10/29/26: Bibi Says Arabs Rigged Elections, Abdul Exclusive Interview

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

Catch up on Breaking Points with our free daily newsletter.

You'll get our breakdown of every daily story.

And lots of links in your inbox every day.

So 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. Big, big show today. The man of the hour, Abdul El-Sayed, is going to join us exclusively. There are certainly a lot of things that he will probably want to react to. A lot of questions, of course, we have for him in the final stretch here. We're also taking a look at what's happening in Israel. Bibi's going, stop the steal. Oh, my God, the Arabs are voting style there. And we've also got increasing indications that we are likely to be headed back to war with Iran after our own midterm elections tomorrow. We got a big focus on the midterms today. Zachary Danini, who has been tracking the early vote, is going to join us and break down the polls and what he is seeing in the early vote trends. We've also got some blockbuster polls

from The New York Times that we wanted to dig into specifically. And we still got our eye on what is going on with AI, where there was a New Mexico hospital system that was hacked. And also Bill Gates saying that we may be headed into the most chaotic 20 years in human history. So all of that and more this morning.

Yes, that's right.

Thank you to everyone who's subscribed to the show, BreakingPoints.com. We are very nearly there with our fish contest. But for today, we wanted to remind you all that we'll be live streaming from our studio, hopefully when technical difficulties are resolved. And that will be starting at 6 p.m. on election night. For that night, we will also be doing an exclusive after hours stream only for our premium subscribers.

So if you want to get in for that, breakingpoints.com. You will literally be the very first to hear some of our initial takes to the election.

You want to get in on that?

Breakingpoints.com. As we said, we've got a free month trial. So literally, what do you have to lose? In addition, if you're watching this on YouTube, please hit subscribe to our YouTube channel. So you make sure that you're aware whenever we do go live on election night. If you're listening 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 a very important piece of news here on Iran. Let's put it up here. A1, please, from The Wall Street Journal. Noga actually mentioned this yesterday in our segment. But The Wall Street Journal putting out this.

The U.S.

Is warning the Gulf of possible short, intense renewal of Iran war strikes after the midterms. They have now told several Gulf Arab countries to be prepared for a short, intense military campaign. The communications through military channels are a growing number of indications.

The U.S.

And Israel are readying a new launch of heavy combat operation against Iran. This will likely be targeted towards their energy infrastructure. In addition, we're also seeing what we usually do with a bombing campaign, some sort of last minute fake diplomatic effort to try and say, hey, we tried. So let's put the next one up here on the screen from Axios. I can also share a little bit more on this. They say Iran has pressed to make new concessions pressed to make new concessions, massive post-midterm strikes loom.

So what they say is the Qataris are working to convince Iran to allow UN inspectors to visit its bombed nuclear sites in return for some small sanctions relief from the United States. Iran has pushed back on this at every single term. There have been some initial statements by Arachi and others in the public that they're willing to consider diplomacy, but for them, they will only consider a return to the means dramatic sanctions relief in addition to no more attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. I think, though, and part of the reason we're going to be covering much of these Israel elections is the fact that Brett Beebe is an interim or an interim prime minister, a caretaker prime minister, if you will, while they look for

some sort of majority coalition and potentially a new election. In my opinion, Crystal, it makes the strikes dramatically more likely because he will be pushing Trump behind the scenes to try and save his skin in a potential forthcoming election or to swing how things go in Israel, potentially even forestalling some sort of formation of a new government if they find themselves under bombardment.

I do know and I can share this. Others have reported this as well.

It does appear that there is a last minute kind of real effort.

Going on behind the scenes where J.D.

Vance apparently has made direct contact with some of the top members of the Iranian government. Again, this has all been reported out there as well to try and again to forestall something. But You know, given the track record of how those previous peace talks have gone, nobody should hold their breath. The government is going towards these major energy infrastructure strikes. The price of oil remains well over $ 110 per barrel. Gasoline on Election Day is going to be at least $ 4. 30 a gallon nationally. And that's just the reality. And it's only going to go up from here, given the situation right now. The strikes look more imminent than ever before.

Yeah, no, I think that calculation, I think your analysis of that calculation is unfortunately correct. I mean, in terms of the hopes of any sort of a negotiation bearing fruit in the near term whatsoever, what has changed about either side's calculations?

Nothing, right?

The basic math remains the same for Trump. He cannot withstand the L that he would have to take to sign on to something again that looks like the memo of understanding he tried. He couldn't sustain it. So that hasn't changed. For the Iranians, they are suffering economic pain through the blockade, but it is not so much that it is going to topple the government. It is not so much that it is going to bring them to their knees or force them to make concessions at the negotiating table that they were not going to make before.

