Matt Walsh (12:00)
She's been waiting for that moment her whole life. She's been waiting for the moment to self destruct on stage at a campaign rally. Is that what you meant? She's been waiting for Kamala Harris her whole life. Weren't we all? Now you have to wonder again who this is supposed to impress. I mean, even if she had read all of that perfectly, who exactly is supposed to care about this? What demographic are they targeting? Whatever they were going for, it didn't work. Pretty Much. The only demographic group that Kamala Harris won on Tuesday, according to exit polls, was the same group that Joy Reid belongs to, black women. She won by black women by something like 92%. It's a 2% improvement from Joe Biden two years ago. But both of those numbers are actually low by Democrat standards. Obama got more than 95% of the black woman vote back when he ran. Hillary Clinton got 94%. So if anything, there's some evidence that endorsements like this aren't really helping, even among Democrats most loyal constituency. Now the Guardian certainly seems to think that there's a good chance that these endorsements aren't helping anymore. They just ran a big article that explores the question of why all these celebrities, from Bruce Springsteen to George Clooney to Taylor Swift, Beyonce, why they may have actually been counterproductive. Quote, A poll from YouGov shortly after Taylor Swift's endorsement found that only 8% of voters would be somewhat or much more likely to vote for Harris, with a surprising 20% saying the endorsement actually made them less likely to vote for her. Yes, as we talked about at the time, Taylor Swift's endorsement might have made people less likely to support Kamala. And there's evidence that this took the Harris campaign by surprise. The article also states that, quote, back in July, Charlie XCX posted a three word tweet that some commentators thought might help swing the US Election. Arriving the day after Kamala Harris announced her bid for the presidency, Charlie's tweet said simply, kamala is Brat. It was a reference to Charlie's latest album, Brat, which had dominated the pop cultural landscape. The overall meaning was clear. Kamala was the presidential candidate with the most energy and authenticity. The Harris campaign leaned into the endorsement, changing the backdrop of its official X page to the same garish green color used on the record sleeve. Yet as the dust settles on an extremely depressing election result. I mean not depressing for me, but, you know, not for us, but I guess for them. It appears clearly that not only did Charli XCX's tweet have no meaningful impact on the election result, nor did the endorsement of any other celebrity. So this was a big problem for Kamala because to the extent she had a campaign strategy at all, it hinged almost entirely on this, on celebrity endorsements. Kamala was endorsed by all of the most famous celebrities in Hollywood and the music industry. And this was her whole campaign was just showing off the celebrities who endorsed her. And it paid off with a crushing and historic defeat. So why might that be. Well, unlike the panel on msnbc, I'll answer that question. For one thing, as I mentioned earlier, celebrity endorsements in general just aren't that effective anymore. But they're especially ineffective right now when inflation is high and people are struggling to afford essentials like groceries. In an economic environment like that, Americans just aren't interested in sermons from obscenely wealthy entertainers. Not that they're all that interested even in a good economy. But the other problem is that the power of celebrity in general has been massively watered down in recent years. There are just so many of them that even the biggest ones, like Taylor Swift or Beyonce, just don't have the kind of culture changing impact that say, Michael Jackson or Elvis would have had decades ago. I mean, when a woman can become famous by saying hock to a, the whole concept of a celebrity loses a lot of its luster. This has been obvious to almost everyone for some time, which is why a lot of celebrities have found new ways to endorse products like those reverse endorsement deals that I mentioned. But apparently it wasn't obvious to the Kamala Harris campaign. They believed in all seriousness, that amassing a bunch of these vapid cookie cutter endorsements from famous people would win them the election. They thought Americans cared so little about substance that they'd vote for a candidate who can barely articulate a coherent thought. All because of the endorsements of some other morons who also can't articulate coherent thoughts. After what happened on Tuesday, there's just no one, except maybe MSNBC anchors, who seriously thinks that these celebrities have any sway over anyone anymore. Now let's get to our five headlines. You know, we talk a lot about putting our money where our values are. Well, let me tell you about my cell phone company, PureTalk and why I made the switch. PureTalk is veteran led and they don't just talk about supporting our veterans, they actually do something about it. They've already alleviated $10 million in veteran debt. Every month they donate tens of thousands to prevent veteran suicide. And they just gave $50,000 to Mike Rowe Works to help Veterans learn trades after serving our country. Meanwhile, what exactly are Verizon, ATT and T Mobile doing with your money? Pure Talk gives the exact same coverage. America's most dependable 5G network for half the cost. You get better service, better values, and you're helping our veterans. It's that simple. Right now, PureTalk has an incredible offer for my listeners. When you switch to your service over to