Loading summary
Transcript60 lines
- [00:02]
A
Get ready to take a flamethrower to
- [00:05]
B
the official narrative and learn what the elites don't want you to know.
- [00:09]
A
You're listening to the Tom Woods Show.
- [00:19]
B
Hey, everybody, Tom woods here. It's episode 2753 of the Tom woods show with Rich Barris, who is chair of the national association of Independent Pollsters and co author of the forthcoming book with the absolutely perfect title, Burn it, what the Polls Say Young Americans Really Want, Absolutely perfect for this moment in our history. So, Rich, welcome to the show. Glad to have you.
- [00:42]
A
Thanks for having me. It's great to be here. I'm looking forward to it.
- [00:45]
B
All right. Well, look, let's talk about, first of all, good polls and bad polls, because sometimes you see there's been a poll and it's portrayed as. That's the end of the discussion. And I want to give you a specific example. I've just seen a poll that I didn't look into the details about from CBS News, telling me that there's a consensus among Americans that in general, Americans support Donald Trump's aims in the current war. But yet, at the same time, you well know that we also see all these polls saying that among independents, this thing's a disaster. So how could we reconcile this? And I thought to myself, well, they could be reconciled, but, but it could also be a misleading poll where anybody who is at all concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon is generally in Trump's camp. When, you know, John Kerry was concerned about Iran having nuclear weapon, I don't think he's in Trump's camp. Did you see that poll? You know the one I'm talking about?
- [01:40]
A
I did. And one of the things I pointed out about it right away is that just last month they had, I believe it was 98% Maga support for the war in Iran. And that was one of the big talking points. Yet if you look at this one that they released over the just now, the headline is how Donald Trump has fallen so much with the white working class. And here's where he was before, here's where he is now. They don't like the war, et cetera, et cetera. So the first thing I would always ask people to think about, especially in the era of Trump, is how did this pollster do when it came to gauging Trump's support in the past? It is very difficult. It is something that took time for many pollsters who did it right. And we're only, there's only a handful of us. It took time for us to understand it. Some of us understood it quicker than others. And it's not as if you can suddenly wake up and decide that you know how to pull the MAGA coalition. And these pollsters have a very. It's not even a habit, it's a shtick. They have a very successful track record of moving on after an election and never having to account for whether they were right or wrong, saw the. The elements of the election properly, and they just continue as if they are still an authority.
- [02:53]
B
So when I look at a poll like that, of course we also saw this ridiculously absurd Stalinesque poll telling us that Trump had 100% support among his base. This is ridiculous. There are so many naysayers and contrarians out there. There's no way you would get 100%. But yet, unfortunately, it looks like that's what they're feeding Trump. Oh, you have 100% support. Don't worry about it. And he's very, very influenced by things like this.
- [03:22]
A
He is. And honestly, I know I can say that. I know that those polls, that one that you're referencing and the one that I just referenced before that said 98, were used by people who are, whatever you want to call them, proponents of this conflict and want to continue and minimize the damage, Electoral damage that it can do to Republicans in the future. They were used, you know, to whisper in the president's ear with, there is no subgroup that large. Even though MAGA is kind of shrinking right now. There is no subgroup that large, folks, where you're going to get 100%. All right. It's the same reason I criticize Quinnipiac and others in the Trump era when they would come out with polls showing that he had zero percent among black voters. That was ridiculous. Even a subgroup is smaller than MAGA, like black African Americans. You're never going to get 100. It just doesn't work that way. And any pollster who saw that, if we're in this polling group, we all just laughed. We laughed. I mean, it was a joke. Like, who did this? Who really did it? And then hilariously, we could see Harry Enton did a segment about it. Harry knows better. He's not stupid. He knows that's ridiculous. And, you know, it serves his agenda, much like it served the agenda of the people who whispered it to Trump.
- [04:33]
B
Can you explain to us what it really means to be an independent pollster and what the value of independent pollsters is, as opposed to Rasmussen or Gallup or whatever?