You talked some about Netanyahu's political calculation, which I think is correct. I think we should also think through some of Trump's likely political calculation. And this is something that Professor Pape has been talking about and brought to our viewers on our show, which is that he's very likely to suffer severe midterm losses. He is very likely to try to do whatever he can to deny that he has suffered said midterm losses. And into that already chaotic moment, something that he will perceive as further benefiting him is more chaos. Well, what could provide more chaos? What could provide a potential justification for emergency national security measures? going back to war with Iran, conjuring up some sort of

threat as we've been hearing floated. Oh, my God, there's theoretical attacks on American officials or diplomats overseas. Those sorts of things may play into his hands and be even more appealing to him, not to mention the betters calculus that we've talked about here many times, which is that he has no way to achieve what he wants to achieve at the negotiating table. He is extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely to achieve what he wants to achieve through military means.

But there is at least some shred of possibility there and one that the Israelis will certainly be selling bigly to him. So I think it makes it entirely likely that since they're the only ones who are telling him what he wants to hear, hey, here's a way to win, here's a way to secure your legacy, that eventually he goes in that direction.

Very, very good point.

And then let's turn to Israel, right, in terms of what's happening there, because they're already setting the ground for the exact same thing. Let's put A3 up here on the screen. This is a translated tweet from Netanyahu yesterday. He says, to mobilize voters. The Likud party is transferring to the police, the Shin Bet and the elections committee hundreds of testimonies and pieces of evidence regarding election theft in Arab polling stations. Thousands of envelopes of cash and ROM slips, threats and violence against polling station members voting with double identities, discrepancies between the number of envelopes and the number of voters. We demand from the police and the Shin Bet a thorough investigation into election theft.

By Arab parties.

The latest line, Crystal, is basically, that because the Arabs voted a bunch, that clearly they must have been paid to do so. They are alleging Amit Sehgal and Netanyahu, you know, mouthpiece journalist, which Anoga correctly clocked yesterday, was saying that it's something about Bedouins getting paid envelopes of cash.

So apparently the Bedouin, critical Bedouin constituency of Israel is getting paid by the Qataris to come out and vote. Of course, Amit and Netanyahu are not mentioning the fact that Likud has its own Qatari bribery scandal currently working its way through the Israeli court system. But I do think that you put you got to put this stuff together, both from Donald Trump and from Bibi, because as Bibi is in the fight of his political life, remember, he could go to jail if he ends up losing this.

He has nothing to lose. Pushing Trump and manipulating him and creating the situation where a return to hostility is with Iran happens is only beneficial to Bibi, whose entire pitch to the Israeli public is I am the wartime leader. And he's gotten out of multiple trial dates, just postponed court hearings out of his own problems by always citing national security and the ongoing war, either in Gaza, with Lebanon, with Syria, with Qatar, with Iran now in this case.

So I feel like this is very, very important.

Also, just to show everybody.

Oh, go ahead.

Yeah.

Well, I was just going to say there's such a deep irony in the fact that, first of all, Netanyahu, when he's talking to American audiences, loves to tout the equal rights that Arabs have. And there were so many pro-Israel types out there, including our own ambassador, Mike Huckabee, who put out a post who said, oh, isn't this incredible?

Israelis and Arabs are voting. Well, you know, it kind of gives away the game because the quote unquote Arabs, Palestinian citizens of Israel are also supposed to be seen as Israeli, by the way. But they all were celebrating. Oh, look, this can't be apartheid. Look how they're all voting. Here we go. Josh Gottheimer, Israel's Arab citizens, men and women turning out in historic numbers. to vote, they can vote, run for office, serve in the Knesset. Rights denied to many Arabs and women across much of the Middle East are critical ally in the fight against terror. Israel's the only democracy in the region and today shows it. But the minute that they actually do vote in numbers where they actually control the balance of power here, number one,

they're completely smeared in this racist, falsified, you know, scam attack from Netanyahu. Number two, Noga educated me from your segment yesterday that Netanyahu's posting and his party's posting about, oh my God, the Arabs are voting. You got to get out to the polls. This is existential, is actually illegal.

So if you want to talk about the people who are apparently violating election law in Israel, you have to look at Netanyahu, have to look at Likud. And then the other part is, There is a majority anti-Netanyahu coalition between the Eisencott and the rest of that bloc and the Arab parties. But there is basically 0% chance that they form that government.

Why?

Because it's thoroughly unacceptable to the Jewish majority. So how is it that you're considered like you have equal rights and you can participate, but you can never be part of any sort of governing coalition because the country itself is so racist that that is considered thoroughly unacceptable? Noga, I would love to talk to her more because she pointed to some polls claiming that the opposition bloc actually supported, the voters themselves supported making common cause with the Arab parties.

