Loading summary
Transcript159 lines
- [00:00]
James Patterson
Foreign.
- [00:11]
Matthew Continetti
Champagne Some die of thirst no way of knowing which way it's going. Hope for the best, Expect the worst, Hope for the best.
- [00:23]
Jon Pothoritz
Welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast. Today is Thursday, July 23, 2026. I am Jon Pothoritz, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me, as always, executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe.
- [00:36]
Abe Greenwald
Hi, John.
- [00:36]
Jon Pothoritz
Senior editor Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.
- [00:39]
Seth Mandel
Hi, Jon.
- [00:40]
Jon Pothoritz
And joining us today, our contributing editor, Pooh Bah at the FDD foundation for Defense of Democracies, Jonathan Schanzer. Thank you. And it being Thursday, we have, of course, our old friend Washington Washington Wall Street Journal. My God. Wall Street Journal free Expression columnist and AEI honcho Matthew Continetti. Hi, Matt.
- [01:11]
Matthew Continetti
Hi, John. It's great to be here to bring some light and whimsy into your lives. I listened to yesterday's episode and the morosity was crushing. So I'm going to do my best to be peppy, optimistic, candide, like in my worldview today.
- [01:32]
Jon Pothoritz
That will be very, very welcome because I received many, many phone calls and emails from people saying I had to take an antidepressant after listening to you. And so did I. I depressed myself, as I think I told Abe, like I was. I was crushingly depressed. And I was not helped, by the way, by the astounding fact that yesterday afternoon, after having committed to the video waves the single most anti Semitic statement any American politician has made in my lifetime and possibly over the last 120 years, that we Jews were wished a meaningful fast on the 9th of AV, Tisha Bav by Zoran Mamdani, the author of that antisemitic statement, and Seth Mandel. It's an interesting moment. And then we'll get to the topic stuff. Ordinarily on what is called a Jewish holiday or Jewish commemoration, you would not be present here on the podcast because most of these days one is supposed to not work. And all of that Tishapov is a special commemorative mournful day on which we do work, though we do fast, because not working would be, I think, to we are supposed to still live and be active, even though it is a day of mourning. And what are we mourning?
- [03:17]
Seth Mandel
We are mourning the destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem that was conveniently left out of the statements by our friends Zoran Mamdani and, I believe, also Abdul El Sayed. So it is interesting to wish people a meaningful and Easy fast on the 9th of AV without mentioning that
- [03:45]
Jon Pothoritz
what
- [03:45]
Seth Mandel
we are mourning, which is the loss of the Jewish Republic, because that would of course demonstrate Jewish indigeneity in Jerusalem and in the Holy Land. And so that part is specifically skipped over, very important.
- [04:03]
Jon Pothoritz
And then we'll move on that. This week, it was revealed by the Israel Antiquities Authority, which is the sort of banner group that oversees the archaeological work inside Israel, that carbon dating of materials found in Jerusalem indicates that we have found the first specific archaeological evidence of the existence of the first temple, which was destroyed in 586 BCE wood that wood fragments that were found. Thus, not only is this a time in which we discuss Jewish indigeneity after 3,000 years, but that we now have physical evidence of that indigeneity that is not simply, you know, written records relatively contemporaneous about it.
- [05:04]
Matthew Continetti
So may I make a quick point about Mamdani?
- [05:07]
Jon Pothoritz
Please.
- [05:08]
Matthew Continetti
He, he strikes me as operates in just two modes, cuddly or menacing. And lately he's been more in the menacing side of things. You know, between the threatening video against Ken Griffin, then his anti American July 4th speech, and now the address, kind of the needless address about Bibi Netanyahu, which was objectively anti Semitic, that doesn't show. Well, it doesn't work for him. And I think that's the real Mamdani. And so people need to be aware of that. He'll go, then he'll jump in a pool and the New York Times will write an article about his favorite Taylor Swift songs. But the real Mamdani, it seems to me, is the menacing Mamdani.
- [06:02]
Jon Pothoritz
Okay, so Mamdani, of course, now this the most public enemy of the state of Israel in the United States, I think, or the most, certainly electorally, the most important. And of course, Israel is now standing at the ready or on the brink or on the verge of returning to war with Iran on the side of the United States, having basically not been involved in that war since the ceasefire in April, having conducting its own missions against Hezbollah in Lebanon. But we are told that aircraft has been flown over for refueling purposes. The Israelis have opened up the shelters, the mass shelters, in case Iran decides to move, send these ballistic missiles that it's been shooting off to fire them at Israel. Jonathan Schanzer, we have been straining for the last week to discern a strategy in what Trump is up to with this. I think we now have 11 straight nights or 12 straight nights of firing. It's like the Red Sox streak, only, you know, the Red Sox seem to be gaining in, in the American League east. And I don't see that America is gaining in the Middle Eastern east with the strategy that we are pursuing. So can you find a strategy that you can now explain, and then we can all be happy the way Matt wants us to be, cuddly and cheerful and happy.
- [07:45]
Jonathan Schanzer
I don't know if I can get cuddly and cheerful. But I'm not going to paint the bleakest picture, which I think is tempting. But I think, all right, let me try to explain, at least from my perspective what's going on. And I think there are multiple perspectives here. But we have a situation where the Iranians have clearly decided that a low intensity war is preferable to peace. They've made that decision. It's been going on now for a couple of weeks. They are taking it on the chin. They're getting hammered by the US Military on a regular basis. And I have to say, I don't know how long they can sustain this. There is an explanation that says, well, if they entered into a period of calm, well, then they would have to contend with their own people on the ground and the disaffection that the people have from inside Iran, those 75 plus million people that hate their regime. And so it's for that reason that the clerics have decided to keep this, this fight on a low flame. But I think that what we're watching right now is a flame that is growing larger. And you know, when you start drawing in the Houthis to attack the Saudis out in the Red Sea and you're hitting Jordan for, I mean, this is what the, the regime has been doing. They've decided to single out Jordan and to really, I mean, hammer it with, with missiles. This is going to escalate and the US Will respond with greater ferocity. And so I, I'm not sure that the regime, if, if their plan is to ride this out for the next six months or eight months, I think they're making a mistake. I think they believe that Donald Trump, with the specter of elections looming, that he might back down. I just don't see that happening. And so I think the regime is inviting more and more of a beating. And now we have this potential threat of drawing in the Israelis. Let me just say the Israelis are chomping at the bit. They have been eager to get hit by one stray missile, the ones that have been getting close to them in Aqaba, that if it just, I mean, they were hoping that one missile would cross the border and hit a lot or try to hit a lot so that they would have an invitation to get back in there. And when I've talked to friends in Israel over the Last couple of weeks they've made it clear that a, they're passing on valuable intelligence to the United States, Pickaxe mountain and some of the other things that we've all heard about. But on top of that, they have a target bank of hundreds of targets that they are prepared to hammer as soon as there is a predicate for doing so. So I think, you know, we remain on this, on the edge of a much more serious conflict. But I got to say, even if the regime thinks it can fight this low intensity conflict for a time, I don't think they can sustain this. Everybody in the US Military is convinced right now that if we just continue on this pace, the regime, I mean, the wheels are going to start to fall off the bus.