Pure Talk on a qualifying plan, you'll get one year free of Daily Wire Insider, completely free, where you can stream my new film and my races. But remember, the deal is exclusive. The only way to get it is by going to PureTalk.com Walsh support PureTalk, a wireless company who wants to be a wireless company and nothing more. Remember, it takes courage to stand for your values and takes even more to stand against those who try to silence you. PureTalk.com Walsh that's PureTalk.com Walsh Fox News has a report about Trump's case in New York. Now that, now that he's, now that he's won the election, what's happening with his criminal cases? It's Reading now says following his massive election victory, President Elect Trump is still scheduled for sentencing in his Manhattan criminal case later this month, with presiding Judge Juan Merchan first ruling whether to dismiss the charges altogether. After the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling earlier this year, Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records. Trump is scheduled for sentencing on November 26, which is already a four month delay from the original date of July 11. Trump's lawyers has asked the judge to overturn the former president's guilty verdict in New York. In New York v. Trump, after the Supreme Court ruled in July that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts in office, but not for unofficial acts. Marchand is expected to rule by November 12 as to where the charges stand. Collie Stimson, deputy director of Heritage Foundation Edwin Meese iii Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, says a normal judge would dismiss this case and then the DA Would have to decide what, if anything, remains so that we could consider re bringing the case. But Judge Merchant has shown himself to be anything but an ordinary judge. And so the catch 22 here is if he was normal, he would dismiss it. But because he's not normal, he'll probably deny it. For all intents and purposes, no matter what happens, if the judge denies it in the appeals court, follow the judge and the judge gets to sentence him. Even then the Justice Department will come in and say, look under the supreme on these under the Supremacy Clause, you cannot impose a criminal sentence, especially one of incarceration, on a sitting president. And so that case will be on ice until after Trump gets out of office. So in other words, the case is effectively over. I mean, that's my speculation anyway. Meanwhile, the federal cases are also basically finished. NPR reports Donald Trump started this year fighting two federal prosecutions that threatened to send him in prison. But he will end it free and clear of his most significant criminal Legal problems. With his resounding victory at the polls and a long standing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president, the key question is not if, but when prosecutors move to dismiss or delay his federal election interference case. In Washington, D.C. trump recently said he would fire Special counsel Jack Smith within two seconds after he returned to the White House. Smith is taking steps to end both federal cases against Trump before the President elect takes office. So those are out the window. Trump could just pardon himself on the federal charges anyway, so it's a non issue. I have heard some speculation from conservatives that maybe they would still try to continue with some of these criminal cases somehow, but maybe they would try to throw a sitting president in prison or something. But that's not gonna happen. They're already in the process of abandoning these cases. And that only just proves what the perceptive among us already knew, which is that these criminal cases were never really criminal cases. I mean, they were criminal cases on paper and they had crimes that they were charging him with, absurd crimes on paper, but in reality, they weren't really trying him for a crime because the crime was that he was running for president. That was the crime as far as they were concerned. These cases existed to prevent him from winning again. And really for no other reason. That was the only point of any of them. It was never really about throwing him in jail. I mean, sure, they would have happily done that if they could, but that wasn't the point. It wasn't the primary objective. The primary objective wasn't even to win the cases, which is why people were kind of missing the point where they were saying, well, these charges are flimsy, it can't stand up in court, doesn't matter. Sending him to jail, winning the case, getting a conviction, those were all secondary benefits. They'll take that if they can get it, but it's not really the point. The point was just to sully him enough politically that he could not win the presidency again. So they were building a political case, not a criminal one. And we see how that worked out. And, you know, it's kind of funny that the general view on the right, I think, is that the criminal cases backfired politically and ended up being one of the reasons why Trump won. Instead of people being turned off from Trump because of the cases, they were more motivated to vote for him. That's kind of the what you'll hear from a lot of people on the right. But I think that's not actually what happened. I think that obviously the plot didn't work. Trying to use these criminal cases to destroy his political chances. That didn't work. I also don't know that it backfired, though, in that sense. I think it just had no political impact at all one way or another. So in other words, Trump would have won just as big even if they never put him on trial. If none of that ever happened, I think the results would be the