I saw some polling that told the total opposite story, that the overwhelming, I'm talking 80% of the Jewish Israelis were completely against any sort of coalition forming with the Arab parties in government. So I think it shows you, and that's before we even talk about the West Bank and Gaza. These are territories that are obviously completely under the control of Israel. And do those people there have equal rights? Nothing approaching it. So it is just a deep irony to me, Sagar, that at this moment, you could have a majority coalition. And because there is a total racist unwillingness to partner with with the Arab parties. Instead, you are de facto just going to allow Netanyahu to remain in power indefinitely. And this is very much, you know,

the story of Israel right now.

Absolutely.

I mean, don't forget also, you know, Bibi or somebody took over Israeli citizens' phones and was like, hey, Arabs are voting.

You guys need to go out and vote.

Can you imagine on election day if you got a notification, one of those like emergency alerts on your phone where you couldn't do anything else and they're like, hey, blacks are voting.

You need to come out. I mean, what the hell is going on?

Look, I mean, look, given we're going to talk to Abdul in a little bit, they're basically doing the oh, my God, Arabs might vote in the Michigan race here. So it's not actually that far fetched to me. And it is not.

You're not wrong, Crystal. But I'm talking about like the emergency alert system.

Right.

I mean, yes, that is next level.

Yeah.

There are gradations, I think, to all of this just to show everybody how Israelification has reached our own shores. Here's Mark Levin. He talks a lot about how he's a patriotic American. talking to his fellow patriots in Israel. Let's take a listen.

To my fellow patriots in Israel, to the right wing, to Likud and the other coalition parties, if you do not get out and vote right now, you're going to lose your country. You're going to lose your country to leftists, to self-promoters, to Arabs who hate your country, want a Palestinian state, want to undermine your defense.

What a complete and utter disaster.

So, yeah, that's his fellow patriots in Israel.

God forbid they want a Palestinian state. I mean, this used to be the accepted position of, you know, the bipartisan consensus in the U.S. was this fiction that we were pushing for a Palestinian state. And now they just come out and say it, that it's an existential threat to them, that there would be anyone in government who would want a Palestinian state and support that. So, no, I mean, it's just that nothing is under wraps anymore.

It's all out front. And Trita Parsi, when we talked to him about the new security doctrine in Israel, one of the things they explicitly say is, We are choosing the Jewish ethnostate character of the country over the democracy part. Like we're abandoning this fiction that it's a democratic state. Now, the Jewish identity comes first. And the theory is that because of that, you already see the break with the Democratic Party from supporting Israel, that this is going to lead to an irrevocable break. with America, because at the end of the day, our country is supposed to be built on this idea of equal rights. And that's been, you know, the project by and large of our country is expanding those rights over time. And that, you know,

their commitment to a genocidal apartheid ethnostate was going to lead to a break with the U.S. And so now you can see this really front and center in this election where they are choosing that ethno identity over race. the quote unquote democratic character, even a fig leaf of a democratic character.

Last thing on the U.S. front, at the very least, is let's put a five up here on the screen. This is a report actually out of the Jerusalem Post and Israel.

U.S.

Sources telling them that Trump actually wants Ben-Gavir and Smotrich out of Israel's government. The problem, though, is, of course, there's no way Netanyahu could form a government without without those people. And according to them, they say Trump believes settler violence is undermining, quote, his regional vision and that Ben-Gavir and Smotrich have been a problem for him because they obviously continue to advance this policy of explicit, you know, apartheid and just like killing straight up in the West Bank with no justice. I guess you could say it's disrupting his regional vision, but it is kind of a ridiculous fantasy because Netanyahu himself is the person who also happens to agree with that. And then just to say

also about kind of the direction and the future of where this is going, we've previously played audio from this guy before, Moshe Feinglin. He is now a member of parliament or he will be a member of parliament in the Israeli parliament. And here he was in a recent interview with a Canadian journalist being asked, well, are you worried about being a pariah?

Here's what he had to say.

When I see your people in Canada and in Europe going together and being on the Islamo-Nazi side, you have a very bad image here in Israel. And you have to know that the real International Supreme Court The moral International Supreme Court is the people of Israel here in the biblical land. It's not the question of how you see us, it's the question of how we see you.

And it says in the book.

In the Bible, those who blessed you will be blessed, and those who cursed you will be cursed. And you in Canada and all over the world should ask yourself, are you going to be blessed or cursed? Are you with the children of God or not?

So there you go.

Are you with the children of God or not? That is his posing of the framework, if you will.

That's what a religious supremacist ideology looks like.

That's it.

We don't care. We don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us. What matters is what we think of you.

What we think of you.

Children of God. Got it.

Okay.

All right. All right.

We've got the man himself standing by.

Abdul El-Sayed, candidate for the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate from the state of Michigan.

Let's get to him.

Joining us now is the man of the hour in the Michigan Senate race, the Democratic nominee himself, Abdul El-Sayed. By the way, Mike Rogers, you are invited. You can come on our program whenever you want. We would be happy to speak with you as well. Abdul, great to see you.

It's always good to be with you guys.