- [10:53]
Jon Pothoritz
Can you explain to us what that might look like? Because I think we thought two months ago that they were being hit as no one has been hit ever before. And maybe they did successfully buy time with the ceasefire to reconnoiter, move things around, dig things up from holes, and therefore have more missiles to use now. But if it didn't work to crush them in the six weeks before the ceasefire, what about what we're doing now? What does it mean that they break? Does that mean that they go into exile, that they run away, that they take their Swiss bank accounts and end up on beautiful islands near New Caledonia? What does it mean? I don't understand. Unless the regime collapses.
- [11:56]
Jonathan Schanzer
Yeah. And I don't think anybody knows exactly what it means. And I think that's okay. In other words, what we're doing is we're absolutely eroding their capabilities right now. I think that is, that can be said with certainty. That doesn't mean that they don't have drones and it doesn't mean that they don't have missiles that they can continue to fire. These are weapons of the week and they're going to maintain these for a long time. Shoulder fired stuff that they can bring to the Strait of Hormuz and fire on ships that is always going to be there as long as this regime is intact. But if we continue to erode their military capabilities, their command and control, if we're hitting irgc, if we're hitting defense industrial base, what you have is slowly, over time, this weakening, this unraveling of the regime. I have to say, you know, there's about six or seven people that are running Iran right now. If we took out another three or four of these guys, I think that's significant, right? I mean, it would send them into further disarray now, where is the breaking point? You know, I don't know. And I think I understand why Trump doesn't want to say here is the strategy, because there is no handbook for toppling a regime. But what we can say is that if we continue down this road, they are going to get weaker and weaker over time. Their ability to project power into Gaza, into Lebanon, into Syria, into Iraq, it's already significantly eroded. Now, the one thing that I will say that's the caveat to all of this is if, if the Iranians somehow are able to maintain a kind of a vice grip on the Strait of Hormuz and then they really start to do the same with Bab El Mandab and they now control two significant maritime.
- [13:42]
Jon Pothoritz
Baba Mandab is the waterway south of the Red Sea. South of the Red Sea. So it's the other pathway that Horn
- [13:51]
Jonathan Schanzer
of Africa meets Saudi Arabia. And Yemen is sort of what we're talking about here. And so this is yet another waterway that you don't want to see shut down. So the Iranians right now think that they may be able to hold the entire world hostage by shutting off these two choke points. I'll tell you the thing that I'm watching, the thing that I gotta say, I'm still, I don't know if I want to say shocked, because I don't get shocked by much anymore, but I'm surprised. Where are the Brits, where the French, where are the Germans, where are the Australians? I mean, where are our key partners, Five Eyes, Europeans, NATO? When the Iranians are shutting down international waterways, you say you support the rules based world order, will then show up and do something about it. Because right now it's only the US Defending that world order. And I mean, not for nothing, but you know, Trump continues to sour on all of our partners because they are feckless and they are unwilling to join us. They might say that we started this war, we didn't start it with the intention of having the Iranians take over international waterways. We did this in order to deprive them of their ability to build nuclear weapons, which our international partners should be thanking us for. And now that they're still sitting out as the regime continues to hold the world hostage, I think we really are watching the unraveling of a system right now. And I think this is the biggest challenge for the Trump administration. We need to start to recruit those allies to get back involved here, because if they don't, then the system goes unguarded. Other than the United States and Trump's Running out of patience.
- [15:35]
Matthew Continetti
Look, it's not just the Europeans. Right. I mean, it's also the Arabs. They're not.
- [15:40]
Seth Mandel
Yeah.
- [15:40]
Matthew Continetti
They haven't joined a military coalition.
- [15:42]
Abe Greenwald
Right.
- [15:43]
Jonathan Schanzer
They're incapable, Matt. I mean, that's the thing that I think everybody's not quite understanding here. They have all these weapons that they bought from the United states. They've got F16s and they've got Bradleys and all the stuff that they bought, but they don't have the pilots or the technicians to use this stuff. They are inherently weak. I mean, it might be nice if they loaned us some more planes if we lose a couple or if we have to take a couple out of the rotation because of parts or mechanics. But, yeah, I don't expect the Saudis to get in there and be fierce fighters.
- [16:18]
Matthew Continetti
And I have another question about the Houthis right now. It's my understanding that the Houthis are only firing on Saudi ships.
- [16:27]
Abe Greenwald
Is that right?
- [16:28]
Jonathan Schanzer
Yeah.
- [16:29]
Matthew Continetti
And so it has to do. It seems to me that specifically Saudis hit a hoodie facility a couple weeks ago. And this is in response to that.
- [16:40]
Jonathan Schanzer
Yeah. Two things to note here, I think. One is that, you know, there was a peace agreement or a ceasefire agreement brokered by China in 2023 that has kept the Iranians and the Saudis from going at each other's throats. I think that the attack on that. On that airfield in Sana' a couple of weeks ago may have ended this.
- [17:07]
Matthew Continetti
I see.
- [17:08]
Jonathan Schanzer
And I think that's number one. Number two is we've all seen these reports of Trump's new deal with MBS and basically giving a green light for the Saudis to have a civilian nuclear program on their soil. This is not exactly something that inspires confidence. You think about the Saudis and nukes, like, you know, what could possibly go wrong? But I will also just note, though, that there is this interesting dynamic that's taking place in the Middle east right now. You've got one alliance structure that we'd like to see. I think all of us in this discussion would like to see it, and that is if India, uae, Greece, Cyprus, Israel and the Saudis belong in this alliance structure, and we need to bring them in, Right? That's the IMEC structure, the India Middle east corridor. This is the gas pipeline that everybody's been talking about that would solidify an alliance that stretches across the Arabian Peninsula into Europe. That's kind of Model 1. Model 2 is something that I've been very nervous about for the last couple of months. They call it step Saudi, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan. This supercharged Sunni, radical, nasty, autocratic structure of an alliance. The Saudis have been part of it, and it's not good. Right. If you're thinking about normalization, you're thinking about the future of the region. You don't want the Saudis part of this. You could leave all the other basket cases to work together, but you don't want the Saudis in there. Donald Trump appears to have tempted the Saudis out of that alliance and back into the one that I think we want to see. So if you're asking John for a strategy, I can't say that I understand all the military strategy, but there is a diplomatic logic to what Donald Trump has just dangled in front of the Saudis, and I hope they grab it.
