A lot of voters, the majority of Republican voters have been primed to perceive any emotional opposition to President Trump as effectively adversarial.
They have been primed, and you can argue if that's good or bad.
That doesn't matter.
What we're debating, what we're contesting here is the facts on the ground, the reality.
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of Republicans have been conditioned, have been primed to perceive any emotional opposition to President Trump.
As adversarial.
That means friend enemy distinction.
That's primarily what this comes down to.
So, Casey Putsch, he could have ran.
Again, I think he's like a genuine guy.
He could have ran and conducted himself in a way where he could have contested certain aspects of the Trump agenda.
He could have contested the Iran war and he could have been quite useful.
I mean, I think we need more high profile Republicans that are elected officials that are sort of saying, let's wrap this war up.
This has been a nightmare.
That's not what Casey Putch did.
This poster here, I don't know much about him, but I thought this was a good point.
Responding to Casey Putch's emotional crash out.
Dude, this is why you lost.
Knock it off.
You brought this shite on yourself being a semi Democrat.
Again, that's my point with how Republicans perceive emotional criticism of Trump.
Democrats are always united, even with their moronic, virulent policies.
I don't use that word often.
Ideologies and madness.
They're still united.
I feel like a Philadelphia public schooler.
That's why they always get their way and get whatever they want, but the GOP never united, full of profligate rhinos and infighting every GD time.
Y'all need to be better and be united.
Well, this South African gentleman, he's a Texan living in South Africa, ex U.S. Army.
He's using some really intense words here.
I need to nail the pronunciation.
You read them, but you never say them out loud.
And then Casey Putsch said, I'd do it again.
So we doubled down on this.
And I think this is the primary reason why he wasn't going to go anywhere.
Before the election, I was like, whatever policy proposals he has, whatever.
You know, strong critiques he has of Vivek Ramaswamy, he's dead in the water because, again, you cannot be emotionally opposed to the president.
That you will get punished at the ballot box because, whether you like it or not, whatever your critiques are of President Trump, you have to, if you're running for public office, you have to be politically prudent.
And it is not politically prudent to attack Donald Trump.
There's nothing you can do about that.
So, this is primarily why he stood no chance against Vivek.
I actually thought he would outperform this, I did think he would get like 30, 40%.
He didn't at all.
Vivek, he had the Trump endorsement.
He had a lot of money behind him.
His name recognition, he's at this point like a national figure, blew him out of the water.
And Vivek is a terrible, terrible candidate.
This should have been a layup, quite frankly, for Casey Putsch.
I mean, you're seeing it in Indiana.
Like, again, insurgents that are loyal to President Trump, Nate Moores is another example before he was forced to drop out.
You can put a lot of pressure on these sort of more establishment apparatchiks.
Vivek was a terrible political candidate.
He might be one of the worst politicians in America.
I can't play the clip, obviously, because of no audio, but he was literally debating with this guy in Ohio.
Ohio is still a heavily evangelical state.
That's definitely the base of the Republican Party, certainly in Ohio, are evangelicals.
And he's debating this well to do evangelical gentleman who I think most Republicans would sort of view familiar.
He would be familiar to them.
This is like your uncle, your grandfather, et cetera.
And Vivek is lecturing him on Hinduism.
He's saying, Jesus is not the Son of God, but he's a way to heaven.
It's this polytheistic nonsense that is completely foreign to the United States.
This is beyond deism.
This is just bizarre.
And he says, no, Jesus is a God, but he's not the son of God.
If you're engaging in theological debates with your voters, you're cooked.
And I think Amy Acton's going to win.
I think Amy Acton's going to win.
Casey Putch had a chance here to dethrone Ramaswamy, and I just think he couldn't keep frame.
And that's primarily why he lost.
You can disagree with the voters or whatever, but it's just the reality.
It's how politics works.
Sorry, I'm sorry, but if you're not going to be serious, if you're not going to be serious running for political office, if you're just going to.