Yeah, of course. So let's go and put B1 up on the screen. So there's a recent poll that just came out that has you up here by seven points, if my math is correct. And over that critical 50 percent margin, there was another Glenn Gare poll that had you up by six. CNN is out with a poll this morning that has you up by seven. Does it feel to you like you have a seven point lead?

Do you think this is what it's going to look like on Election Day?

Well, I'll tell you, it really looks and feels great on the ground, but we're not running like we're seven points up. We always run like we're 10 points down. So we're going to be hitting four or five stops every single day for the next five days until this election is up.

And I'll look up.

The only poll that matters, as you well know, is the one that's taken on or ends on Tuesday, November.

3rd at 8 p.m.

So we're going to keep working, keep talking to every last voter, having conversations about who we are, who we want to be and about why we need to get money out of politics. Put money in your pocket, pass Medicare for all.

So there have been a lot of national conversations happening, and we will get to that in a moment. But I wanted to ask you, just being on the ground, you know, talking to voters, what do you think are the sort of critical swing issues? What are the concerns that are being most raised with you, whether it's on the phone, at the rallies, at the doors? What are you hearing from people on the ground about what is mattering most to them?

It was affordability, affordability, health care, corruption, affordability, chaos. I mean, people are looking at this and saying it. cost me 80 bucks to fill up my tank. I don't know if I'm going to be able to have enough to buy two pounds of ground beef, which is what I needed. If I mix it with enough hamburger helper, maybe I'll be able to stretch it for another couple of days for my kids. People are worried about the fact that right now it feels like nobody actually cares about them.

Look at Donald Trump.

He's more interested in the drapes in a ballroom or what my name is, rather than talking about why he got us into a war he can't get us out of and why we're having a tariff war with Canada and why the big ugly bill is stripping people away from their healthcare. You know, here in Michigan, we just watched our regulators approve another double digit increase in premiums.

We watched another approval for a rate hike in utilities. And that just is the par for the course now for the last couple of years. And people are asking, all right, I don't know that I can continue to make things work. And that's really, really frustrating folks.

So let's talk a little bit about your primary opponent, Haley Stevens. She's been making a lot of news lately. First, an appearance on CNN. You know, she said she's still on the team with you, but sort of refused to say your name explicitly. And we learned her fiance is endorsing your opponent, Mike Rogers. Last night, she turned up on CNN and was asked about some of these things.

Let's go ahead and take a listen to her response here, where she affirms that she does still endorse your campaign.

And I know a lot of people watching are probably saying, okay, but couples certainly don't have to agree on everything, definitely not politics. But do you agree with your fiance and his sentiment here on this race?

No, like a lot of households across America, we're a household divided. I still very much want our Democratic nominee, his name is Abdul, to win this race. There's so much on the line. But I will be honest, there are a lot of voters in Michigan. I was out knocking doors earlier today in Macomb County and they are still undecided and they are hurt and they are confused.

And this is why I think our nominee is in a very strong position to denounce the hateful ads that have hurt people. You know, we've got one with Tucker Carlson who is a racist, anti-Black, white supremacist, apologist. And we've got another that's blaming Jews for the cost of groceries.

So, Abdul, what is your response to all this? I also understand you're going to be campaigning with Alyssa Slotkin, who happens to be Jewish, by the way, the current Democratic senator from Michigan. But Haley Stevens has said she's not campaigning with you down the stretch. So what do you make of what's going on here?

We're building a big coalition, and it includes folks who want to stand up to Donald Trump who want to take on the insanity of the Iran war, who want to take on the ridiculousness of these tariffs, who want to stand up to the notion that Donald Trump could have yet another rubber stamp in the Senate, who want to make sure he doesn't get another two Supreme Court nominees, who believe in religious pluralism and equal rights under the Constitution, who believe in the right to choose, who believe that people should have more health care, not less. And, you know, folks have their priorities in this race. Uh, I'm, I'm thankful to, um, to Congresswoman Stevens for her support early, uh, in the general election. And we're going to keep building

that big, broad coalition that we know is going to deliver the victory in November. But big point here is that I'm not just running to win a seat. I'm running to win the future. And I've been very clear on where I stand, uh, on all of these issues. And so, you know, for some folks, they, they might have higher priorities than defending our democracy and that's fine for them. Um, that is their choice. That's the beauty of democracy. Uh, but for me, it's about standing up to Donald Trump, standing up for our democracy, standing up for our rights. and making sure that people can afford their lives.

Yeah, Abdul, in that ad, America First, which you have cast yourself as, you included me, and I guess thanks for that, as well as with Tucker Carlson. One of the critical parts of that, though, and we've had a lot of discussions here about that, is that it wasn't just about foreign policy. A lot of it was about immigration.