- [19:12]
James Patterson
I'm James Patterson. I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The title comes from my maternal grandmother, Isabel Zelvis. Morris. Nan used to always say, hungry dogs run faster, James. And I've been running fast ever since. Here's what will be coming your way soon, and this is a really terrific list. I think you'll hear from some incredible people like Stacey Abrams. Yay. BJ Novak. Yay. Kathy Bates, Dolly Parton, Josh Gad. And Pope Leo. Okay, maybe not Pope Leo, but who knows? Maybe he'll show up. Hungry dogs run faster. Thank you, Grandma, for turning me into a hopeless, obsessive compulsive. Listen to Hungry Dogs with James Patterson. That'd be me on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
- [20:10]
Jon Pothoritz
Now that it's summer, I took a bag, I took all my sweaters. I put my sweaters into a vacuum bag to put them away so that I could replace them with my summer clothing from Quince, which has been stored away for these warm months. And of course, just as the days are a little more relaxed, so is the clothing that I'm wearing. And that's Quince summer clothing. Well made essentials that naturally become those everyday staples that you want to live in all summer long. Quince's 100% European linen pants and shirts are breathable, easy to throw on. And the summer upgrade your rotation needs and they start at just 34 bucks. Tees soft enough to live all day. Lightweight cotton sweaters, exactly what you want when the summer nights cool down. Everything at Quint is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work with ethical factories and cut out the middleman. So you're paying for exceptional quality, not brand markup. And I'M just telling you, people say to me, are you wearing quints? And I say yes because I am now so associated with quints. So make your suburb wardrobe easier. Go to quints.com commentary for free shipping on your order and 36065 day returns now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com commentary for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com commentary. Of course, we heard this morning the thing that was not said yesterday, Abe, which is that Trump expects the Saudis to to become part of the Abraham Accords, which is to say imec. I mean this is more famous than imec, but to become part of it if that enrichment plan is to be approved. And by the way, or gone through and by the way, that is politically intelligent for Trump inside the United States because this is a deal that Congress has to now it's sort of like the JCPOA in that Congress disapproving takes a 2/3 vote. That's one of the structures of this whatever this approval is the way that Congress to reject the jcpoa. Obama put it in front of Congress but said you could only object, you could only get rid of it with a 2/3 vote. So that probably wouldn't happen in any case. But that would at least be a sweetener to Congress to be more supportive of what is a slightly worrisome idea. As I said yesterday, you can understand that right now the Saudis enriching nuclear materials with mbs, who is Western leaning seems somewhat benign. But if he falls and a Muslim Brotherhood regime takes over, we're in a whole mess of new trouble with the nuclear power in Riyadh. So
- [23:24]
Abe Greenwald
yesterday on the show, I mean I said I was concerned about this Saudi nuclear deal having the effect of getting rid of some of the Saudis incentive to normalize relations with Israel. And then afterward, John, you said, well, yeah, that Trump should make it contingent on their normalization. The thing about that is, I mean look, I'm glad it's in there now. First of all, yes, it is.
- [23:51]
Jon Pothoritz
I mean it is, right.
- [23:52]
Abe Greenwald
I was about to say, first of all we're all confused because didn't they sign something already? And second, this sort of gets us back into the loop of the Gaza peace plan, right? Because in order for the Saudis to say yes to normalization, there's gotta be some gesture regarding a pathway to a Palestinian state. And what's happening in Gaza right now, Hamas is they're still armed, whatever their Obligations are to go to phase two have not been met. So we're a long ways off from what would be acceptable.
- [24:34]
Matthew Continetti
I think I was very pleased to see the Trump truth this morning where he said that the Saudi deal would have no enrichment of material, pertains only to non military use. He compares it to the deal that was recently struck with the uae, which also has pretty, I think, you know, reasonable levels of inspection and verification to make sure that the civil nuclear program is operating accordingly. And then also includes the Abraham Accords, which mention as a precondition of the agreement. But as pleased as I was to see it, I also had the reaction which is who's actually running the policy here? Because none of what Trump said this morning, Thursday, July 23rd, was in the reporting yesterday, Wednesday, July 22nd, and in fact it was kind of billed as well. We weren't applying the UAE strictures to Saudi because they're more important and we need to pull them away from a potential Pakistan, Russia, China connection. But now Trump comes in and says, whoa, whoa, wait. And as John points out, if Trump says something, does that actually mean that it's policy? This is related, I think, to our Iran discussion. Whereas I was just struck again by two truths within four hours of each other yesterday. The first truth that Trump posted on his way to the dignified transfer of our fallen soldiers in Dover, Delaware, said that for every rocket fired at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump would blow up one bridge or energy infrastructure, including in and around the capital Tehran. And then four hours later, he posted another truth, which was a screen capture of a news story that said Trump was opening the gates of hell and launching attacks. So you have tit for tat on one hand and the gates of hell opening on the other. Which is it, Mr. President? And it's the same here with the Saudi deal. Is it just going to be the arrangement that someone unclear who worked out with mbs, or is it going to be this deal that you stipulate in your truth post?
- [26:55]
Seth Mandel
Okay, let me, can you, Jonathan, can you add to that answer why, why the Saudis need nuclear energy?
- [27:06]
Jonathan Schanzer
Yeah. So two, two quick things to note about the Saudis and what they're being asked to do. Number one, I think they're being asked to choose their national interest, that is nuclear power over the Palestinian issue, which was always what the US Was trying to do. It's what the Israelis were trying to do. This was kind of the core of the Abraham Accords with the Emiratis, with the Bahrainis, with The mor. The idea that, hey, guys, you don't really care about the Palestinian issue, you care about things that matter to your people, to your country, and this ain't it. And I think that's number one. And I think Trump has always figured out that the Saudis, they were willing to do this. It was just a question of what they offered and how, like what the Saudis wanted, what they were willing to pay for it. The other thing is, so talking about the need for this power, I mean, obviously it's a little weird to think about a, an energy superpower needing more energy, but when you think about what the Saudis have in mind for data centers in particular, and the role that they want to play in the AI race, which is significant, and the idea that they would be aligning fully with the United States, not aligning with the Chinese, not aligning with any other, you know, aspiring AI power, I do think that this is significant. I think we're watch again, I think the goal, and we'll see if Trump is successful here, but the goal is to pull the Saudis out of these really sketchy alliances that they have, or quasi alliances. Remember, they've tried to kind of do this tightrope act where they're working both with the Chinese and the United States. This is an effort to pull them out of the wrong coalitions and to pull them into ours, both from a Middle east perspective and from a global perspective. And I think it's important. This was, and if you ask me, this has always been Trump's goal. When he got into this war, this was about changing the map of the Middle east to make the Middle east more of a US Centric alliance structure heading into a great power competition with China. So, look, I don't want to give Trump too much credit for a grand strategy, because I'm not sure he has one. Maybe we can give this to Marco Rubio instead. We can give it to somebody else to take credit for. But I do see some credit, real logic to what we're watching play out right now. Maybe not the full strategy of the war, but some of this diplomatic stuff on the sidelines seems actually very relevant and important.
- [29:42]
Jon Pothoritz
Well, it's kind of amazing how cheerful you're making me in all respects here, but I wanna.
- [29:52]
Jonathan Schanzer
I just stepped on Matt's lines.
- [29:54]
Jon Pothoritz
No, but you gotta. We're wrapping up on this. But I do want to. None of us is a military historian, though. I think we're all, you know, reasonably well read in the history of military adventures and misadventures And I still think as we look at this and as we look at what Trump is saying about Iran, that the failure or the refusal to state the aim of this war beyond Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon is complicating every moment of every day that we continue to fight it, because we're just blowing things up in Iran and degrading them. We're degrading them, and we're degrading them, and we're degrading them. And that is not a sufficient justification for a major military conflict.
- [30:50]
Jonathan Schanzer
Okay, two things in response to that. Number one, Donald Trump never tells you his strategy ever, about anything. I mean, it's just. It's utterly frustrating, but it is what this guy. The guy likes maximum flexibility on everything. He doesn't want to get pinned down with a strategy, doesn't want to tell the Democrats what his strategy is. He doesn't want to tell the Iranians what his strategy is. He just wants to do what he wants to do. And it changes daily, and it drives everybody crazy, drives the media crazy. I mean, the number of people questions that I get from the media about what does this guy do? I don't know. I cannot tell you, because he's not telling anybody, and it's driving everybody nuts. But the thing that I just want to point out is, yes, you are correct in the sense that we can't just keep bombing Iran, and that's not a strategy in the sense that, like, you, you know, hold your breath and you hope there is, though, a scenario where we continue to erode the regime over the course of several months, which is not a long period of time, relatively speaking, in terms of, you know, histories of war, to do that over time and to hit the right things. And we don't know, because the Pentagon's not allowed to talk to the media, they're not allowed to talk to think tankers. We're kind of operating in the dark here. But there could be a pattern here that leads to something positive, that leads to something akin to regime collapse, regime change, or something else. We're just not able to see it. Donald Trump doesn't want to share it. The Pentagon won't share it. And so we continue to operate with this frustration because we're thinking, hey, America's a superpower. We should have won this thing, you know, like, you know, three months ago. Why aren't we. No insight. They're not giving us that insight.