Posture to your Twitter audience or posture to your Rumble audience, you're not going to go anywhere.
Sorry, that's just the reality on the ground.
That's not how politics works.
If you want to participate in politics, you got to be serious.
People want serious leaders.
It is what it is.
Ohio governor, here's the polling Ramaswamy's going to lose.
I predict that he's going to lose.
I think he's going to lose.
I am not going to throw my support behind him.
His lieutenant governor candidate seems to be decent.
I might tactically support him.
I think that would be quite useful because you vote on them separately.
It's not a ticket.
But Ramaswamy, he doesn't like me.
He was dragging people that are appealing to the idea that America is a nation, which, by the way, the vice president believes.
So, no, sorry, no.
You're not getting my support.
Utterly ridiculous.
I'm not going to support the Democrat either, but empowering this specific flavor of conservatism will do far more damage.
To again, the Republican Party than four years of Amy Acton in the state of Ohio.
Because if you allow Vivek to take power here in Ohio, again, that's going to elevate him.
He's going to run for president again.
He might be a vice president.
You know, people might explore him being a vice president.
No, no, we just, you can't let that happen.
So I'm just fairly ambivalent on what happens here.
I don't really care.
I think both, I think both of these, I think this is my position, is both of these governors would take us backwards.
So the reason I'm still behind Trump, you know, despite it not being very in vogue these days, is because I think he still does push the Football down the field.
I think Ramaswamy, he's going to get sacked and we're going to lose yardage.
And so the polling indicates that we don't even have to worry because Amy Acton's up a point.
And I think this is going to widen.
If Vivek keeps getting in theological debates with voters, he's not going anywhere.
He's not going anywhere.
So it's just the reality of the situation, just completely unacceptable.
One more point I want to make is that the Republicans are going on offense.
There's just a few stories dropping.
Tennessee Republicans have released their proposed 9 0 congressional map.
As you can see here, They've split Memphis and then they are sinking these districts with Republican voters.
Yeah, how do you like the taste of that?
You've been doing that to us.
How do you like the taste of that?
We're going to come in, erase your Democrat seat.
Sorry, Steve Cohen, better learn to flip burgers.
It is what it is.
Tennessee Republicans going on offense.
South Carolina, their House Rules Committee has voted to amend this agreement to allow for redistricting next week, which the potential new map also erases the only Democrat district.
It erases the only Democrat district in South Carolina.
Now they can do this because, again, the VRA has been reanalyzed by the Supreme Court, and we no longer have to have racially gerrymandered districts.
So all of these southern states can now go on offense.
These southern states can sort of take the fight to the Democrats, which is what we want.
We're tired of being the party on defense.
We want to be the party on offense.
And the way that you can guarantee this is paying a lot of attention to your local elections, getting behind primary candidates that are primary rhinos, serious candidates.
Don't waste your time on candidates that aren't going anywhere.
Use your brain.
I'm not saying that to be patronizing because I think everyone in the audience knows what I'm talking about.
I think they're smart.
Get behind candidates that will move the football down the field.
Again, we're in a democracy, whether we like it or not.
You know, this constitutional republic in many ways has been corrupted.
So we're in effectively democracy, and you have to play ball.
You got to operate.
You know, this idea that we're going to have this like violent revolution is all a LARP.
It's not going to happen.
You just got to tactically move the football in the right direction.
If you don't like that, if you want things to be dramatic, then don't participate in politics because politics is serious business, whether you like it or not.
I mean, I know like Trump is, you know, funny or whatever.
That's he's an exception to the norm.
The norm is still being serious.
That doesn't mean you have to be conventional.
You don't have to be conventional at all.
You can propose.
Some quite intriguing policies.
I've seen this over the years.
But you have to be pragmatic.
You have to be serious.
So, with that, you can follow me on X and Instagram at Real Tate Brown.
Come give me a follow over there.
And I'll be back tonight for Timcast IRL at 8 p.m.
And we'll be back tomorrow on this wonderful show that the wonderful Rumble is hosting for us.