And so we have the immigration section of your website. And I think the question is, is that you've named a lot of things on immigration that you disagree with the Trump administration on. But can you name something that you disagree with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris? Like, what would you have done differently on immigration if you were a United States senator at that time? Do you think that they did anything wrong while they were in office?

It was a key part of why they lost the election.

We needed tougher border security.

We need to make sure we know who's coming in We need to make sure that they're coming in for reasons that are legal and justifiable based on our immigration laws. But customs and border protection are different than ICE. ICE is about internal enforcement. I've been clear that we need a safe, secure border, but also the way that ICE has been weaponized against the constitution itself by this administration is dead wrong. And it's inconsistent with the constitution of our country. And so that's where I deeply differ from the Trump administration. But yeah, I think we need a safe, secure southern border. We need to know exactly who's going in, what's coming in, and making sure that the things we

don't want are not coming in. Similarly, the things that we don't want coming out are not coming out. You think about the outflow of guns and dangerous weaponry that falls into the hands of cartels in Mexico. We don't want that either. And so making sure that we're securing our border, that's a place where I would have differed with the Biden administration.

Sure. I do have a second question here, which kind of gets to the culture point on immigration. This is one which has been a little bit more difficult and kind of goes to the heart of our show. And I think for a lot of people who are potential Abdul Sa'ad voters, they will have to be people who voted for Donald Trump in the last election. So I mentioned immigration is not one of the only ones. Culture is really a big part of this election as well.

You know, for many of us, we do remember that you said defund the police in 2020. I know that you did in a 2021 interview. You said that your Medicare for All plan would cover you know, puberty blockers for minors. These are issues which are very important to a lot of households. I think, you know, kind of a way of squaring of like what you really care about, because that's what the question is. The question is, like, are you a woke 1.0 guy or are you a guy who actually cares about affordability? And so, I mean, could you envision yourself if you want universal health care, could you pass universal health care plan, which would not cover puberty blockers for minors? Is that a compromise, I guess,

that you'd be willing to accept?

You know, Sarah, that's a hypothetical, but the big question really is what is government for? Like, what is our politics really about? And I think there are a lot of people who want to distract us from the fact that our politics have not addressed the material needs of our lives by trying to make politics about cultural war.

To me, it's not even about cultural war. It's just about rights. It's about whether or not we stand up against the tyranny of government to tell people how they get to live their lives or not. And to me, that there is the real question. So to me, rights are rights are rights are rights. And the question of the kind of health care that you can get is a choice between you, your doctor, and if you're under 18, your parent. And I think that's the sort of challenge here.

And look, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. Conservatives for a long time had been fighting for right to try legislation, which was about getting government out of the way. And if you and your doctor decided that there was a medication you needed, that you should have access to that and government shouldn't tell you you can't.

Except for now, conservatives want to tell you what medication you can or cannot have. depending upon what circumstances you're in. So I'm just saying that, look, I want to stick by that point, which is to say your doctor should be your expert on your health or your child's health. If you're in that situation, government shouldn't be in the position of telling you what you can or cannot have.

Well, it's a bit complicated, right, Abdul, because, you know, you're casting this as a conservative issue, but you've got the United Kingdom, you've got Sweden, you've got Norway, you've got multiple socialized health care systems, which I know that you name checked in your book, which actually don't agree.

with your position on that and don't offer those under socialized medicine.

So why?

And you actually, by the way, you have a board certified pediatrician, Dr. Annie Andrews, who's potentially your future colleague in the United States Senate, who doesn't agree with your position. You had Josh Turek, another potential colleague of yours. I mean, these are Democrats who I'm talking about. Like, do you think they're conservatives?

Here's the funny thing about this question. Here's the funny thing about this question.

You're less concerned about whether or not people have health care and more concerned about whether or not some people are going to get their health care.

Well, I mean, that's what you're focused on. We don't have Medicare for all in this country.

Well, I'm just saying that there are a lot of people. All right, cool.

Then we agree on that.

Let's let's focus on getting that done instead of talking about who doesn't get the health care that they need.

I just last question is on this, because, again, to me, it just comes down around issues of trust, which is, again, like, are you going to fight, you know, for people who disagree with you? That's the ultimate question. You're going to have to win. By the way, I mean, to say this is just conservatives. There are many Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan, who also rioted against many of the things I'm just talking about.

Right here.

So I don't want to say that this is explicitly some sort of right wing coded issue. The point remains, you know, who do you serve? Like, are you going to serve the people? Are you going to serve the activists? And you talked about culture war. You were one of those people at the time. I've known you for quite a long time. You were certainly kind of on the bleeding edge of the left cause, you know, at that time.

So the question to me is just which is more important to you?

That's it. What do you know? I'll just tell you this. I'll tell you this. The point to me is this.

Government should be about protecting your rights and fighting for your basic needs. That to me is what I've always believed. And look, when it comes to these questions of defund, that's a dumb word. And I think the idea that we could ever address an issue as complicated as public safety in a three-word sentence, a little bit problematic. And so I've tried to make very clear what I believe in.

