10/15/26: Trump Threatens To Use MOAB On Iran, Israel's New Security Doctrine, Leaked Ken Paxton Audio

Had a busy day, don't have time to listen to the show?

Catch up on Breaking Points with our free daily newsletter.

You get our breakdown of every daily story.

And a lot of links in your inbox every day.

Head over, breakingpoints.com. You can sign up for the newsletter at the top for free today.

Good morning, everybody. Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.

What do we have, Crystal?

Indeed we do.

There is a mad rush to evacuate planes from Riyadh right now in the midst of Houthi strikes on Saudi Arabia. We're also taking a look at the Iran war, where Trump is considering dropping the mother of all bombs as new plans are made with the war department. Trita Parsi is going to join us to break down Israel's new perpetual war security doctrine. I guess this won't be a surprise, but there are some very interesting pieces here, including envisioning the U.S. as a declining power that they must sever ties with. Republicans are abandoning seats nationwide as a potential blue wave builds. But could it all be a mirage?

Logan Phillips is going to join us with the latest numbers there. Kamala Harris finally admitting some failures in the Biden-Gaza policy as she potentially positions for a 2028 run. And Kevin Roos is going to join us to talk about his new book, The AGI Chronicles, which a very interesting look behind the scenes at the race between Anthropic and OpenAI and Google and all of the characters involved and where he thinks the state of that race is today.

That's right.

Thank you to everybody who has been subscribing to the show, BreakingPoints.com. To reiterate, we have our contest going on. And so if a thousand people sign up between now, or I guess when we launched this on Monday, uh, up until election day, then Ryan and two lucky people, one, one of our guests, including a guest, uh, one of our subscribers, including a guest, we'll be able to go to the fish fish show at Madison square garden. Our premium subscribers will also be, existing premium subscribers will also be included.

In the pool.

And so, but all of that has to happen. We're about 25% or so of the way there. We still have plenty of time left on the calendar. So go ahead and sign up at breakingpoints.com. You can also, of course, just do it because you support our work as well. We will announce other contest details, et cetera, out there.

But rest assured, it will all be there. And remember, I'm the person who's footing the bill. If you're watching this on YouTube, please hit subscribe on our YouTube channel. If you listen to the podcast, please share an episode with a friend. It really helps other people find the show. But as Crystal said, we're going to go ahead and start with Iran. Some crazy news coming out of the Pentagon, where Trump is now considering dropping the, quote, mother of all bombs against Iran, the GBU-43B Massive Ordnance Airblast Bomb, or MOAB, the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal for the first time in the conflict with Iran this would mark a notable escalation, they write. I actually, one of my first jobs starting out in the business was

when we dropped this bomb about 10 years ago in Afghanistan. It was a huge deal. It was also done by Trump in order to salvage a dying war. Does anyone remember how Afghanistan turned out? You can tell me how exactly the military consequences of dropping that were. And so that's the context of which you should look at, which they write in here. It's a quote information operation, aka its propaganda, in order to say we dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever in human history.

And guess what? It did nothing in Afghanistan.

The entire reason why you would drop it here is this bomb just so people understand, is capable of eviscerating about nine city blocks. But it is not a bunker buster bomb. It's designed to eviscerate things on the surface. So the only reason to drop it would be to cause mass civilian damage and infrastructure, which I guess would be a, quote, propaganda victory. It would be not only an escalation in terms of what we do, but it should be seen in the same flailing context of why the United States dropped the Moab bomb in the first place in Afghanistan, which was to, quote, scare the Taliban, who eventually do what? Win the entire war a couple of years later. So the entire thing is a propaganda op.

It would just be designed to take out energy infrastructure. I mean, the current science, Crystal, I'm not sure about you. I have a feeling of dread in my stomach where the United, and we're going to get to this and we're going to show everybody. We are currently in a situation where what Iran is doing in the Strait of Hormuz is so genuinely unprecedented, even in the case of the entire war. the number of ships that have been taken out. We're going to show you images of one of them literally sinking to the bottom. And you can actually now see it from the satellite imagery, the tanker, which is obviously now obstructing channel in the Strait of Hormuz.

Not a single response yet from CENTCOM. A tiny little small boat was taken out yesterday. I think November 4th is going to be one of the bloodiest days of this entire war after the midterms.

They're just saving and penning it all up.

And I think things are about to get so, so, so much worse after the midterm elections.

It's going to be a disaster.

If it even waits till then, I'm not convinced that it does because the Iranians are very convinced that Trump is going to go back to some sort of full-on assault. And so they may also be considering some sort of preemption for themselves so that they are not waiting for their adversary to dictate the timing. Then you get into that counter logic from Trump, where if he thinks the Iranians are going to preempt his attack, he may go ahead first. You know, your your way of describing this mother of all bombs plan as a propaganda is, I think, really important. And we're used to having like messaging bills in Congress, you know, that are meant to really do anything or accomplish anything, but it's like. Yeah, now we've

got messaging bombs, right? I mean, that's how sick and depraved and pathetic and absurd this entire situation ultimately is. But he may be looking for some sort of a propaganda win that he can achieve in advance of the midterms, because we're going to talk to Logan later about how disastrous the polls look really across the board.

There could be a miss. You never know.

But the Republicans and the Democrats both think that this is going to be a massive blue wave. Trump knows he has a lot of trouble. That's why he's campaigning in a bunch of red states. He's headed down to campaign in South Carolina. Would anyone a year ago have said, oh, you're going to have to go and shore up the state of South Carolina during these midterms? That's how bad things have gotten. So perhaps he's thinking, oh, I can drop this bomb. And just like he lied and said he destroyed the nuclear program, just like he's lied and said.

Oh, I destroyed the Air Force, I destroyed the Navy.

He could also lie and pretend like this accomplished something shortly before the midterm. So I think that's very much on the table as well.

You look, you could be right, of course.

I just think that something is bubbling to the point where you can see how the people in Trump's ear are going to be talking up.

Like, how can you let this happen? It would tease this.

Let's put a one up here on the screen. I mean, this is completely insane. Like, take a look at this. This is a massive tanker which is sinking in the Strait of Hormuz. This is a Singaporean flagged vessel. which the Singaporean government confirmed, which sank to the bottom. I mean, its cargo is drifting all over the place to the extent where all of these smugglers in boats, let's put A2, you can see this, these are all smugglers which go back and forth from Iran to Oman like every single day.

I read an entire article about what they do.

They converge on the ship, and apparently they're shouting, hey, there's iPhones, there's perfume, who wants this? They're basically taking it and starting to sell it immediately right there and sell it on the black market.

I mean, it's funny, but it's crazy.