- [32:40]
Matthew Continetti
You know, it's funny that the media is reporting, and I think Washington has internalized this idea that, you know, the war is entering it's sixth month when in fact the war was four weeks long. The war began on February 28th and then ended on April 7th when Trump announced the ceasefire. And since then, we have not been at war.
- [33:03]
Jon Pothoritz
We have been engaged the last 10, last 11 days, you could say we've been at war.
- [33:07]
Matthew Continetti
But this thing, even, I count the last 11 days, we have been engaged in exactly the low intensity conflict that Jonathan describes. Now, we're gradually amping up the pressure in the last 11 days, but since April 7, it's been this kind of proportional warfare, what Trump calls love taps. The Iranians fire at our allies, they fire at shipping, they harass everybody, they try to kill, they plot against to kill Trump, they move the centrifuges to Pickax Mountain. But since April, Trump has seemed to believe, just as the Iranians believe, that this low intensity conflict is fine. He can live with it. And that seems to have changed in the past 10 days when it was clear that they have no intent on changing that. In fact, the status quo since April 7th works for them. They're happy with it. And all of the political costs to Trump, really. I mean, there was, we can talk about this in the next segment on politics, but there was some brief, I think, respite for Trump, especially after the MOU was signed and all the pomp and circumstance. But of course, it didn't change anything because as you say, John, at the end of the day, the problem is the regime. It's always been the regime. And until you get new leaders in Iran, you're not going to get any real change in their behavior. And so I think, I just, I think it's very important for Trump. Yes. Keep grad. Open up the pressure, but also tell the military to resume its target list from April 6th. Yeah.
- [34:48]
Jonathan Schanzer
And maybe get Israelis back in there, too.
- [34:50]
Matthew Continetti
Get the Israelis.
- [34:51]
James Patterson
Why?
- [34:51]
Matthew Continetti
This is the most important thing, I think, that's happened over the last period. Why hasn't Iran hit Israel? Because they're afraid.
- [35:00]
Jonathan Schanzer
Correct. They know the Israelis are going to open up and target everything and everybody.
- [35:06]
Seth Mandel
Everyone.
- [35:07]
Matthew Continetti
I think that's the key. Everyone. They know that Israel has penetrated the regime so extensively that even this General Vahidi, you know, the new IRGC commander, could potentially lose his life. And so Israel has successfully deterred Iran. Trump should be looking at Israel and saying, how can we deter Iran? What does that mean? That means putting, putting the leaders on the target list and also expanding the use of the type of targets to include not just the missiles and Production facilities and drone teams. We need to do that. But also these dual use economic targets. And why is Iranian state TV still broadcasting? Yeah.
- [35:53]
Jon Pothoritz
Okay, so can I just add one thing? Go ahead.
- [35:56]
Abe Greenwald
I just wanted to. Matt made me think of something which is that I wonder to what extent the Trump administration's public scolding of Israel turn on sort of like, you know, Vance's direct insults and whatever else. I wonder to what extent that that posture change has emboldened Iran.
- [36:24]
Jon Pothoritz
Very, very, very likely. It is very likely. If they are trying to assemble a data set to understand what the United States is doing. You would just, as a matter of linear fact, you would say, well, the number two person in America is trashing Israel and saying that they were using Epstein as an agent. And so you go, well, I mean, that's how the administration feels. So I still think that Matt's point that we need to make it clear to Iran that we have deterrence and that they need to back down or whatever. However we want to put it, that Jonathan's point, that Trump does not want to tell you his strategy. It's not that Israel says our strategy is to kill every leader in Iran. It doesn't have to say it because it has been killing people in Iran for 15, 16 years since they started killing off the nuclear scientists, you know, at the, at the beginning of the 2010s. And so Iran has no question what it is, but they don't know what Trump wants. They don't know if Trump has the, you know, has the sort of get up and go to put some boots on the ground or to hit them or to hit facilities that, that are these dual use facilities. They don't know and therefore they're operating. He is not sending them the message that they need to hear. Okay, Jonathan, we got it. We're gonna say goodbye. Fantastic. Rare, rare notes of optim. Rare note of positivity. Non Dr. Doomness.
- [38:07]
Matthew Continetti
Positivity.
- [38:08]
Jonathan Schanzer
Positivity.
- [38:09]
Jon Pothoritz
Positivity. That is your middle name.
- [38:12]
James Patterson
Okay.
- [38:12]
Jon Pothoritz
Anyway, thanks again. Going to talk to you about Brooklyn bedding because when I first laid down on my kids new Brooklyn bedding mattress, I immediately felt a difference. So did they. I bought two more for two other kids. That's what's going on in my house. This isn't just your average bed. It's a handcrafted, precision built, comfort manufactured radio right here in the US you don't just sleep on a Brooklyn bedding mattress, you experience it. I'm big on buying things I know will last. And Brooklyn bedding feels like that kind of purchase. They design and assemble every mattress in an Arizona factory. No middlemen, no gimmicks, just top tier quality. If you sleep hot Brooklyn bedding Use Glaciotex covers, copper infused foams and temperature regulating materials to help keep you cool and comfortable all night long. So go to BrooklynBedding.com and use my promo code commentary at checkout to get 30% off site wide during the summer sale. That's BrooklynBetting.com and promo code commentary for 30% off site wide. Exclusive with my code. BrooklynBetting.com promo code commentary
- [39:25]
Eric Gertler
from the State House to the courthouse, in the emergency room and in the classroom, Americans are losing trust in their leaders. In a 2025 U.S. news and World Report survey, 75% of Americans said government leaders care more about their own power than the people they serve. 73% are disappointed in healthcare leaders, 72% in business and 68% in education. But there are still leaders worth believing in. I'm Eric Gertler, CEO and executive chairman of U.S. news World Report. This is the Best Leaders podcast sponsored by the Noble Reach Foundation. On this show, we'll go deeper into the stories, challenges and lessons of extraordinary leaders across public service, business, healthcare and education. You can find the Best Leaders podcast from U.S. news World Report on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [40:29]
Jon Pothoritz
Okay, so we're talking about all this, and we don't know to what extent the war is playing a role in this. But Trump's polling this week is reaching catastrophic numbers, not reaching is dropping into the realm of the catastrophic. While interesting polling suggests the Democratic Party might be getting a little serious in thinking about what it might do in 2028, by which I mean, if you were going to lay out a landscape for the Democratic Party on who we know or who we think is maybe running for president, given the radicalization of the party over the last year, this Emerson poll that came out of who people Democrats might choose in 2028 is very interesting because it leans toward the less extreme, I would say in the panoply, not that I don't think that they're all extreme in some ways, but in the panoply of Democratic choices, that if you have a poll in which Pete Buttigieg is sort of like the leading figure, that means that people in the party are not ready to jump on the DSA bandwagon or the Democrats who are polled. Do you agree with that, Matt?