I believe everybody ought to get home safely. I believe that we should be investing in retention, recruitment, retirement for law enforcement, and also investing in things like behavioral health response and community violence intervention to take on the public safety challenges that we face. But where I am right now is that the big challenge in our lives is that our healthcare is about to get way more expensive.

And I get the goal of trying to parse into how we turn this question about who has healthcare into a culture war question. I just don't think politics are for culture war. I think politics are for protecting basic rights and providing basic needs. And that's what I'm going to be fighting for. And here's the thing about it.

As we get down the path of building legislation, my hope is that in the same way that we've built this campaign, we go out and have those conversations and talk a little bit about with the people what we believe, what is it that we actually think our system should look like? Can we persuade folks to see it our way.

And I get that there's going to be disagreements between me and other colleagues, many colleagues who agree with me on a lot of different things. But that's the beauty of American democracy is we have the right to have the conversation. And try to persuade. But again, the big question to me is less about who doesn't get the things.

It's more about can we provide those basic things in the first place?

OK, so Abdul, the Republican campaign against you has really and I don't think I'm exaggerating here. You can tell me if I am has really boiled down to he's got a weird name. Did you know he's Muslim? Did you know he's Arab? The president called you a terrorist, you know, a jihadist. You had Bernie Moreno yesterday basically saying, since you're not a Christian, you shouldn't be allowed in the Senate at all. And we had RFK Jr. making his own unique contribution to this incredibly bigoted, in my opinion, conversation.

Let's go ahead and take a listen to what he had to say recently.

There's 500 million Arabs in the world, and yet they don't produce science. They don't win the Nobel Prize. They don't win the field prize. They don't win the Wolf Prize. They don't produce literature.

Your reaction to him and the other attacks that have come towards you and, you know, apparently to 500 million people around the world.

You know, it's rich watching a guy with zero scientific credentials who's been appointed to one of the highest scientific roles in government lecture Michigan voters who are on the cusp of electing an Arab American with two doctoral degrees who has published in the science literature. I just, you know, prefer when they're telling on themselves, let them go ahead and tell on themselves.

I have seen you taking a lot of positions on AI and data centers and have really been hardened because it's something we've focused on a lot here. Is that something that you're seeing pop on the campaign trail? You know, I know you mentioned earlier affordability, cost of living. Of course, those are top issues for everybody in the entire country.

But is this something that you're seeing bubble up as well? I'm curious from your on the ground perspective.

Yeah, I hear it almost every town hall I do, and it touches on these affordability questions in a pretty big way. You think about the things that are increasing in price for people, utilities is a big one. And then you think about chaos and the ability to control what's happening in your community, the ability to do anything.

About those prices.

Data centers and AI hit at both of those issues in a big way. You've got these huge corporations based out of California where billionaires are getting to control A technology that's on the cusp of running rampant and loose where everybody's saying that this could potentially cause existential crises for humanity. Meanwhile, at the best case scenario, it doesn't cause an existential crisis for humanity. It just takes 50% of our jobs. And then the physical manifestation is a data center in your backyard that raises your utility rates and potentially poisons your water. You can see why people will be real frustrated by all of this. And where I hear it the most is young people, right? Because the impact that this is going to have on the

future of the economy is going to hit them the hardest. And you hear it also in rural communities, which is why this hasn't really baked out as a partisan issue. This is a pretty bipartisan issue because too often, if you think about the distribution of folks by politics, rural folks tend to vote a little bit more conservatively, but these are the folks who are watching these data centers go up in their backyards. So we've been very clear about trying to put AI under democracy, about pulling these legacy, these AI corporations outside of legacy big tech, making sure that they have government, excuse me, democratically appointed leadership, at least 50% of their boards, that there's a government stake

in 50% of their value in case they do come for 50% of those white collar jobs. And then talking about things like AI no-goes, AI shouldn't be able to fire a weapon, shouldn't be able to fire you, shouldn't be able to deny you healthcare.

And we need an.

SEC or FDA style regulatory agency that sits inside these companies to assess where and how the research is being done, whether or not they're approaching that point of accursive self-improvement that really could be the opening of Pandora's box never to be closed again. And then when it comes to data centers, we proposed way back in January in terms of engagement that if you're going to build a data center, we need a federal legislation that guarantees that all the all of the labor that's going into them is union labor, that they do not raise our utility rates, that some of the revenue they create for utility companies is leveraged to improve the reliability of our utilities, that they cannot

touch our water, and that all of these agreements are negotiated in good faith, transparently, through community benefits agreements with the right to say, no, we actually don't want this in our backyard. And until then, I think we need a local and state moratorium so that we get that federal legislation and folks have peace of mind to know that if they're going to put this in your backyard, it's not going to raise your utilities, it's not going to poison your water, and it's going to make your local community rich.