I mean, you have, what, billions of dollars worth of cargo that's transiting straight, you know, now on a semi-daily or semi-weekly basis, and any of it can just sink at any point. Now, there's a lot of confusion over whether this was struck or whether it hit a mine. Obviously, you know, it's good for the Iranians in either case, but this is unprecedented, you know, to have a sink or to have a ship like this that sunk.

To immediately warn all of the.

Others that are coming through. CENTCOM is claiming over on Monday that some 19 million.

Barrels were brought through the Strait of Hormuz.

But remember, they bring it through in a convoy system, and we had some 20-something million barrels per day that were transiting without having to go through the cover of darkness and a U.S. naval blockade. So It is very obviously beginning to affect all not only the global oil market, but also even challenge the notion of U.S.

Control.

And it just demonstrates how, look, we can throw all this money. We can tick up the numbers of barrels per day over and over. But at the end of the day, the Iranians, this is existential. And, you know, for them, they are they're crafty like they're going to figure it out. Let's put a five up here just to give you a perfect example. This is from Reuters about how Iran is shifting tactics to step up their attacks on shipping before the U.S.

Vote. So the U.S.

Went and bombed all of these radar systems. Remember in a couple months ago when all we were doing was just bombing along?

The Strait of Hormuz.

It was just radar, radar, radar. Well, what does the IRGC do? They go, okay, well, there's like, you know, tons of little small boats out there. Send one of our guys, give him a pair of binoculars.

Give him a walkie-talkie. That's all he does. That's all it takes.

There's a guy out there in a walkie-talkie in a small boat, just relaying, they're like, yep, we got a ship coming through right now.

Here are the coordinates, fire away. And they were able to sink.

And then, you know, it doesn't take all that much of sophisticated targeting. It just takes one, just to disrupt shipping, as we have said here over and over again. Again, and actually this bears out then because CENTCOM, one of their first strikes in weeks was one of these small boats with a spotter that was on board of a motorboat.

So now they're– and by the way, how do you even know that they really know? It's like the drug trafficking thing. You really know– I mean you've got all those guys, smugglers and all these other people that are out there. I'm not saying they're great people or anything, but you don't know who exactly is out there with walkie-talkie and you just randomly hit some boat under suspicion.

Yeah, good luck.

Yeah.

You can't hit them all.

Well, and we also just got, speaking of those drug strikes, we also just got data in that more cocaine is flowing than ever. I mean, it obviously even it's morally abhorrent and also completely failed as a policy. So you can apply those lessons to what's going on here as well. No, in the Iranians, there's increasingly analysis coming out from Iran saying basically they like the position they're in. They feel like time is to their benefit. that they, you know, if the U.S. does decide to escalate, if Trump does decide to escalate, they feel they have a lot they can do in response. And they also feel that the longer time goes on, the more the news tightens around the U.S.

Economy.

And so you've seen this increased slow and steady escalation effectively ever since the U.N. General Assembly. where they're striking more and more and more ships as we approach the midterm elections, which has long been seen as this sort of critical moment that the Iranians have been focused on in terms of making Trump pay. So while on the one hand, yes, I'm sure the economic situation within Iran is very difficult, I'm sure that it is very hard for the civilians, for everybody that is living there, there's also increasing indications that part of the reason oil is transiting through the Strait of Hormuz is because countries are paying Iran for the privilege of bringing.

Those ships through.

There's increasing evidence of that. So the idea they're totally cut off and they're not making any money, that does not seem to be true. And some of these numbers of barrels of oil that are coming through seem to be because Iran is allowing them through for a price. So that's important to keep in mind here in terms of some of these dynamics that are being touted by the Trump administration.

What you can see with the Strait of Hormuz, and by the way, A4, let's put it up here on the screen. Everybody paid attention to that Singaporean tanker. There was another tanker, or another ship also, that sunk in the strait after being hit by a projectile. The number of attacks now is more than 20. And now you are beginning to see some of the cataclysmic rhetoric return in the war. Let's put A3 up here on the screen, and I will read a rough translation. This was the Emir of Qatar saying, in a statement to citizens saying, quote, we must be prepared for the worst possibilities and everyone must bear their responsibilities, institutions, and citizens. I mean, what he's talking about here is not only a shutdown of

the Strait of Hormuz, but it also ties into this conflict with Saudi Arabia. I mean, we cannot overstate this enough. Aramco was literally on fire. We don't yet the extent of the damage. We will never know because they're liars and they cover up literally everything and arrest anybody who has the temerity to take a picture, their airport is now shut down. Shut down to the extent, let's put A8 up here on the screen. This is shocking. So remember, the airport in Riyadh is actually scheduled to open in two days. Well, doesn't look like that because right now there are, quote, dozens of planes that have now been evacuated for safekeeping elsewhere, not exactly saying that it's going to reopen immediately, anytime soon. Saudi airlines are now rushing

to evacuate as much.

As $ 4.

Billion worth of aircraft, private jets, commercial airliners, helicopters, all which were parked at the kingdom's capital airport, have now been moved. The strike obviously devastated the airport. 300 civilians were injured. At least 14 have been killed. And you can see they have now allegedly they're closed until midnight on Sunday. But airlines, insurers, and plane owners, nobody wants to have with their stuff that is there on the ground.

Who's gonna fly through there? Yeah, what kind of an idiot even wants to fly through? I can't even imagine what it would take to get on a plane like this. Quote, the number of aircraft on the ground in Riyadh has now dwindled from 134 to 38 as of.

Noon Wednesday.

And so of those, one has already been written off with five others suffering some level of damage. So about a fifth of the planes that are on the tarmac are there because they can't.

Fly because they've been hit, right? And so this is craziness.

I mean, already the insurance, according to insurance claims, you've got $ 400 million in damage that remains on the ground just to the aircraft that are there. I mean, again, it's very hard to explain to people what this means for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This is a country which is it's not just their multi-billions. They use their money for cultural influence. They did it after 9-11 to make everybody forget that 1,519 hijackers are Saudi. They did it for the next 20 years to buy influence in Washington.

They have bought, I mean, God, who knows, from EA Sports, video game companies, the live golf situation, tennis, UFC.

Formula One.

Formula One, right, exactly. But UFC was UAE, but you get my point. This is like a golf strategy. And now you can't fly there. I mean, that just, it pierces the entire thing, just like Dubai and many of those hotel strikes that happened early on. For example, put a seven Glenn Greenwald, uh, flagged this, you know, Riyadh has now announced the postponement of their, uh, third edition of their quote international six Kings glance grand slam tournament.

which was originally scheduled for in a couple of days where you could see the decision reflects their commitment to quote delivering sporting events to the highest standards, following assessment of organizational, logistical challenges associated with hosting the tournament and their potential impact on the quality.

Of the audience experience.