same. I think he still would have crushed. I mean, I could be wrong. Who knows? We can't go back and do it again differently. But I tend to think his victory would have been the same even without the law fare against him, because the law fare proved to just have no impact. It didn't matter at all in any way. It's like it never happened. And I think that in some ways is that's the worst fate for the people waging this lawfare against him, for the prosecutors and the DA is involved in all this. The worst fate is that they didn't matter at all. It just doesn't. It ends up being not even a footnote in the history books. It just does. It's a total non issue. Americans were completely uninterested, unmoved, bored with the whole thing. And to me that's the most poetic justice of all. Even more than it backfiring. I think even better, even more delicious is that it just didn't. Didn't matter. It didn't matter one way or another. I find that to be pretty fantastic. Well, we've been focused on the national election results, but there was plenty of good news on the local level too. Post Millennial has this report. A California anti crime ballot measure that would reclassify some misdemeanor theft and drug crimes as felonies got overwhelming support on Tuesday as voters moved to slowly restore law and order following years of failed progressive policies. State Proposition 36 passed in a landslide after receiving widespread backing from voters on election day, with 70.6% of the 7.6 million ballots counted in favor of the initiative, according to unofficial results from the California Secretary of State's office. Despite Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom's opposition to the measure, which authorizes felony charges for possession of drugs like fentanyl and thefts under $950 if the offender has at least two similar prior convictions, California residents have expressed their desire for change, beginning with restoring public safety. Meanwhile, in addition to this passing Los Angeles county voters ousted Soros backed progressive District Attorney George Gascon on Election Day, and so he's also out. So I certainly don't think that California will now become Some sort of haven for law and order. It still has a lot of problems, but this is very significant. Voters even in California overwhelmingly said that they want to retreat from the progressive soft on crime approach. They want more law and more order. They want to punish crime again. And I mean, how do you explain that? Who are you going to blame if you're on the left? Is it racism again? Are the voters in California racist? A huge number of them obviously aren't even white. So these were in large part non white people in non white communities saying that they want more law enforcement and more punishment of law breaking in their communities. And why do they want that? Well, because the alternative is chaos, the alternative is despair. The alternative makes their lives a whole lot worse, which is what these people were experiencing. And this is the basic truth of leftist policy that we've seen play out again and again. It does not work in the real world. Like it's just that simple. It doesn't work in reality. Sounds good in theory, doesn't actually work in reality. Now I don't think it sounds good even in theory. Personally, I don't think it sounds good at all. Doesn't sound good to me. The leftist policies don't sound good to me, even in theory. But to a lot of people in the general population, at least in states like California, I guess it does at first sound good on paper to them in the abstract. Some of these people find it appealing and that's how things like the defund the police movement get off the ground. Some people hear about it and at first they say, yeah, police are scary. Let's replace them with social workers. I mean, police are shooting a lot of people. And so if we replace them with other people who don't have guns and aren't gonna shoot people, then fewer people will be shot. And that's good. So that's the way the logic goes in their minds, I guess. Now again, even in theory, that sounds like a terrible idea to me and it sounds like a terrible idea to you. But if you have a certain mindset and you don't think about the issue for more than five seconds, I guess it appeals to you. But then they do it and they put it in action. And the results speak for themselves. The results are always the same. They make people's lives worse, they bring misery and despair. Those are the results of leftist policies, misery and despair, which is why they are only supported again by people who don't think about them deeply enough and consider them only in theory. And also by people, the elites who know that the, you know, for these elites who put these policies in place, they know that the policies will breed misery and despair, but they also know that they personally will not suffer those consequences. So it's the classic thing where you have leftists and gated communities who support defunding the police and Soros prosecutors and bail reform and all of that for the poor communities that they don't live in. Same story over and over again. All right, here's a story, if we could just have one that isn't election related for a change at least. Might not be, I don't know. But this, to me it seems like a big, I don't know, it seems like something everybody should know about. I have not seen very much reporting on it, but seems like kind of a big deal. Call me crazy. 40 monkeys have escaped from a research facility in South Carolina. So that's a real thing that's happening in America right now, as far as I know. I think this is real. I don't think it's an elaborate hoax. Here's the report.