- [04:44]
A
Yeah, I would say this. All voter. All people. Consumers, news consumers, especially Obviously, political news consumers should know that pollsters, no matter who they are, we all have our own political views. People like me, we just don't want to insult the voter and pretend like we don't, but we just try to be upfront about it instead. That's not what makes you an independent pollster or not. It really comes down to sponsorship. Who is sponsoring the poll, who's paying for it? Does that pollster have any connection whatsoever to entities, political entities or committees or campaigns themselves, the candidates themselves, where they have an interest in an outcome that may not be the honest outcome? So even some big legacy media pollsters that we see all the time, NBC News is a great example that's jointly conducted by Heart Research, who polled for Hillary Clinton, Richard Hart's, well, very well known Democratic pollster, and it's done jointly with Public Opinion Strategies, who poo poled for Ron DeSantis in 2024. They're partisans. Clearly, you know, the effort to make it a joint poll is what gives them a little bit more independence and a little bit more credibility. Again, there's supposed to be a methodology statement with every poll that is conducted. If it doesn't tell you who the sponsor is, that's a problem. And unfortunately we see it a lot. An independent pollster should either pay for it out of their own money, maybe they're looking to attract a business from somewhere else, but they have no connection, no financial relationship with anybody in that race or anybody that they're deal, you know, that they're the subject that they're pulling on. And unfortunately, we pass a lot of stuff off as independent. And it's not. That's a fact.
- [06:22]
B
Is there a big difference between internal polling that you do because you really, really want the God's honest truth, even if it's brutal, and the kind of polls that we see in the newspaper, there is.
- [06:34]
A
And that's a really good question because when they're released, internal polls could be released for a couple of reasons. You're trying to get buzz. Maybe they give you a little rosier, you know, picture rosier scenario because they want the donors, they need money. They want the donors to see, hey, look, see, we got a chance even if they're behind. They give you an example, a pack that supports John Cornyn in Texas just came out with a poll that showed corn in ahead. That is not the consensus with public polls that are conducted independently and sponsored independently. They're trying to keep the donors interested. They're trying to keep voters engaged and say, hey, we can Win. And honestly, that may be a little bit of a difficult race to poll, but sometimes, sometimes, and this is definitely true in presidential races because there's so much money involved. Senatorial races, it is. But again, I think in that situation, that's a pack. And they have an agenda. When you look at the public, or I mean, excuse me, the internal polls versus the public polls of a presidential race, the Harris campaign, this came up a lot in 24. They are done with much larger samples. They're done asking, I don't want to say less misleading questions, but the campaign doesn't want a headline. The campaign wants to know something.
- [07:48]
B
They.
- [07:48]
A
That it's a value to them. And so they're more rigorous, and they're typically a lot bigger, and they're consistent. You know, a news outlet will sponsor a poll maybe once a month, you know, something like NBC or the Wall Street Journal, whereas the campaign, especially presidential campaign, is going to track the race the entire time. So there is, obviously, there's a game where people put out private polls and their internals, and we have to kind of look at them with a crooked eye, you know, an eyebrow in the air, to make sure that there's no agenda. Sometimes the agenda is just that they think the public polls are wrong and they want to show you something else. And then there is the other situation, which it is true, which is that the internal pollster is really diving deep. Their sample is much larger, and they're done with a lot more consideration. Because it doesn't help to lie to yourself. Right? It just doesn't help to lie to yourself in the real world anyway. And so this came up in 24. You had Trump's internals and Harris's internals, both showing Trump winning. These are polls we had looked at at the time. And yet me and a handful of other people were the only ones who had Trump ahead. In truth, Harris was never ahead. Was it closer? At times?
- [09:02]
B
Sure.
- [09:02]
A
But Trump's internal polls, Harris's internal polls, they were done with massive samples, and they were done over longer periods of time and deeper, you know, more granular work. And they both showed the same thing, which is that she was done, she was cooked.