AKA we don't want our players and our audience to get die of drones when they are present in our country or to be hit when they're flying in. I mean, You know, there was a Houthi guest on yesterday and you could kind of see the delight in the guy's voice over inflicting. I mean, admittedly, it was funny to see him. But this is the strategy is working. They are piercing what makes Saudi Saudi, the World Economic Forum, the new Davos, the World Petroleum Council. I mean, they want to hold themselves up as a genuine as statesmen, as members of the elite. They tried to buy their way in. And this is just taking that all apart in a matter of weeks.

I've never seen anyone say we're going to open the gates of hell with a bigger smile on their face than that guy. But I mean, this is devastating to them. And Ryan keeps pointing out that there's a lot of Saudi money involved in this Ellison paramount deal. So, you know, all of those things are sort of up for grabs. Now, I'm sure they have lots of money that they've banked, but they already had to pull the plug on Live Golf before you had the Houthi Ansar Allah escalation here.

So it's quite devastating to them. MBS has got to be on very precarious political footing. Guy is a psychopath, like brutal tactics in order to obtain power. Rest of his family doesn't like him. Now you have a population that has been used to a very luxurious life on the backs, by the way, of millions of guest workers who are there to do, you know, all the jobs that they don't want to do and who are treated at best as like indentured servants. And what happens if those people start to leave? What is that going to do to your economy? What is that going to do to the way that you're used to living? And then all of these glamorous events that have been brought to the kingdom or that have been, you All of that

is going away now. And it's a new world that we're living in where a group like the Houthis, which are, you know, this insurgent group that have basically been able to successfully take over control of most of the population centers of Yemen, armed with some significant technology and drones and ballistic missiles, they are able to bring a much larger, much, much, much, much, much, much wealthier country.

To its knees.

So it's a wild thing to see. And the Saudis, MBS has made just a devastating error here provoking them because they had previously had this, you know, this more or less ceasefire detente for some time. Bab al-Mandab is very important for them with the Strait of Hormuz being in the situation that it's in in order to export their oil. Now that is all in jeopardy. So it really is a disastrous situation for them. Speaking of the oil markets, I thought these were some interesting comments from Biden's former energy envoy, a guy named Amos Hochstein, who was talking about, OK, what's the reality with the Strait of Hormuz? What is actually going on there? And he has some some pretty revealing comments here about the notion

that we have, quote unquote, control over the Strait of Hormuz. Let's go and take a listen to that.

I look at it as opportunity costs as well. In other words, do I control the Strait now? Oil's getting out, but the shipping costs are at $ 1. 4 million a day when there were 100,000. So I can say I control it, but it's costing me a fortune.

Yeah, but what if they say, OK, we'll sign a deal and say that the Strait is open, but you will pay us a million dollars for every one of the ships that go through?

That sounds like it's— One, that would be a discount.

To where we are right now.

Not much of one.

Well, tankers right now are under fire.

So he says, sure, you can claim it's, you know, that we have control, but it's costing us millions of dollars.

Billions.

If Iran actually, just to underscore what he says, if they charged us a million dollars per ship, that would be a tremendous discount from where we're at today. That's the reality of the situation.

Exactly right.

And I mean, how can you say with a straight face you control the Strait of Hormuz? A ship just sunk to the bottom. Like this doesn't happen. Unless there's, unless.

We're in the middle of a war.

Like, how can you look at that photo and say that this is not, I mean, that's the whole purpose of the U.S.

Navy.

I mean, I know I'm exaggerating here, but like ships are not supposed to be hit by mines and sink in the year 2040. is stuff i'm supposed to see in black and white footage from world war ii with the u-boat i am not supposed to see it today and yet here i am watching it in real time and you know you joke and all of that about our people joke and all of that about uh oh and you know drone warfare and the U.S.

Being brought to its knees, but it really is true.

This is the purpose of the United States Navy, to be able to pull off things like this. And if guys in motorboats and shouldered fire missiles can take this down, the military doesn't run the world, the insurance companies do. The state-backed oil companies do. And every single one of those who was potentially willing to run the blockade, looking at some of the Kepler data and all that, they're.

Like, I don't know about this. And now you're watching the U.S. flail.

So I don't have many of these elements, but breaking as of this morning, I'm sure you guys have seen the situation with Russia, right, where the United States overnight turns off Starlink or whatever, like reduces Starlink's usage to stop Ukrainian drones from disabling Russian refineries. Then Zelensky comes out and says, OK, we won't do it. And now this morning, he's actually out in a new Financial Times interview, you know, going after Trump again, just like he did back in February of 2025.

He's attacking him.

Personally, but more importantly, saying we don't care what the Americans say. We're going to keep hitting the refineries. The US is apparently flailing, and they're now looking to unsanction all the dark tankers that are non-Iranian in order to free up the ability to hire freight because of that million dollar a day cost that we've talked about so much with Sal. I mean, literally 10 to 15 times more expensive. And all of that is showing up.

What is it?

It's like $ 35 per barrel, apparently, just the sheer cost of freight, which you can already see in oil. You're seeing the amount of money that is being paid. I mean, you're basically sacrificing. And look, I'm a person who wanted to restrict Ukraine from the beginning, right? So I'm not going to weep tears for the Ukrainian military. But the point remains that you start to see that you have to flail in all other aspects of your personality. Like you had to strip the fads.

Out of South Korea. Now the whole Russia thing, you're like, okay, cut it loose.

We can't deal with this anymore because it's putting more pressure on We're going to buy Russian diesel, even though we're legally not even allowed to. We're going to free up Venezuelan and Russian tankers. I mean, you have to start sacrificing serious parts of your other remaining foreign policy. And I would be fine doing that intentionally, but being forced to do it. That shows you how desperate.

They already are.

It means you can't be strategic about it.

It's just desperation, it's triage, it's flailing. I mean, this whole Trump policy has been nothing but flailing from the get-go. He's actually now admitting that it was a mistake to assassinate the Supreme Leader and a lot of the government leadership because, you know, it just hardened the regime. It didn't collapse. Then who do you negotiate with? The previous people apparently would have been easier to negotiate with the new president Folks are more aggressive and, frankly, more cleverly strategic than the last set had been. But you ready for this? Sagar, this just dropped, exclusive from Semaphore. Saudi is set to drop plans for five 2034 World Cup stadiums.

Saudi Arabia's Sovereign Wealth Fund is preparing to inform organizers of the 2034 Men's Soccer World Cup. plans to drop five new stadiums it proposed to build to host the tournament. Public investment fund will narrow its focus to three new stadiums as it cuts spending on some of its signature domestic investments. Dropping the five venues would leave the kingdom with 10 stadiums, World Cup matches. The changes are part of a revised plan the kingdom is going to submit to FIFA. So, I mean, this is a V marquee event that they're building toward. And the fact they're having to pull back so significantly is, Five new stadiums that they're completely scrapping shows you the dire economic straits that

they're facing right now.