Adil, I do have a question for you.

During your debate, you infamously said seniors should have their property taxes frozen. This puts you in league with Vivek Ramaswamy, Greg Abbott. You have Daron DeSantis here. This is the section there from your website. You know, the vast majority of the people who watch the show, a lot of people I meet who are excited about your campaign, they're not seniors during the age of 65. This policy has failed every single place that it's been implemented. It has dramatically driven up housing prices for younger people. It has, of course, also given even more of a benefit to the wealthiest generation in American history. I mean, for somebody who is trying to tackle the affordability crisis, why are

you advocating for a policy that's going to make housing more expensive?

Yeah, Sagar, who says sometimes conservatives and folks like me can't see.

Eye to eye? Look, I'll just tell you this.

To me, I want housing to be affordable. I believe we need to build a lot more housing. I believe we need to address zoning and licensing that gets in the way. I believe that we need to address you know, short-term rentals and the ways that they've driven up prices, speculation in the way that's driven up prices. I want people to be able to afford a home, but here's what I hear. I'll be in communities all over the state.

And I talked to seniors and they say, look, I paid off my house back in the nineties and I'm about to get priced out of my home.

And you're like, how?

And you're like, well, my property taxes have gone up so high that I just can't afford to stay.

Now I know, right.

In theory that that's an issue that's going to be born generationally. And that If you subsidize, in effect, through property taxes, housing for older folks, they stay in that housing and it feels like a giveaway.

I get what you're saying.

But I want you to think about in the lived experience of a family, what happens when.

A retired couple.

On fixed income can't stay in their home?

What do you think happens? Who pays the cost?

Sure.

Right. Of course, they could go to Medicare facility. They might have to downsize, move to a smaller home. However- Don't usually have the money.

I'll tell you what usually happens. What usually happens is that their kids end up having to subsidize it.

That's what usually happens.

In fact, there's a person on my staff and he was like, look, my parents are exactly in this situation. And now my wife and I are on the cusp of having to help pay property taxes for my parents. So I get that in theory, you're correct about this. In practice, People don't wanna see their folks get priced out of their home that they grew up in. And so what tends to happen is that cost gets borne down on the next generation anyway, which of course prevents them from being able to afford their own home. So what I am saying is that I think there's an opportunity for us to be thinking about how do you do this in a way that doesn't force seniors out of their home and does it also in a way where you potentially could see it as an opportunity for

like the next generation to kind of buy into it. There are ways to think about this, but what I'm trying to solve is the notion that I don't think seniors should be pushed out of their housing. And I don't want the cost of that to be born on the next generation in the way that cost of so much of our aging right now is being born on the next generation.

The point I'm trying to get at, Abdul, is all politicians tell me about is fixed income. These people get inflation-adjusted free income from the government, which is tax-free, by the way, thanks to the horrible bill, which you correctly shouted out. I'm not sure about Michigan state law. The vast majority of states don't even tax Social Security benefits.

I hear a lot about seniors getting pushed out of their homes. I don't hear a lot about young families who get priced out of their homes because rent's going up, because nobody can buy a home and the prices are going up as well. So this is just, to me, an issue of, you know, effectively, I'll call it what it is. I think it's pandering to the people who vote the most and who it's really generational warfare against, you know, trying to pay their fair share. A lot of seniors, when these people were middle-aged, paid their property tax for these people's schools. And it just feels like a break when they're already dramatically wealthy. And in that scenario, you pointed out they could sell their house. They obviously

were paying more property tax. You got a lot higher value that you're sitting on. It's not like you're sitting on an illiquid, you know, depreciated asset.

And look, I see where you're coming from.

Yeah.

I think there's a lot that we can do to address homeownership issues among young people.

And I want to do all of those things.

I also think, though, to be fair, We're watching as there have been massive disinvestments in municipalities for a very long time from the federal government because we're more busy trying to figure out how to pass tax cuts for billionaires. And then in order to address those deficits, we've watched as property taxes have increased past the rate of inflation.

And who does that fall hardest on? So I think the big issue here is less about the notion that somehow, ah, well, the generations that came before them paid their property taxes. Their property taxes were a lot lower. And we're seeing substantially higher inflation in property taxes because, of course, there's federal disinvestment in municipalities. So if you really want to address the issue, the best way to do it is to make sure that our federal government is invested in the infrastructure needs of local communities and then property taxes don't go up as high, and then you don't have to worry about people being priced out of their housing.

But our federal government, because of conservative policies, tends to do two things. Number one, we cut taxes for billionaires, and number two, we go to wars, and then they pull up the money that should be invested in our municipalities to pay for things like water infrastructure in schools and And then they push that back onto rate payers and property taxes, property taxes go up. And then those property taxes tend to push seniors out of their home.