- [42:15]
Matthew Continetti
Well, yeah, there's so much polling data that it's Great to talk about in the horse race. And if you want to go right to 28, we can. We can talk about 26 first. Okay, but why not? Why don't we just start at 28? Because this was an Emerson poll that just came out that I thought was very fascinating for a couple of reasons. And the first reason is it did not have the frontrunners that we have been talking about for most of the year. As you mentioned, John, leading Emerson's latest poll for the 2028 Democratic primary is former South Bend Mayor and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, who is at 19% nationally. Right behind him, someone we have been talking a lot about, Gavin Newsom at 17%. All of these numbers here are bunched within the margin of error. But then this is the story for me, which is that tied with AOC at 13% is Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff. Now, Ossoff has been, I think, very canny in recent months, setting up these speeches to Democratic audiences. Of course, he's running for reelection in the fall, but also moments like his recent exchange with Secretary Hegseth that go viral. His encounters with Trump officials. And Ossoff has not been included in Emerson polling. This is the first time they included him, and immediately he's at 13%, tied for third place with AOC. I think this is a big deal, and I think a lot of Democrats are going to pay attention to this poll because in the background for now, for the past month or so, there's been a lot of chatter about a potential ossoff candidacy in 2028. Of course, he has to win reelection first, but he has a profile of someone, I think, who could do pretty well nationally. Of course, he hasn't been tested on that stage yet, but this was big. And the second thing that it brings to me is that the 2028 Democratic nomination is wide open. It is wide open. There are four candidates who get double digits in this poll. Buttigieg, Newsom, Ossoff and aoc. Kamala Harris, who a lot of people have been talking about as kind of the presumptive frontrunner. She dropped to 8% in the poll. The undecided is essentially tied for third place as well, with 13%. So this is anyone's game. But as you say, John, it's not the national Democrats as they're looking for. The potential standard bearer in 2028 is not where the Senate races or with the House races are with the dsa. Anti semitic socialist radicals. You know, aoc. She's there. Of course she has A lot of national name id. She has a, again a political personality that is not as menacing as some of her, her friends and for example someone who shares her politics. Ro Khanna, the California congressman, he's at 2%, he's at single digits, so you want to look at the double digits and that shows it's open. Just moving to the Republicans quickly, that's the other big story which is that in this 2028 Republican poll of Emerson, J.D. vance's support has, I mean I want to say collapsed, but it has shrunk. He has gone from 52% earlier this year of Republican voters thinking of 2028 to 39%. And as he has fallen, Marco Rubio has risen going from 20% earlier this year to now 38% of the vote. These are the only two candidates who get double digits. And Vance and Rubio are essentially even in the Emerson poll of national voters. That is a pretty remarkable development and I am sure that there is someone in the Oval Office who is noticing this as he thinks about what is best to follow him in 2028.
- [46:51]
Jon Pothoritz
Two things occur to me about these polls. First, what is the Vance Rubio conflict that has dropped Vance and raised Rubio? The Republican Party is a party that believes in the projection of or Republican voters For the last 50, 60 years have believed in the projection of American power abroad and in the last 40 years has become a Zionist party. And JD Vance has lined up with people who do not believe in the projection of American power abroad and has been signaling very, very openly that he is not part of the Zionist Israel supporting majority of Republicans. I can't think of anything that makes them different in the eyes of voters. I don't mean because of course these are our obsessions but I mean I can't think of anything that would make you feel differently.
- [47:59]
Matthew Continetti
Well, just consider the two public interventions that each man has had in recent weeks. Of course with JD Vance it was the Joe Rogan three hour interview where he said there was an Israeli influence campaign against the memorandum of Understanding that he negotiated with Iran, where he said that there was evidence even though there is no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein had Mossad connections. This is the Vice President saying this by the way. So that was. And he talked about he the differences between UFOs and demons. Interesting discussion. But anyway that was what he spent his time doing. Compare that with Marco Rubio's speech to the summit on left wing terrorism which was a just remarkable oration on Marxism, socialism, radicalism and the desolation that it causes throughout the world and throughout history. So you can just see the contrast there. And I think that outside the confines of the Internet, most Republican voters want to hear the second speech. They're less interested in the first podcast.
- [49:24]
Jon Pothoritz
And we have to, we have to take this into account. This is very important because social media, I've used this analogy a thousand times. Social media is Plato's cave. It is not reality. It is shadows that you, that one trapped inside the cave read as things that aren't read as monsters when there could just be a mouse walking across as a shadow. And if we had, this is the first real hard piece of evidence that the Republican Party is not the Twitter Republican Party. It is not the Trump tweeters. You know, sort of the people who are sort of professional Trump tweeters, Alex Brucewicz, Greg Price, this whole crew of people who are either being paid to, you know, sort of are doing this for a living, who line up pretty much on the far reaches of they support Trump no matter what. But what they highlight isn't Rubio's speech. They highlight Vance. So that's them. And then of course, the podcast bros, who are the other part of the Internet. And so it is important to keep your focus on what people actually think in the United States or how they
- [51:02]
Matthew Continetti
behave, the revealed preference. Right. I mean, and it's not, I mean, of course, this is a poll. So it's not behavior, it's what you're stating. It's also, I need to say it's a poll of a race that doesn't exist.
- [51:12]
Jon Pothoritz
Right.
- [51:13]
Matthew Continetti
Marco Rubio is not running for president. He has said that if Vance runs, Rubio will support Vance. Now, do I think there will be challenges to Vance? Yes. And I think that this poll is going to inspire more challenges. And the poll will also make Trump think about how he wants to approach the 2028 primary. And does he want to have some apprentice like performance or contest?
- [51:46]
Abe Greenwald
Right.
- [51:46]
Matthew Continetti
Does he want to say, you know what, maybe Marco should run and we'll just see and let the people decide?
- [51:52]
Abe Greenwald
Yes, he does.
- [51:54]
Matthew Continetti
He has to say that before this race that we're seeing in the poll comes into existence.
- [52:01]
Jon Pothoritz
But, Seth, I wanna bring you in because I'm struck by two things in the Democratic side. One is that Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania, is at 5%. And the other is this Ossoff number at 13%. Now, Shapiro and Ossoff are both running for reelection. It is likely that Shapiro, the governor of the seventh largest state in the union, I believe, is going to get 60% of the vote. So he is going to win a landslide election. He is keeping his head down. He's not talking about national issues. He is running to rack up a very significant margin. And the idea that he, as the governor of this swing state should not be taken seriously as a national candidate, should this happen in November, will start falling by the wayside just as if Ossoff wins relatively commandingly as a Democrat in, again, a swing state, but a Southern state and a relatively liberal Democrat, though not a radical Democrat in a Southern state. You gotta start saying Clinton model. That's really interesting. But they both have something in common. And what is that, Seth?
- [53:18]
Seth Mandel
They are both men assigned male at birth. I'm kidding. They're both Jewish.
- [53:26]
Jon Pothoritz
They're both Jewish. They're both circumcised on the eighth day and are guilty if they're not.
- [53:33]
Matthew Continetti
But following how do they code? Do they both Jewish?
- [53:38]
Seth Mandel
You know, Jon Ossoff was the subject of a sort of weird exchange on CNN a couple weeks ago that a lot of people pointed out where somebody, I think it was cnn, I apologize if it was a different network where somebody said, you know, contributor said, you know, he. How Jewish you. He didn't say the word code. I don't think think. But Matt, you know, Matt's word is the correct one. Right? Code is the sort of almost like vibe in, in terms of, you know, where you, where you immediately situate people in your head. What you. When you first hear a name or a policy or a country. Here we have it where it appears on the red, blue sort of scale.