Right.

I mean, these things seem silly, right?

But if you know the Gulf, this is what they live by. It's like Qatar in the World Cup. It was ridiculous to hold a World Cup in Qatar.

Why did they do it?

Because they paid their way in in order to get everybody to even know where Qatar was. They spent oodles and ridiculous sums of money and a bunch of Indians and Pakistani laborers died there. erecting these ridiculous stadiums with roving air conditioner.

Why do you do it? For image, right?

You have all the money in the world, but everybody looks down on you basically because everyone knows you're only rich because you have a.

Bunch of oil under your feet.

Well, now same in Saudi Arabia. And for years, they keep trying to build themselves up and it gets pierced in a second like this. And that is genuinely the type of thing which will be felt so deeply and painfully by MBS and the coterie of the people around him. Because that was the strategy from the beginning, to buy the real estate, to buy the parts of culture, to host the World Cup, to be, you know, Cristian Ronaldo, to really be a beating heart of something other than oil, to be a business in sports, humiliating, genuinely, for them.

And so, look, all things trending in a bad direction, no matter where you put it. If you're pro-Ukraine... if you're pro, you know, whatever, if you want pro peace, if you're, you know, if you're Iranian, I really would worry because I think this mother of all bombs, whether it's pre midterm, post midterm, I think it's going to happen.

I think there's almost no question at this point because he's just been sitting in the white house. He's seething that they're not doing anything. His advisors are like, look, you can't do anything before the midterm. So see, they're gonna be right before or right after. I think the energy infrastructure, I think we are going to hit it.

And I think things are going to get really, really dark.

I do. All right.

With that, peachy segment. Let's get to Dr.

Trita Parsi, who's standing by to talk about a new, shocking new security doctrine coming out of the state of Israel.

Let's get to it.

Very excited now to be joined by our great friend, Dr. Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute. Thanks for joining us, sir.

We appreciate it.

Thank you so much for having me.

You recently flagged a fascinating new report out of Israel. Let's put this up here on the screen from your sub stack. Israel's new and terrifying security doctrine. you find that they now cite the United States, quote, as a declining power given its ongoing social and political shifts, which will abandon Israel at any event. And this is compelling Israel to move towards greater self-reliance in order to avoid excessive dependence on the United States. Now, that might be potential music to your and my ears, but some of the other consequences of that are kind of terrifying as you write. Why don't you lay out what they found and then what it will look like for the region?

So this is a very important report. It has gotten a lot of attention in Israel itself. It's written by a person who is a former major general in the Israeli army, currently the head of one.

Of its main think tanks, I-N-N-S.

And he's not advocating this.

It's very important to understand.

He's not going out there and saying this is the doctrine that the Israelis should pursue. Rather, he's arguing that this has become the de facto doctrine doctrine that the Israelis are pursuing. And then he lays down the principles behind this doctrine. And that's where it gets really interesting. Not only, of course, that essentially saying that the Israelis are now treating the United States as not just a declining power, but a country that Israel ultimately needs to sever relations with in order to retain its own independence and Jewish character.

And then he goes on.

To look at how the Israeli doctrine now looks at the rest of the region. And he says that some of the key things of this new emerging doctrine or already established but unarticulated doctrine is that, for instance, it's a rejection of the independence existence of Arab states. He says that the Israelis at this point do not even recognize that the Arab states are legitimate states, but rather just a hodgepodge of Arab tribes. And as a result, it's a natural process for Israel to destabilize these countries in order to enhance Israel's own security because these countries are not legitimate states in the first place. He goes on to say that another principle of this new doctrine emerging in Israel is that it views war as a

foundational state. that peace has no intrinsic value. It's just something transactional aimed at achieving other goals. But that war is a necessity for statecraft. And that preventive war is what is really going to be the most important aspect of war, the most useful aspect of the war. And he goes on to say that it gives absolute priority for initiative and offense over defense. So we're talking about a state that not only acts preemptively, but preventively. It just starts wars long before a country, a potential danger emerges from that country, a potential threat emerges from that country, but rather in a matter in order to prevent it from ever getting to that point.

Now, a lot of people would.

Say, look, this is frankly what the Israelis have been doing for quite some time.

And I think that is absolutely true.

But now we're getting to a point in which the facade is falling off, and we're seeing these type of intellectual justifications for it, such as saying that, for instance, these Arab states are not real states anyway, so it's a natural process to destabilize. And I think the critical thing for the United States here is to understand, if this is a country that is going to establish these principles, make it the norms of statecraft, that preventive war, for instance, should happen, destabilizing your neighbors is just a legitimate way of securing your own security and interests. Then for the United States to continue to have a strategic relationship with Israel, the United States itself has to turn to a country

that essentially treats war as a desirable state, permanent state of war, as a desirable state, rather than a country that at least on the face of it should be pursuing peace and stability. But peace and stability is no longer principles that according to this person is part of the doctrines and the belief systems of Israel.

There's an irony in Israel pointing the finger at the other regional states and saying, oh, these aren't real states. My daughter's in her intro IR class in college. And the very first thing you learn about a state is supposed to have set borders, which is not something that Israel seems to have. So they may want to take a look in the mirror about who is a real state in the region. But in any case, there's so much to get into here. You know, I just look at this and I'm asking myself, how is this going to work out? Because one of the things that we've, you know, that I've long thought is that if the U.S.

pulls its support of Israel, Israel is going to have to act more like a normal state, is going to have to actually learn to live with its neighbors and not just reach for the sword all the time, that they're going to have to negotiate. They're going to have to come to some sort of accommodation. But this vision is the polar opposite of that. It says we're going to have to sever ties with the U.S. because they're turning against us anyway. But we're going to continue on this warlike path where war is just, you know, the normal state of being. And we're going to try to continue to destabilize everyone we possibly can in the region.

Absolutely. On your first point, definitely. And I still believe that.

I think what you're seeing here is a country that is in this phase of transition in which it is recognizing that the support that it is getting from the United States that has enabled it to become this type of a state. is starting to dry up. It's not going to last for many, many more years going forward.

And instead of taking that opportunity to do some introspection and figure out, okay, how do you actually achieve peace if you cannot dominate the entire region, if you cannot establish a reality in which you have deterrence against everyone else, but no one else is allowed to have deterrence against you?

If you can't have that, what kind of a peace can you pursue? But instead, what they're doing is they're just doubling down on what they're already doing, because I think the mindset within the security establishment in Israel right now simply does not allow for thinking that goes outside of this paradigm.

And that's going to be the end of Israel if it continues on this path.