- [09:16]
B
I think many of you know I have a newborn son just about four months old. As I record this, you probably don't know that the months and weeks leading up to his birth were very, very difficult because the doctors came to the conclusion that my wife seemed to have something called chronic hypertension with superimposed preeclampsia. And that meant very Lengthy hospital stays. She was in the hospital for quite a while on two separate occasions. I'm talking weeks at a time. And then the baby was born 36 weeks, so a little early. So spent a few days in the nicu. Now, you add that up, you think that's going to be one overwhelming hospital bill, even if you have traditional insurance. Now, you've heard me talk about crowd health, which is an amazing crowdfunding substitute for traditional health insurance. We use crowd health. But I've had people say, yeah, but would it really come through for you if you had a really, really big bill? Well, let me tell you something. I've got the total, and this is a bigger bill than you're ever going to get in your whole life. And crowd health Absolutely delivered for us. You pay a flat fee for a pregnancy and that's it. No matter what the bills come to, we're saving a fortune compared to what we'd be paying in premiums. The thing is a marvel. You get access to a team of health bill negotiators who are top notch. Top notch because we experienced it. Low cost prescription and lab testing tools and a database of low cost, high quality doctors that crowd health has vetted. If something major happens, you pay the first $500, then the crowd funds the rest. The crowd is you and everybody else in crowd health. It's a crowdfunding solution to insurance. It's not insurance. It's a crowdfunding solution to the problem. And I'm living proof. And little tiny Henry woods is living proof that it works. So this year, take your power back. Join crowd Health to get started today for $99 a month for your first three months, using code woods@joincrowdhealth.com that's joincrowdhealth.com Code Woods. Woods. Let me ask you this. I know that these two things are not in principle incompatible. They just seem incongruous side by side. And that is this other poll that we've seen about the relative popularity shifts of the president versus Tucker Carlson.
- [11:16]
A
Yeah.
- [11:16]
B
And Tucker Carlson is way, way down. The president is way, way up. Now, I'm not saying that's metaphysically impossible, but it is a little hard to square with the fact that Tucker does seem to have the number one podcast around.
- [11:29]
A
Yeah.
- [11:29]
B
So what do you think's going on there?
- [11:31]
A
I think there's a bit of a game that I think I know the clip you're referencing. There's a game that's being played, and that game is that we're going to cite a certain population without context in, in an effort to try to get our point across or, you know, maybe have it's clickbait or whatever you're trying to find. But in the case of several of these claims, what I've noticed is that you have somebody come out and say that and say, look, he's in freefall among Republican and Republican leaning independents. And, you know, anyone who goes against Trump is obliterated, yet he keeps increasing his viewership. It just doesn't make any sense what they failed to tell people. And we have seen this now for a while. We just did a story about it not long ago with the latest public poll that we put out. But basically the percentage of the overall lector atom, the overall population that you're surveying, the percentage of those who are identifying as a Republican or Republican leaning Independent is shrinking. So we're calling it purification through subtraction. The remainder of them are much more loyal to Trump and they're much more influenced by this spat, for instance, what Trump says about Tucker Carlson. But the flip side of that is that a lot of those other independents and a lot of those other disaffected, even independents who had just voted for Donald Trump actually see Tucker in a more favorable way life. And they don't tell people that. And overall, I mean, at the end of the day, politics is a game of addition, it's not a game of subtraction. And I think some people are doing this on purpose, effectively trying to lead Republicans astray, put them in their own echo chamber.
- [13:06]
B
Well, let's talk about, I mean, we have to say something about Trump and I follow you on X and tell everybody so they can follow you what
- [13:14]
A
your handle is at People's Pundit. I wish we didn't have that underscore, but it's there and it helps people find us. Yeah.
- [13:22]
B
Okay. I'll tell you something. I got rich on here on the strength of that account because it is so good and sharp. And I was, I wanted to try to figure out how do I get to know this guy? Thankfully, we had a mutual friend. Well, anyway, first of all, before we even ask about Trump, what's your own? I mean, not that it matters, but I'm just curious, what's your own political background like ideologically and has it evolved over time?