So I'm just saying that I would much rather us tax billionaires invest more in local infrastructure and then watch as our property taxes don't go up that high and then people don't get priced out. But in the interim, I'm hearing from a lot of seniors and young people who are like, yo, my parents are about to lose their home and I can't let that happen. Because in reality, right, in reality, in like the real world, When your parents are struggling and you're like, hey, they're about to lose their home, you're gonna help them. That's the real world.

And you're gonna do that because your parents did everything for you. So as much as you're right, in theory, people would just sell their homes. It would liquefy an asset that they've had. It would clear up housing infrastructure. It's just not how it works in the real world because too often people say, hey, look, I can't afford this.

And their kids are gonna be like, all right, let me help you because that's what good kids do, right? And I just think that we would like to address that circumstance. I think this is one approach among many to make sure that seniors can stay in their home to make sure that we're funding local infrastructure and to make sure that young people can afford a home to build a family.

Abdul, last question for you. Put B5 up on the screen here. People who want to see you win, who are watching around the country, are concerned that maybe the Islamophobic attacks are working. You know, there's this poll that came out that found 38 percent of voters say they'd be less likely to vote for a Muslim candidate. Um, do you think that is having an impact? Like, do you think that this strategy that the Republicans have deployed and the president has deployed and you're seeing, you know, uh, VEK Ramaswamy and also by the way, echoed, um, and from legacy media in a lot of corners, do you think that this is working?

You know, I've been in my whole life.

I think for a lot of folks, this is the first time they're seeing this, uh, live and live in color, but I just want to remind everybody, you know, from my perspective, there are always a few very small-minded people who carnival bark.

They're very loud.

They want to speak for everybody, but they don't. You know, when I kicked off this race, I took a bet on the goodness of Michiganders. And over the last 18 months, I've seen nothing but that goodness. People are open-minded.

They're big-hearted. They're earnest. They're gritty.

Invite you into their living rooms and their VFW halls. I've met people who never met somebody who prays like me or looks like me or whose family comes from a place like mine. And they use that as an opportunity for a conversation.

Who are you and what are you about? Like, That's what I took a bet on. People are good.

And I think what we're going to see is a rejection of this kind of effort to smear me. Because at the end of the day, they're going to keep talking about me and my name. And I'm going to keep talking about gas and groceries, the ability to see a doctor, the ability to breathe.

Clean air, drink clean water, to afford a home.

So, you know, in the end, those are the issues that are affecting people. And I'm taking a bet on how good people in my state are and how big our country is. And as much as, you know, we have continued to live with the historical consequences of some of the worst things. The thing that our country does better than any other place in the world is that we correct. Sometimes it takes too long. Sometimes it hasn't been done yet. But we're good at seeing the future and trying to correct. And I believe in that.

And I believe that people who try to drag us back to that.

Will ultimately lose. So the story's not yet told. I'm looking forward to November 3rd. And for anybody out there who wants to reject what we're seeing out of Trump and Vance and Kennedy and Rodgers, If you want to build an America bigger enough for everybody, you have that opportunity to make sure that you're reaching out to people that you know in Michigan. People in Michigan, make sure you get out to vote on or before November 3rd, because at the end of the day, it is our democracy and it is our country and we get to decide which direction it goes.

Last question for you, Abdul. Just one second here. I do want to make sure, because you've talked about this before on sports betting. You said that it's bad. I want to know, it's been legal in your state since 2020. If you're a member of the United States Senate, would you vote to outlaw sports betting nationwide?

Yeah, I think it's been a real problem.

I think we, you know, outlaws, I'm not for bans, but I'm for vastly curtailing the degree of marketing, the ability to serve sports betting advertising, the ability to intertwine it with any kind of sports entertainment. I think we need to put very, very clear limitations on where it can be. You know, and at the end of the day, I don't believe in banning anything, but I do believe in making sure that you can't be pernicious about where you put it, that you're not preying on people with problem gambling and and that we are protecting people from the consequences of this.

All right, Abdul, plug the website and tell people what to do in the final days. We really understand how busy you are and are so grateful for you taking the time this morning.

Abdul for Senate.com, get involved.

You can knock doors in Michigan, phone bank for us from anywhere, text bank, but especially to my sisters and brothers in Michigan, we've got a critical election. So just make sure that your voice is heard. Crystal and Sagar, it's always great to be with you. Thank you for a great conversation. and being one of the few places that you can go to actually have a substantive conversation about property tax.

Thank you very much, Abdul.

I'm not getting that on CNN.

Yeah, you've got, well, maybe six more years of fighting on these issues, potentially.

Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your time.

Thanks, Abdul.

Good luck. We'll see you on the other side.

Thank you, guys.

10/29/26: Bibi Says Arabs Rigged Elections, Abdul Exclusive Interview

Kapitelklicken springt direkt hin

Shownotes

Transkriptvom Podcast bereitgestellt · Zeitmarken springen hin