We have no examples of states being able to pursue this type of a doctrine, pursue these principles in the long run and surviving and flourishing. and particularly not in the modern world. We may have had some examples in ancient times, but even then we were talking about empires that after a while ultimately decline and fall. So I think we have helped create a reality in Israel in which the type of cost-benefit analysis that is needed in order to be able to have responsible statecraft has simply been taken out. And as a result, as they're now facing the reality that they're not going to have the U.S.

to support in the long run, they're still not capable of thinking outside of that paradigm and thinking, as you pointed out, how do we then pursue peace?

Instead, they're just rejecting peace. I don't think that's gonna last.

I don't see that as a possibility, but I think it tells you how far we have gone in creating circumstances in Israel that does not allow for that type of irrational thinking to take place.

Right, of course, by defending them from the consequences of all of their actions, they've never paid any real price. Even in the middle of the Iran war, we're expending our missile inventory to shoot them down, a lot more people would be dead if they were forced to just have to defend themselves. How do you think this plays out within the next couple of years? I don't expect the Iran conflict to die down anytime soon. In the interim, while they're calling the Gulf states illegitimate, they also seek some sort of quasi-allyship with them. I mean, you have Benjamin Netanyahu begging MBS to come in and to bomb Yemen, obviously, there's been all these surreptitious and now out in the open dealings with the UAE. How are they going to

navigate this? Like, do they see Iran as the first threat and then the Gulf as the secondary?

Like, how's this going to look in the next couple of years?

Well, it very much depends on what the United States does.

If the United States puts down its foot and says, OK, well, now you're on your own. We're not going to provide you with all of the different bombs and munitions and missiles and interceptors that has allowed you to continue these wars, to intensify these wars, then I think there's going to have to be a real reckoning inside of Israel. I think it's also important to recognize that it appears that part of the reason why Haman wrote this piece is precisely because he wanted to be provocative and force the debate to change Israel's direction. But the mere fact that you have to write a piece like this in order to get that change tells you how disastrous situation has become in terms of strategic thinking in Israel. Now, the Israelis,

I think, will try to take advantage of the opportunity that they currently believe they have with a president that is already knee-deep into this crisis and who believes that he has no pathway out of this crisis through diplomacy, through sanctions, or through limited war.

And I'm going to explain why I use the term limited war.

In a manner that enables history to judge this to have ultimately been a success. I think Trump's mindset right now is that he's desperate because he's trying to find some sort of a fix that turns this story around, a last chapter of the story that makes the entire book look good. And the book so far does not look good in any way, shape, or form. But that means that in his mindset, the only one thing he hasn't tried yet is to do those things he's threatened to do, but not done so far, such as striking at Iran's critical infrastructure, such as striking at desalination plants, energy infrastructure, take a couple of islands, go in with ground troops to take out some of the nuclear sites, etc.

And I think that unfortunately, Trump is now seriously considering these options. So from the Israeli standpoint, Trump is looking at this only in a manner in which how can he get out of this by going in deeper into it, And that serves Israel very well because they would like to see the United States to get even further entangled in this war and do as much as possible to shift the balance of power in the region away from Iran and towards Israel by essentially eliminating all of the different strong states that have the capacity of challenging or deterring Israel. Going back to one of these principles in this document, to achieve their security by making sure that everyone else is destabilized.

Let's actually put the document up on the screen. This is B2 because I want to talk to you, too, about what they say here about the character of Israel, which, again, is something that I think has been plain to us for some time but I think is an interesting admission. The principle number one here, they say, is the primacy of Jewish identity over democracy. The state's Jewish identity takes precedence over its democratic system of government. This priority is intended to guarantee Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state even at the cost of eroding its democratic values.

And, you know, we.

Are constantly told that one of the reasons we should support Israel is because it's the only democracy in the Middle East that has always been a very flawed conception. However, here you have them saying explicitly, no, when there's a conflict, we pick Jewish identity and sort of, you over any conception of democracy. And we increasingly, I mean, that has long been the case, but you increasingly see that embraced as an explicit principle.

Absolutely.

And when you go back 30, 40 years and you go back to the debate that existed in Israel in the early 1990s, when the Labor Party was trying to push for a two-state solution and trying to convince a very skeptical Israeli public that that the Palestinians who have been taught to believe all to be just terrorists, particularly PLO and Arafat, were now partners in peace. The argument that was used back then was we have to have a two-state solution. Otherwise, the continuation of the occupation is a threat to Israel's own democracy and it will turn Israel into an apartheid state. That was the language of the labor leaders back then as a warning of what would come. Instead, the language you see here as if

this is something to embrace, that it is more important to keep the idea, whatever it's defined as, of a Jewish character, even if it comes at the expense of democracy, even if that then, of course, leads to or already has established an apartheid state.

Again, I think it tells you how far.

The Israeli paradigm and thinking has gone compared to just a few decades ago. in terms of what direction Israel wants to go, what it sees as a threat and what it sees as something that is worthy of embracing. And here we're seeing the idea of rejecting democracy as something worthy of embracing. Again, if that's the direction Israel wants to go, that's up to them to decide. But please don't come and say that the basis of this alliance is on common values and democracy with the United States.

Let's put this last element up here on the screen, guys.

I mean, something that's interesting about the paper and as you kind of write in the story, there's a current line that this is all Benjamin Netanyahu's fault.

It appears he may lose the election. This is the latest poll that came out.

Who knows what wars and other things he might gin up in the meantime, and potentially he might even have some sort of an upset But do you expect anything to realistically change.

Regardless of the political leadership of the state?

I do not.

And I think this is part of a fantasy that exists in the elements in Washington, D.C., within the establishment who just want to go back to October 6th.

Right.

Who have this belief that everything was just fine before then, who do not recognize or reject that October 7th came out of October 6th. And as a result, if they just can go back to having Israel that they can continue to support, whose supporters in the United States can continue to give them campaign donations, and it won't be a problem, no one will heckle them at a town hall meeting, and they can just blame Netanyahu for everything, as if everything is at his hands, rather than a deep structure in Israel that has caused this, and a deep structure that we have had A tremendous responsibility in terms of allowing for it to be built up. Netanyahu will be the fall guy. You can already see the campaign being designed within the establishment to try to save

themselves and save their relationship with Israel by putting all the blame on Netanyahu. It's not going to work because at the end of the day, there's a deep structural problem in Israel. And as long as you don't address it, this problem will just come back. You may just have a year or two in which you can pretend that things have been fixed, but they won't be. And it will come back and probably in a worse form than we have seen so far. And if anything, this document itself should give that warning. There's no mention of Netanyahu in it.

Yeah, such a great point. I hope a lot of well-meaning, open-minded liberal Zionists would read this. and see explicitly that this idea you're going to go back to the 70s conception of Israel or even the early 90s conception of Israel, it's dead and gone. The reality is here. They are choosing the apartheid state. They're choosing the ethnic cleansing. They're choosing the genocide over any hope of a future democracy.

And perpetual destabilization of the rest of the Middle East.

That's exactly right.

Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate your time.

Thank you so much.

So as we approach the midterms, Trump was out on the campaign trail making an interesting pitch.

Let's take a listen.

And watch, they'll cut all of this stuff out and they'll leave the little sentence. Our country is making more money than it's ever made because of the fact that oil is so high.

Now they're going to say, isn't it terrible?

He talked about the fact that he doesn't care about the little person, they call them. I care more about the little person than I care about the big person. I care about the little person like crazy. But the fact is, because of the price of oil, Texas and Oklahoma and North Dakota and all these places were making a fortune. But I never talk about it because I'm not happy until we get the actual price of the oil down to where it was prior.

So Trump there trying to frame the high price of oil as actually it's a good thing if you really think about it for the United States. Does not seem like voters are buying it for more on these dynamics and more. We are joined, of course, by Logan Phillips of Race the White House.

Great to see you, sir.

Great to see you guys, too. You know what that reminds me of?

What?

The framing of the 2012 presidential election. Which is that Barack Obama basically lost on who would be better for the economy, but people thought that he was fighting for them.

Yes, that's right. I remember that.

Well, there is some polling we could get to later about how that is not panning out for Trump. Quite the opposite in terms of how people think. I'm sure all of us talk about the ballroom and obsession over those sorts of things. It's not helping him there. But let's go and put C1 up on the screen. This is a focus on the House of Representatives, which I think for a while people felt like, oh, it's probably going Democratic. But you've got a lot of Republicans who are now conceding the fact like, OK, we are not going to be able to hold on to the House.

We also have, if we could put this last element we added this morning up on the screen, guys, from Jake Sherman saying, Republicans are pulling money from any number of their candidates.

They are in triage mode.

Meanwhile, Democrats, who have a lot less resources, are recognizing they've got a broadening map. There are some targets on there that no one would ever have thought was possible. They're looking at Kentucky's 6th congressional district, which could be interesting because that's one that comes in at the early end of the night. So in any case, It seems like the public polling is matching up with both parties' private polling, at least with regard to the.

House of Representatives.

Yeah, and this is definitely a great sign for Democrats. They obviously have better data, and they're spending all their time on this, and so it is hardening for them. But at the same time, sometimes parties do make mistakes. In 2022, I actually think Democrats lost the House because— They overlearned the lessons from 2020 when they polls wildly overestimated Democrats and they didn't take all the polls and the special elections showing they had a real chance to win the House seriously enough. They started playing way too much defense further down the line in terms of their GOP's target list and basically conceded some of these races, or at least didn't spend nearly enough in them, that they could have won because they came just three seats short.

And a lot of those races were decided by like one or two percent.

Wow.

Yeah, I actually remember that.

I know Pelosi didn't end up getting much blame at the time, but there were at least some circles that were like, hey, we kind of blew this whenever you actually.

Look at it.

Let's talk then a little bit about Texas, which obviously the big eye is on Tallarico. But there are growing signs that Abbott himself could be in genuine trouble. It does appear also like Ken Paxton- His entire staff and fundraising people just hate him because they leak everything he says. So here for the ninth time in Breaking Point's modern history is new leaked audio of Ken Paxton saying Greg Abbott is struggling in his bid.

Let's take a listen.

It's the rest of the ticket. Like, you know, we hear Abbott struggling, but it's that. So, yes, Abbott is struggling, but he has a lot of money. She has none. And if I asked 99 people in a.

Room, or 100 people in a room, maybe one would know who he was.

No name ID. He's still close.

And he didn't have any primary that I did that was brutal with all the negative ads.

So those are my two disadvantages.

One was, three, actually not having time to raise more money, having the negative ads, and my opponent is well-funded and well-known.

That fits, Logan, with some of the latest polls.

Let's put, what is it, the next one up there on the screen, C3, because this is from the University of Texas.

Crystal, you said that this was the most accurate pollster, I believe. In 2024 of Texas. Of 2024 of Texas.

U.S.

Senate, Tallarico, plus three. This is the big news.

In Yosa, plus one. Railroad Commissioner Rosenthal, plus one. Lieutenant Governor, also plus three. These are all Democrats, for the record. Attorney General, only the comptroller is running at the slight margin of plus one. This is a great pollster, obviously highly accurate in 2024. The fact that it, what it appears to me is that this is a two-pronged thing.

Trump himself is a massive drag, and then you add candidate equality on top of that, and all the stars just seem to be aligning. for the Democrats in Texas. Now, obviously, that is a rare poll, really, to see Hinojosa actually beating Greg Abbott. But you do have Ken Max in there, who, as you just said, these people have tons of money and they have private data that you and I don't, who are like, yeah, he's in real trouble.

He's got problems. There's no scattering of polls that we've seen showing her actually taking the lead. So, yeah, Abbott is up on average, but this is not one of those races that you're going to go into Election Day if it looks like it does today, with there being like a one in three race one in four, maybe even a 40% chance of it flipping if the turnout is particularly strong for Democrats, which has never been something in Abbott's career before. This guy has won every single election he's ever run for by at least 10%, most of them by 20%, going back, I think, to 1998. Starr, are you.

Going to also break down that poll?

Sure, yeah.

You were showing us because it's relevant to Texas as well.

One of my sources in Texas, let's go ahead and put this up here on the screen, guys. So this is from the Barbara Jordan Research Center, one of the best and most high-quality pollsters in the state. And what makes this even more credible is what they did is they just polled a single county. And the reason why they poll this county is Fort Bend is the single best county indicator of suburban and statewide trends, suburban, ex-urban, extremely diverse, high levels of educational attainment, Trump and Harris were tied here in 2024. The current poll that they find is Tallarico plus 18, Kenyosa plus 11. If you project these numbers statewide, it puts Tallarico and Abbott slightly ahead within approximately two points of each other. And the

reason why you should take that seriously is if you look at the RCP average of James Tallarico, you have him at about two points. And so that's what Fort Bend is currently projecting. Now, a lot of this is like demographic extrapolation and more, Logan. But the thing is for Greg Abbott, as you just pointed out, is if things just tilt slightly in the wrong direction, that's where you can.

See a hinyosa victory that would also happen.

So a complete statewide sweep of the top offices for the Democrats. Yeah.

And a lot of people are saying it's one of the most impressive races being run by any candidate. And I think they have a point because it's not just that she's running so close against someone who normally wouldn't. wins overwhelmingly. It's that she's doing this at such a massive financial disadvantage. So she's really made use of the time that she has. to message as well as possible to voters' concerns.

I've seen a.

Bunch of these polls of congressional districts where you're then extrapolating out to, okay, they also will poll the statewide candidate. And it seems oftentimes that those congressional districts or countywide polls show an even larger swing towards Democrats. You know, what is the history of which is typically more accurate?