- [54:20]
Jon Pothoritz
Okay, so I'm just, I just want to. It was cnn. The speaker was Alex Michelson, who is an anchor, not a pundit. The anchor of the show said, quote, as a Jew, some people read a little more Jewish than other people. And Jon Ossoff may not read as Jewish as Josh Shapiro does, for whatever that's worth. The fact that that is even a permissible thing to say and doesn't immediately get you fired is, you know, when it would have 10 years ago. That's one thing. That's a pretty interesting moment.
- [54:55]
Seth Mandel
But it is. But the reason it was so interesting is because his point is not wrong on his overall point, not on whether one is more Jewy than the other. But his overall point, right, was a person who codes as very Jewish can't win the Democratic nomination. That was his overall point, that if you can pass, you can win the Democratic nomination. So putting aside the weird discussion about whether a Jew can pass the underlying, the underlying structure here, which is that the Democratic Party is becoming an openly hostile to Israel and therefore fostering an undercurrent of anti Semitism that is only growing as a party is, is an obstacle. Now, one of the interesting things about Shapiro and Ossoff is that Shapiro, well, you could say he reads as Jewish because he talks about his faith. You could say he reads as Jewish because his name is Shapiro. You could read, and you know, everybody's name is Shapiro. You could read as Jewish. You know, the fact, you know all these different things about it. But one of the reasons he's also
- [56:11]
Matthew Continetti
willing to defend Israel, I think, than Ossoff.
- [56:13]
Seth Mandel
Right. So that's what I was going to say. The Israel thing is really what put them all front and center. Right, which is. Shapiro was accused of essentially dual loyalty when he was interviewed for the possible spot of vice presidential nominee on Kamala Harris's ticket. He was asked whether he's an agent for Israel, representing a foreign country, et cetera, that sort of thing. And one of the reasons he did that is because during that specific process, when he was being vetted for vice president and therefore the talk of the town, he was accused by the left of joining the idf, right, Volunteering. The phrase used was volunteering for the idf. When of course, what he had done was he was volunteering, you know, on a kibbutz or something, and he was a program and they were helping out, you know, something having to do with an IDF overseen program. But no, he didn't put on a uniform, obviously. And no, you can't just like take a summer trip to Israel and they hand you, you know, an M16 and tell you to go, you know, into the field. Like the whole thing was ridiculous. But it doesn't matter that it was ridiculous because people believed it, especially on the left. And it picked up enough steam that Kamala Harris had to say, can you even in the most generous reading of the comments, explain to me what's going on here? What does all this mean? That for Josh Shapiro is the big problem is that they have muddied the waters enough to say that even the generous way of interpreting some of these comments is I don't really understand what all this means. You know, explain to me how you're not part. Didn't work with the idf, whatever. So that's a key weakness on the Reed's Jewish, which is that did Jewish stuff, went to day school, you visited Israel.
- [58:09]
Jon Pothoritz
An Ossoff, if anything, is a kind of perfect representation of the kind of Jew for whom I have Particular contempt.
- [58:18]
Seth Mandel
Well, that's the set
- [58:23]
Matthew Continetti
who also vote Democrat.
- [58:24]
Jon Pothoritz
Well, that's my point. So he's a Democratic Jew who has, what would my guess is, has skeptical feelings about Israel and is not particularly supportive.
- [58:40]
Matthew Continetti
Can I also add, Ossoff has a connection to the most important constituency in the Democratic Party, and that is the black vote because of his alliance with his fellow Georgian senator, Raphael Warnock. And the two of them have worked very closely since both being elected in that crazy special election in Georgia. And that, that is, you know, the African American vote remains the key to winning the Democratic nomination. So that's just something to keep in mind as this goes forward. And I think one reason why, if he does perform as well among black voters in Georgia, where there considerable presence in politics, that would be something that a lot of Democrats nationally will look at. Also, this whole discussion of the coding reminds me of one of my favorite moments from the 2020 campaign, which I can't go without repeating, which was after the Iowa caucus, a reporter asked a caucus goer, a lady, you know, who'd you vote for? And she goes, well, I voted for Pete Buttigieg. And she said, the reporter goes, well, how did it feel voting for the first serious gay candidate for president of the United States? And the woman responded on cnn, he's gay.
- [60:01]
Jon Pothoritz
So I am. So I just.
- [60:03]
Seth Mandel
But another aspect of.
- [60:05]
Jon Pothoritz
We got. We got to move on. We got to move on.
- [60:07]
Seth Mandel
Let me just say, let me just say one more thing, because it has to do with Trump and the Republicans and the way they handle the elections. Ossoff was almost, his career was almost dead in the water aside. Let's put aside the Jewish stuff. The interesting one, interesting facet of him is that he, he had lost to Karen Handel in 2017 in a ton in a congressional race. He ran for Aussie that had been left open by a retiring Republican. He wasn't crushed, but he was a sort of. He was one of those figures that the Democrats had touted as this bright, young, photogenic, et cetera, candidate, exciting the way they sometimes do in Texas and elsewhere. And he lost. And he was the subject of a fair amount of mocking for that because he was built up right. He lost in 2017. Then he ran again and he ran for Senate. When he ran for Senate, he ran against David Perdue. Now, David Perdue beat him by more than Karen Handel beat him, if I remember correct. I don't remember the percentage.
- [61:11]
Jon Pothoritz
He beat him on election night.
- [61:13]
Seth Mandel
He beat him on election night by 2 percentage.
- [61:15]
Jon Pothoritz
Purdue did not get over Right. But the Republican did not get over 50%.
- [61:21]
Seth Mandel
It was 49 to 47. So they went to a runoff. When they went to a runoff, that was when Trump went, did his whole thing about how your votes, who knows who's counting them, do your votes really count, et cetera. And Ossoff edged Perdue. Ossoff was on the edge of oblivion for a politician's career. And it is instructive about the ways that American politics work also that he is now being thought of as this serious contender for the presidency, and I think rightly so, because I agree that he's talented.
- [61:54]
Matthew Continetti
It's better to be lucky than good in politics.
- [61:56]
Jon Pothoritz
See, I don't think that either of them is a serious contender for the presidency because I do not believe that a Jewish person can win the nomination in the Democratic Party. That was why I never thought that Shapiro would ever be Kamala Harris vice presidential nominee. Now she might be happy to have had him as her vice presidential nominee so that they would stop blaming her and Biden for losing in 2024 and could blame Shapiro and say it's because Shapiro was there that Arabs in Michigan voted against Biden and let Trump win Michigan. Not that that alone would have won Trump the presidency. But now we have this whole line that Biden's reckless support of Israel's adventure in Gaza.
- [62:42]
Matthew Continetti
Jake Sullivan can't sleep.
- [62:43]
Jon Pothoritz
He can't sleep.
- [62:44]
Matthew Continetti
Sleep at night because they were just too supportive of Israel.
- [62:48]
Jon Pothoritz
Yeah. So she should have picked Shapiro because he could have been the scapegoat for her loss. But anyway, well, that would have still been.
- [62:55]
Abe Greenwald
That would have still redounded to her.
- [62:58]
Jon Pothoritz
I know, I know. I'm joking.
- [63:00]
Jonathan Schanzer
Anyway.