- [13:45]
A
That's a good question. It's something, you know, when, when you come out with maybe what people or Trump supporter would see as negative commentary, they somehow think that means that you changed your own views. But a pollster has to Maintain objectivity. And even if I don't like something, it still has to be what I report people are saying because I'm a, as a pollster, you're effectively a lobbyist for the voter. The voter has nobody else who speaks for them. I have always bought into the old George Gallup way of thinking. I know it's corny and idealistic, but it's helped me keep my objectivity over the years. I would love nothing more for Donald Trump to succeed. I would definitely call myself a right leaning person, but I don't like the Republican Party. I've never particularly been thrilled with them. Once upon a time when I was younger, I guess before, like the Iraq war, I think that's fair to say. But, you know, I think my views have changed with Donald Trump. And actually I would argue it wasn't so much Trump who helped change them and make them more populist over time. Part of that's probably my background. I wasn't raised with the silver spoon in my mouth, but the voters reminded me that I wasn't raised with a silver spoon in my mouth. And my listening to the voters instead of, I think a lot of pollsters, you know, and I talk a lot for a living, but they talk when they're supposed to be listening and that's a problem. And I don't thank the Lord for that characteristic. And voters, you know, when you add Charles Krauthammer and Prepair and you know, the others on Special Report, when Trump first came down the golden escalator, calling him a clown, the voters were telling us, you know, what, does he do it perfect? No, but man, that's exactly what I wanted someone to say. Exactly what I, and I forgot, I guess, for a while. Know what? I remember when there was more than one factory in the community where I grew up. And I remember when so and so's father lost their job in the interim, he could still go and make a decent wage over at that factory until he found something else in his field. Like I remembered what Trump was talking about before it was hollowed out. So when we would interview people, we just didn't dismiss them. We listened and that was a big part of it. But also I think the voters changed my mind over the years. You know, I've a lot of us in this business forget what it's like to not have a recession proof job. And it just made me think about what Trump would eventually refer to as the forgotten man and woman a lot more now I think I'm much, much more Populous and less ideologically idealistic than I used to be. You know, where I think it probably would be fair to call me more like a textualist conservative years and years ago and even libertarian when I was younger. But then, you know, I. The world hits you and you realize none of these principles really matter if they're not practiced. It's just so when, when people are frustrated over the system being rigged against Donald Trump, right. They see it in their own lives and that's why it connected with them so deeply. And how the system went after him when they, when he tried to change it, that just drew them closer to him. And I guess what I'm trying to say is, you know, that they were right about those systemic failures and those holding up mediocrity instead of meritocracy. And something along the lines we lost in our society that prevented us from being able to even have the luxury of living up to those ideological ideals. You know, you can't hold and cling to them if the rest of the world isn't even. That's not even available to them. And I think a lot of big cons, however you want to label them, big con, the old school conservative thought leaders on the American right, they don't understand that because they're entitled, or they were, maybe they weren't raised privileged, but they're privileged now and they've forgotten. But most Americans aren't ever going to buy on to what they're selling again until the system becomes one where they have the privilege to even think about such things. Right now, they don't.
- [17:48]
B
Let's go over two things that I think you would know better than I would. But these two things seem to be pretty important in turning people to become a little bit sour on Trump. And I mean, we all know that one of them is the war in Iran. So we'll get to that in a minute. But another one is his cavalier attitude about home prices that, that doesn't seem. He did campaign saying there are regulatory reasons that these prices are so high, we're going to get rid of those and we're going to lower those prices. And he was saying in the order of 40 to 50%. And now he's bored to death with this, who cares? Boomers need the house prices to be high for them to have the wealth effect of homeownership. I mean, so that I think, did trickle out. I think the public started to hear about that. That's number one. But secondly, there is this war in Iran. Now, there are a lot of people who support this war within the conservative establishment, who don't like your spin, which. Your spin, and I don't mean to use that word spin disparagingly, but is that this thing is hurting him. And this helps to account for why his numbers have tanked since there are a lot of people who have a lot of vested interest in the outcome of this war. They don't want you saying that they want Trump to be unpopular for some kind of unknown, nebulous sort of reasons, or that'll work.
- [19:05]
A
But so.
- [19:06]
B
So how do you answer those people who say, oh, it's not the war. The war is very popular. People like the war.