What do you make of that fact? Have you noted that dynamic as well? Because I'm seeing that fairly consistently.

I think it's partly the things that people decide to reveal to the public because this is a huge wow moment and showing this district is moving slightly less than you expected or the same rate that would be statewide. It's not very exciting. So I think it's probably what we're hearing are the big wow factors.

Yeah, that makes sense. All right.

Let's keep going with Texas then and some of the data center stuff. Let's put C4 up here on the screen. This is fascinating just because this is a statewide thing, but you can or sorry, nationwide. Here they say that voters who live near data centers are now swinging hard towards the Democrats.

So it's actual proximity of if.

You're under two, I don't know, some British person must have made this, under two kilometers of a data center, you're more likely to vote for a Democrat.

Oh, it's economists. Okay, all right.

There you go.

It was some British person.

Can I just plead to the economists, you know, look, if you're going to poll us, you use our damn metrics, all right?

Under two kilometers, what is that? I forget how many miles.

That is, then you're vastly more likely to vote for a Democrat as opposed to over two kilometers away from the data center. I know this has been a very hot topic in many of these races, and it's going to show. I think Michigan, obviously we're seeing that. Both of the candidates coming out about data centers. You've seen data centers be picked up. Dramatically, it was South Carolina, I believe, that they're running some ads. Texas has been a huge part of the Hinojosa campaign. Have you seen anything else?

Yeah, Sherrod Brown is making it such a massive part of his campaign. And he's been doing this for months. And so there's all these voters that aren't the biggest Sherrod Brown fans or Democrat fans that are like, I'd rather vote for the Republican, but John Husted is all in on this. Because Husted made the unfortunate mistake six years ago when he was lieutenant governor. to be all in on cutting red ribbons across the state on data centers.

It was John Kasich who actually gave them this big, sweet deal that ended up being a tax break worth dramatically more than the state legislator ever thought it would be. So voters were upset about that. But they're also just Ohio is literally like the land of data centers. And so now Sherrod Brown is taking advantage of all these photos, all this video he has. And he was kind of like one of the first Democrats to really figure this out.

I know they were doing it in Virginia as well.

Oh, yeah.

But the rest of the country had Democrats had gone on board. Sherrod Brown kind of led the charge on this. And it's been he's had a lead for a very long time in this race. And that's part of the reason why.

Interesting.

Let's put C7 up on the screen, because I think this is probably the single most important dynamic in this entire campaign.

You can see here.

I mean, the relationship is pretty darn near one to one. As gas prices rise, Trump's approval falls. You can see at that moment when gas prices dip down a little bit, oh, Trump's approval rating recovered a bit. And then once they started climbing once again, then his approval fell once again. Obviously, his approval is going to be very tightly connected to Republican performance in the midterms. Gas prices have come down again a little bit. And Republicans also seem to have recovered a tiny bit in like the generic ballot. Trump's approval as well. So, I mean, this may be ultimately the metric we look back on after Election Day and say this really explained the whole thing.

Yeah, I think it's the biggest part. And it's also like he's responsible for it. And our voters shoot harsh on presidents about gas prices. One thousand percent. Like, if Russia invades Ukraine or it's a war we have nothing to do with, it's not necessarily fair to blame the president. But in this case, everyone knows it's singularly Donald Trump that is causing this, and they blame him for it.

And you can't blame him for that.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's so true.

Let's put, what is it, C8 up here on the screen. You were talking a little bit about 2012.

Yeah.

Here we have some of this polling. This is by the AP. They say few think that Trump prioritizes, quote, a lot for the country.

Or people like themselves. Only 11 percent say he prioritizes people like me.

I'd like to meet those people.

The majority feel he prioritizes, quote, a lot of his business interests and.

His business interests of his people like me.

But it's 11%.

Tech oligarchs.

That's like 0.01% of the country. I'm like, who are these other people? They're 10.9. We are the 10.9%. It's business interest.

The business and services friends, only 56% of, 56% of independents say Trump does not prioritize them at all.

Talk to us about that number.

Prioritizes people like me, feeling like, you know, cares about people like me. It's always a very important number. kind of squishy number, but seems to have a lot of.

Success in our politics.

Yeah, and that's been the thing that has saved Donald Trump compared to other Republicans and is why he was able to win in 2016. and was able to win in 2024 is a lot of people, not necessarily, it was like 48% or so of people really thought he was fighting for them. And his actions didn't necessarily say it.

I think if you watched him on the stage, you replaced the word I when he was talking about all of his grievances. It kind of became more accurate about why he was angry on the stage, but he was pretty good at selling that he did care. And in reality, all of his policies have been focused on helping people that are wealthy. And I think the other side of this too is You have to be really careful when you're president of the United States about who you meet with and who you feel connected to. Barack Obama had his 10 letters a day, right? Every president normally has their own thing. But Trump is just meeting with people that either love him or that are really successful. And that has completely, I think, warped his view of his

presidency and the American people. And so when he's talking about the oil prices being high, I think it's a signal about the things that he cares about.

That's a good point.

Yeah.

I mean, he did a lot of rallies.

He's done way less rallies in this president as the last time. Obviously, he still had to run for reelection. He, as I understand it, and I went, I had to go to so many of these for my previous job. He would use it as a testing ground. He would, you know, like he would come up with slogans and all these other things. The problem with that, though, obviously, is that the dwindling amount of faithful is not representative now of the rest of the country. And so you're just not coming into contact with the same swath of the types of people that you used to. I mean, he just spends most of his time in Washington or at Mar-a-Lago, as you said, surrounded by a bunch of billionaires.

And he's on True Social.

Right, which is even worse than Twitter.

And Twitter itself is now a right-wing echo chamber by Elon Musk. So any sort of exposure he would have had in the past to other opinions has been completely excised from his worldview.

Yeah, it's the Natalie Harpification of the White House.

Yeah, it's true. No, I mean, he's on Iran.

Absolutely true. Last piece here, let's put C9 up on the screen.

What if the polls are all wrong?

So I think it's pretty clear at this point, as I said, to begin this block. The Republicans and the Democrats, the public polling, the private polling, it all seems to agree that something relatively big is happening in favor of Democrats here. However, all those polls could be wrong. We have seen that in the past. That is certainly a possibility. Again, they go through in this relatively tortured hand-wringing piece from the Atlantic, classic stuff here, the ways that the pollsters have adjusted. So after 2016 and the miss there, they said, OK, well, we didn't get the non-college vote, so let's adjust for education. OK, then that doesn't work either. in 2020. So then they adjust again and say, okay, well, we're going to ask

for recalled vote. Did you vote for Trump or did you vote for Biden? That again missed in 2024. And so now they're going through ever more elaborate procedures to try to make sure that they're capturing whatever the Republican or pro-Trump sentiment would be You know, how confident should we be that they've figured these things out at this point?