- [63:00]
Jon Pothoritz
But now. Now we gotta talk about the disaster for Republicans. There are three polls this week that herald disaster. We are talking about polls that show not only one poll that is almost certainly an outlier that has Trump at 30% approval. The only president to achieve 30% approval in our, you know, in the sort of. In the 21st century, whatever. Was George W. Bush in early 2028 when the Republican Party had had enough of him. This has never happened before. So this is 2008. 2008. Excuse me. Right. Okay.
- [63:42]
Matthew Continetti
Two of the polls have him at 32. Yeah. I think ar is ard and Emerson have him.
- [63:49]
Jon Pothoritz
No, Emerson has him at 37.
- [63:51]
Matthew Continetti
I think maybe it's the Fox poll that has him at.
- [63:54]
Jon Pothoritz
Okay, anyway, let's just say he's low. He is in the 30. You know, he's lucky to be at 35. And without question, presidential approval correlates with the issue, that is enthusiasm and whether people come out to vote and how people identify themselves as Republican and where independents are and all of that issue by issue. According to Fox, Democrats have it over Republicans, including on immigration. Now not just the economy where they have a double digit lead, but immigration where they now have a one point lead, which is. And generic.
- [64:37]
Matthew Continetti
I'm sorry, I need to correct myself. Two polls have him at 39%, 39 and one has him at 39% and then ARG has him at 30.
- [64:45]
James Patterson
Right.
- [64:46]
Matthew Continetti
Big differences.
- [64:46]
Jon Pothoritz
Okay, Right. So anyway, the generic poll, the Emerson poll has the. Or the Fox poll has the generic meaning. Will you vote for a Democrat or Republican or do you prefer Democrat or Republican? 11 points with the Democrats in the 50s. The other polls track that though they're less dramatic. So we're moving into August and if these kinds of numbers hold up, Republicans will lose the Senate. And I mean they will lose the Senate in bizarre ways. I don't mean, I mean, I think there are two major ways they could lose. They could retain it because EL Sayed could really be, could win and then could really be an impossible person to get elected. And this lunatic who has now taken the lunatic Platner's place could be unelectable in Maine and they need both of those to get there. But when you have numbers like this, as you have in some cases, like in 1980, people come out of nowhere to win. Like a Democrat could win in Mississippi, a Democrat could win in Oklahoma. I know that sounds crazy.
- [66:02]
Matthew Continetti
Here's why. As bad as the polls are, it's not quite the same thing as in other elections, which is these are polls of national vote, national voting preference. And what is the major story of American politics over the last generation? It is ideological sorting into different geographical spaces. Okay, so I thought there was a very interesting quote from Darren Shaw, who's one of the Fox pollsters. He said that Democrats need a six to seven point victory in the national House vote for guaranteed control of the House. And that's unusual because typically you think, oh, you win the national House vote, you're going to win the House of Representatives. But he's saying the opposite. Why? Because of the fact that Democrats are packed into distinct geographic spaces, mainly cities, because of the gerrymandering wars that have given Republicans something of a cushion. Right. So that's just one thing to keep in mind. The other thing is about related is this map that you kind of referred to just now, the Senate map, which is if you don't if Democrats don't pick up Maine and they don't pick up Texas, they need to sweep North Carolina, where they're doing very well. Ohio, Alaska and Iowa. Ohio, it seems like it's a pretty competitive race there because it's Sherrod Brown looking for his old seat. Alaska also seems competitive, but it's kind of a strange race. Iowa is a very Republican state. There have been some polls. They will lean both ways. And by the way, that's if the Democrats hold Michigan, if Michigan goes because of the problems of a DSA anti Semite, then they need to pick, they actually need to pick up somewhere else, Maine or Texas.
- [68:24]
Jon Pothoritz
Right. Okay.
- [68:25]
Matthew Continetti
So my point is, yes, they're terrible polls. Republicans are on track for severe losses, but it's the reason why you see some complacency in Republican circles are these structural things. What I would point out, though, the thing that really has struck me in a lot of these polls, and it was in the recent Washington Post poll too, is motivation and enthusiasm. And this is something that we have seen throughout the second Trump term. Democrats will crawl over broken glass to vote against Donald Trump. And Republicans, like Trump, they support him actually in record numbers. His approval rating within his party. They're more, they're fine, more or less with the way things are. And in, in the Fox poll, the democrats have a 68 to 57. That's an 11 point advantage in terms of enthusiasm. That I think is the difference between control of the House and possible control of the Senate.
- [69:19]
Jon Pothoritz
2018 midterm, Democrats win 40 seats. Using the stat that you mentioned before, Democrats got 53% of the vote nationally. In 2018, Republicans got 44%. That's nine points. And they won 40 seats. So we're looking at this and we're saying, oh, look, can't happen. It'll be more like 2022 where the red wave was halted because of Canada quality and all of that. And that really may not be the case. Matt. You're sorting through where they could or could not win. And I say if you have a circumstance like this, weird things happen. Weird things happen in 1980 and weird things could happen in 2019, 26, in part because of this enthusiasm number. These are polls of Nash. These are national polls. Ordinarily, in the midterm election, you get worried about polling nationally because the electorate shrinks, Right? So if you do a national poll and you don't sort through or try to do a likely voter screen, you're getting a lot of people in the poll who are not going to actually vote in the election. And you don't know what that means. However, when there is really, really big turnout in a midterm election, as we had in 2018 and as I suspect we will have in 2026, almost 120 million people voted in the 2018 election. And so the national polling will come to resemble that electorate way more than previous midterm than it did than previous midterm elections. In fact, the Democrats were underestimated because likely voter screens were used because of the presumption that a third of the voters would turn out as opposed to 50% of the voters or however many it was that turned out in 2018. So, yes, all of this matters. Can equality matters, where the vote is distributed matters because you can have a great national vote for Democrats. But, you know, they're focused in 10 metropolitan areas across the United States. And, you know, they're not in Oklahoma, but Don Osborne could win in Nebraska. Like, you know, there are weird, there are weird cross currents.
- [71:53]
Matthew Continetti
So just one other thing about this poll and everything we've seen, you know, Trump, Trump's major problem is the economy. So, you know, we said that he's at 39, 39 in two of the polls. And one, the other poll is an outlier, having him at 30. But then you look at different issues. You know, in several of these polls, he's at 3466 on Iran, but that's related to the economy. 33, 67 approved disapprove on the economy. 2773 disapprove on inflation. 27% approval rating on inflation, 33% approval rating on the economy. Those were his biggest assets in his first term, they have now become his greatest weakness. And so while the Iran war is connected to the economy, in as much as gas prices resonate throughout politics. Right. The real challenge, it seems to me, of the Trump administration has been trying to convey the message that the economy is doing better than people think. In the ARG poll, again, possibly an outlier, 66% of people said that the economy is in a recession.
- [73:17]
Jon Pothoritz
Well, that's not.
- [73:18]
Matthew Continetti
We have a 4% unemployment rate. The inflation report surprised everyone last month. Now, again, tied to inflation, tied to gas prices and fuel prices. But it's just not true. We're not in a recession. And yet that mentality has grown to the point where even Republican voters for 66% think that things are dire. Why hasn't the Trump administration been able to convey that the economy is not as bad as people think? I think two reasons. The first Is one, the key metric in this economy is are your wages outpacing prices? And while that has started to happen, it is very minuscule. Right. So that's what voters are feeling. They are not, they do not have the sense that they are back in the first Trump economy because their wages are not going ahead of prices. Prices are still increasing, wages are increasing, but not by enough to make people feel happy about their, their economic situation. And then the second reason is just focus, is that think about President Trump's speech last week to the nation. Here was an opportunity presidential speech to the country talking about the economy. Was it about the economy? No, it was about the Save America Act. Right. There has to be some discipline from the White House on this most important issue soon in order to try to limit the damage ahead.