Certainly the pollsters seem very concerned, like they're certainly focused on it.

They don't want another big miss.

But what is the chance that we do see another significant miss where they are dramatically underestimating Republican sentiment?

Yeah, it's definitely real. I think if we get a 2024 miss, Democrats probably still in the Senate.

Right.

If it's 2020, well, that's the worst polling miss in history now. Unless you want to go back to the 40s when pole stealing was kind of a new thing. So I think that it's definitely real, but it appears that in midterms they do a better job. And we should all look at poles, even the polling averages like mine, as like not quite a funhouse mirror, but an imperfect mirror that is like cloudy and a little hard to see.

And it's going to show you roughly what's happening. It's going to show you directionally what's happening, what places are competitive, which party is gaining. But it's never going to be perfect, and it could be off a few points either way and occasionally more than that.

Right.

And so treat it as something that's useful, but don't treat it as an oracle.

Can you speak through the scenarios? So, like, let's say off a little bit, off a lot. Just speak through, like, what that looks like.

Okay, and this is in favor of Republicans?

Either both, both directions.

Okay, if it's off a lot in favor of Democrats, then they could clean up and get to, like, 58, 57, 56 Senate seats.

That's crazy.

I know.

That's like 2008. It comes up in simulations in my model.

And that's literally like 2008.

Or like the 1980.

Yeah, 1980.

Or like 2010 for Republicans.

Yeah.

No, I mean, that's completely nuts. Okay, keep going.

Yeah. In the other direction, you know, probably the best case scenario for the GOP, this is like really unlikely. It's actually more unlikely than literally what I just said. But Republicans don't lose anything and gain a seat in Michigan or Minnesota. But like the problem for Democrats here, and it's also their strength in the other direction, is all these races are so close because they're overperforming so much in traditionally Republican areas, which means there's a chance for something tremendous historic and massive. They also could be in a scenario where they do so much better nationally, but it doesn't get them as much.

Got it. Okay. So what would that look like in the Senate? It would retain Republican control?

It means that they would run up really close in Kansas, Iowa. Nebraska, et cetera, but lose like all of them.

Got it.

Right.

So if you lose Kansas by two, that's shocking, but you still lose.

It doesn't matter. And if you do that everywhere.

Right.

Because like Michigan and Minnesota are like surprisingly close given what's happening in other parts of the country.

What do you make of that? Maine too.

Yeah.

Maine, you could attribute it.

Okay.

Susan Collins seems to be the survivor. You had the Platner, Troy Jackson switch on. So it is kind of a unique situation. But it is odd that Michigan and Minnesota in particular, New Hampshire to a lesser extent, because, again, you have Sununu, and apparently they love Sununus in the state of New Hampshire. But it does seem strange that you could have a situation where you're just telling me there's a poll that has Mississippi close. Trump is going to rally in South Carolina because they think this isn't in the bag. And yet Michigan and Minnesota are still, like, up for grabs.

Maybe there's not enough data centers there. I don't know. It could be. I think, so this is my ultimate hot take and a lot of people disagree with me. Okay. I think after a decade plus of the country getting more polarized every year, we might be heading in the other direction because people hate both parties. And so they're more open to candidate quality and unique issues. Now, Susan Collins does this a lot. She's like Joe Manchin for Democrats, overperforms like crazy. But in a lot of these places, like Michigan, Democrats have a trifecta. They had a historic year in 2022. This might be partially a pushback. In Minnesota, you have the fraud issue. You have Michelle Tafoya, who is almost able to run like Susan Collins because she

came out of nowhere into politics. She's a really good communicator. She's a broadcaster. What's her deal again?

She's a sports broadcaster?

Because she wasn't a politician, then you don't have to be weighed down by any pass votes or any of that sort of stuff. I've been thinking the same thing, too. A place like Kansas has been... consolidated supermajority Republican control for so long that if people feel dissatisfied, then they're pointing the finger in one direction.

Texas, same thing.

Exactly. In Texas, that's why all these other races are so close, even though people don't really know the candidates.

In other states, if you've had divided government, then it's a little more mixed. You're like, yeah, the Democrats are in charge here and I'm not in love with what's going on here.

Well, Minnesota, for example, Amy Klobuchar is not running a gubernatorial race that's normal for taking over from the your same party.

She goes, I'm inheriting a mess. You're like, what? Like you're running, you're taking over from Tim Walz, who.

You backed as the vice president.

She's only winning by nine points.

I know nine doesn't sound like a lot, but she wins by 20. In a Senate race, which is way harder to do than a governor race.

And that's why, you know, I read that and I was like, huh?

I was like, you know, people don't usually talk that way when they're taking over from their own party, but saying I'm inheriting a mess.

So clearly there's some dissatisfaction.

Obviously Walz decides not to run for reelection over the fraud issue.

So I don't know.

I mean, Tafoya, like you were saying, I haven't paid that much attention. A lot of my Republican friends are actually pretty excited about this because it shows Flanagan only up by 2.6. I mean, that's a very slight miss away from a genuine flip.

Yeah, I had it a little higher, but it's still really close. I think it's actually more competitive than Michigan, where El-Sayed keeps gaining, despite all the outside money. And I think that... You know, she's attacking her about the fraud issues because she was lieutenant governor and saying it's her fault. And also, like, if she were more tied to ICE, and honestly, if they had Mike Lindell as the governor nominee, this would be a lot tougher because the ICE thing Minnesotans hated. It was just an attack on their state. But the Republicans have avoided it because to FOIA one, Trump's endorsement, the easy way, because she's in broadcasting and she's attractive and she's a good talker.

So she didn't have to do the feats of loyalty or talk about the red meat issues.

Right.

Which enabled Minnesota to have a nominee that, it's not just that she could potentially run well, which I think she is, it's that she didn't have to do things that would cost her the general election.

She has no baggage. She's never taken any votes. You don't know anything about her.

Interesting.

What an L for Mike Lindell. All he did for Trump.

Yeah, I know.

No loyalty.

Trump did come out for him, didn't he? He said he endorsed him or something.

Yeah, that would have been a disaster. He would have lost by like 25, I think.

But what a campaign it would have been.

Yeah.

It would have been like that guy.

What's his name?

Victor Marx.

I was just thinking.

Yeah. No, Mastriano. Mastriano is the one I'll never forget.

He was my state senator, by the way, when I went to Gettysburg for undergrad.

Oh, really?

Yeah.

All right, Logan, we always appreciate your time, man. Thank you.

Thanks, guys.

10/15/26: Trump Threatens To Use MOAB On Iran, Israel's New Security Doctrine, Leaked Ken Paxton Audio

Kapitelklicken springt direkt hin

Shownotes

Transkriptvom Podcast bereitgestellt · Zeitmarken springen hin