- [74:49]
Jon Pothoritz
I think in the end, the President
- [74:50]
Seth Mandel
tends to begin by the way speeches on anything by just talking, saying the economy is great and then moving on. He declares the economy great. That's his argument. And he did it again. It was very funny. He did it again with the President of Lebanon in the White House the other day. He began his remarks by saying the economy is great and all this stuff. And you know, you sort of get the impression that had it been President Trump presiding over the killing of Osama bin Laden when he announced it, he would have started with about 30 seconds of the economy is doing great, better than ever before, you know, and then eventually get to, you know, we killed bin Laden sort of thing. So that's his problem is that he just declares it whenever he opens his mouth rather than makes the case.
- [75:35]
Jon Pothoritz
Focus is the ultimate point here, which is that Trump looks like he doesn't know what he's doing. That's, I mean, I'm just. And you know, just like in Covid, he didn't know, he looked like he didn't know what he was doing. Right now he looks like he doesn't know what he's doing in Iran. And I think on the economy, he doesn't really look like he knows what he's doing because people aren't feeling the benefits of the economy. And that is just death. Because he is not reliant on any superstructure of ideology or belief or long term conviction that he can say we are charting a course for the future of America. It's all him, judge him. Every day we are supposed to judge him. And right now he is being judged badly and that's all his fault. It's just not. Democrats are in bad odor with the American people. The Democratic Party's Approval rating or whether people like it is also in the tank. So it's not like he's, you know, this is all about him. It's focused on him. He made that choice to focus American politics exclusively on him, and he has to do everything.
- [76:49]
Matthew Continetti
Well, I don't think it's a choice for him.
- [76:52]
Jon Pothoritz
I know. It really isn't. I know. It just is who he is. Okay. Matt, you have a recommendation?
- [76:56]
Matthew Continetti
Yes. Thank you, John. It's been a while since I've been able to make a recommendation, but I've been studying up. I got a lot of resources for the future weeks, and I want to make my first recommendation here on a show that I very much enjoyed. The Netflix production called the Burroughs, which I don't believe has been recommended yet on the commentary.
- [77:16]
Jon Pothoritz
It has not.
- [77:17]
Matthew Continetti
Okay. So the Burrows, you can find it on Netflix. It is one season. Unfortunately, it was canceled, but that's fine. One season is usually good enough for these Netflix shows. It stars just a crackerjack cast. Alfred Molino. Alfred Molino. My apologies.
- [77:37]
Jon Pothoritz
Molina. Right.
- [77:38]
Matthew Continetti
Alfred Molina. Alfre Widard, Denis o'. Hare, Geena Davis. Bill Pullman is in the first episode and fantastic in it. And it concerns a group of seniors living in a retirement facility in the New Mexico desert that is that where a monster is stalking its prey. And just. I'll leave that as the premise. And it is just. It's a great show that. Mainly because the writing is clever, but also these performances from these. These actors, Widard and Molina in particular, are just so incredible. I will say, with Geena Davis, you know, I would like to see her mouth move more when she talks. Kind of. This happened to Carrie Fisher, too, as she. She was getting older, but, you know, because she's so pretty and she's such a great actress. But I'm always kind of saying, why isn't the jaw opening? You know?
- [78:39]
Jon Pothoritz
But otherwise, we know why.
- [78:42]
Matthew Continetti
Yeah, well, okay. I'm just going to leave it at that. I'm going to leave it. But anyway, she's great, too. And the Burroughs is just very enjoyable. It kind of, you know, it's. It takes some inspiration from Stranger Things, and I think its production team is somewhat related, but it doesn't. It's more. It's actually a little bit more humorous, I think, than Stranger Things. And it clear it does not take itself anywhere nearly as seriously as Stranger Things did by the time I stopped watching it around the fourth season. So Burroughs is highly recommended right now.
- [79:15]
Jon Pothoritz
The Burroughs, by the way, is not just associated with Stranger Things, it's the one show produced by the people who created the Duffer Brothers.
- [79:25]
Matthew Continetti
They don't write it, direct it.
- [79:26]
Jon Pothoritz
No, but Netflix, it's pretty clear, canceled the show because the Duffer Brothers left Netflix for, I think, Paramount. And the show's a hit. I mean, it came out with its annual numbers on hit shows, and it was, like, one of the three hits they introduced this year. And so in anger, they canceled this successful show to show the Duffer Brothers that, you know, their ingratitude was going to have consequences. So just so you. Just so you know that.
- [79:59]
Matthew Continetti
Well, it's a shame, but I think you can still enjoy this season and the kind of the plot and also the performances.
- [80:08]
Jon Pothoritz
Well, thank you. Because I need a new show because I watched two really bad Netflix shows in the last week. The Beast in Me and I Will Find you. And they're not good. And so I'm glad to hear.
- [80:19]
Matthew Continetti
I think you'll like the Burrows.
- [80:21]
Seth Mandel
I will say this for the Beast in me is that the leads are fantastic.
- [80:25]
Jon Pothoritz
I think Claire Baines is awful. I think she is awful. I wanted to throw a brick through the screen. Bricks are thrown through windows in this show, and I wanted to throw a brick through a screen. I haven't seen eight hours of a person trembling, trembling every moment that she acts. Matthew Reese is great. I'm sorry I had to disagree with you. I really, like, I needed to basically lie down.
- [80:52]
Matthew Continetti
Have you seen Matthew Reese's other show?
- [80:54]
Jon Pothoritz
Oh, my God. Widow's Bay. The greatest. The best.
- [80:57]
Matthew Continetti
I mean, we're halfway through.
- [80:58]
Seth Mandel
It's the age of Matthew Reese.
- [80:59]
James Patterson
I watch it.
- [81:00]
Matthew Continetti
I watch it through my finger, through my hands, over my eyes a lot, but it's still pretty awesome.
- [81:08]
Jon Pothoritz
And Matthew Reese. Not to now, we're really good, but. And Matthew Reese starred on the two seasons and canceled hbo. Now on hbo Max version of Perry Mason, which is one of the best shows of the last 15 years, but was apparently incredibly expensive because it's set in the early 30s. And there were two seasons of it, each corresponding to a one of the early Earl Stanley Gardner Perry Mason novels, who wrote 60 or 70 of them. And Matthew Rhys plays Perry Mason and John Lithgow plays his mentor. And it is fantastic. So that's another list recommendation.
- [81:48]
Seth Mandel
Okay, well, Matt and Matthew Rhys was born in Wales, by the way.
- [81:52]
Abe Greenwald
So another.
- [81:53]
Seth Mandel
Another impressive thing about him is that we see him only playing these, you know, American accents.
- [81:58]
Jon Pothoritz
Americans, yeah. Like it in the America.
- [81:59]
Seth Mandel
All the shows we're talking about, like, in the Americans, he is not American.
- [82:03]
Jon Pothoritz
There you go.
- [82:05]
Jonathan Schanzer
All right.
- [82:05]
Jon Pothoritz
Well, Matt, we will see you next week. And for Abe and Seth, I'm John. Pod horiz. Keep the camel, bur.