- [19:12]
A
It's simple. I mean, we have a treasure trove of data going back to the beginning, even before the president was inaugurated, and how views have changed on him over the years and why that is. And when you just, you know, kind of zoom in on his tenure, he got to a level of popularity I thought I would never see for Donald Trump because there was this vicious hatred for him kind of baked in at 40% for so much of his first term. And I did see that. I think it speaks to voter remorse. You know, when Biden came into office, I think a lot of people did realize, hey, you know what? I was duped. I was wrong. And that softened the views on Trump and allowed him to kind of recast himself a little bit and then reach out again to those people and get a bigger base, get a bigger coalition. And very clearly, those people, especially, you know, the ones who are new to the coalition, they were sold on specific things. And one of those specific things was no more wars in the Middle East. And we can see it. We have this one chart which we've put out in the past, which is Trump's approval rating trend by key events. And you can very clearly see the impact the lobby had when they came into town and diverted the domestic agenda, which is what made him popular. And you could see them sour. You can even see voters come back hopeful when they thought Trump would again pivot back to the domestic, only to be let down and then again swing away from him. It's just very clear when you look at that, by the event dates, that bombing of Iran was a big problem for him last year. And they were hoping, especially after that State of the Union, that he would turn again toward the domestic policy that he ran on his agenda was not, you know, I mean, the war defenders love to say things like, well, he always campaigned on not keeping, not allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Well, right but we didn't go to war for that. We went to war because ally could not accept enrichment at any rate. And now we see that with the negotiations going on. So there was a wiggle room there. There was a way out for Trump to keep both promises, both sides of that promise.
- [21:15]
B
Well, that you could also try means short of war to get that out.
- [21:19]
A
Exactly.
- [21:19]
B
Yeah.
- [21:20]
A
But the average person isn't going to remember some campaign stop or rudimentary, you know, encounter with Brit Hume on Fox in 2016 or something where he said, yeah, no, Ron can't ever have a nuclear weapon. That's it. You know, they remembered him running against political dynasties, the Clintons and the Bushes, against forever war and especially in the Middle East. And I think that's what really is particularly harmful here to him. It's not just that he got us involved in a war. If there was a war and Americans thought there was an imminent threat from China or something, I think they'd rally behind Donald Trump getting us into a conflict with another Middle Eastern nation. After Donald Trump for years ran on this, it was part of his Persona even as a non politician, still as a celebrity, Americans had been listening to him just berate George Bush for getting us involved in this quagmire. And that was a huge part of his appeal. And to do this and pretend as if some offhanded comment about Iran not getting a nuclear weapon, it's just asinine. The people who really signed on in 24, they're not political junkies like we are. They're not constantly focused in on every little thing Donald Trump has ever said. They're looking at big picture narrative stories. And the fact is, when Trump diverted away from domestic and started to become consumed by foreign policy, which by the way, Americans, they have like PTSD to this. They see it, they know it when it's happening. And you can't trick them. For months and months and months, the right did hope they could just keep going. And Americans were not going to pay attention or not see it. Well, they did see it. And that's why we did the White House focus Tracker, to try to give a little bit more of awareness to this idea that Americans are saying, get away from the foreign policy, go back to the domestic. We want Trump 1.0 back. We want, we don't want this new version. We know where this is headed. We don't like it. We, you know, basically wanted to bring Donald Trump back to the White House to be the Donald Trump he was before, which we didn't see it. And appreciate it at the time, but we do now, and we want that back. We don't want a new version of Donald Trump. We want what we remember from him. And he didn't do that. And any objective person can see that. Right. And part of this job is it doesn't matter if you want something to be true or not. I would love for that to be untrue, but it's just not. Those are the facts. And unfortunately, Republicans are going to have to deal with the Israel question sooner rather than later because it's uncomfortable, but it's coming. And they'll find themselves without a coalition if they don't.
- [23:52]
B
That question, that's huge, obviously, and maybe we'll get to that. I do want to say something about your book because one of the issues is the likelihood of a particular demographic group to actually go and vote. And younger Americans are notorious for, you know, they'll go for Howard Dean or people who were a little bit outside the box, you know, or Bernie Sanders. But then the question comes, okay, on voting day, are you sleeping in? Cause you're drunk last night, you know, are you going to. Whereas I've stood at a polling place before and I have seen that the elderly population, they will drop everything. They will crawl over broken glass so they can vote for more war and more slavery for their kids. You know, it is wild how much they vote. So it's great that the young people are starting to see things clearly. But when we look at the polls, for example, Thomas Massie versus this Ed Gowray, whatever.
- [24:47]
A
Yeah, we just did that. Yeah.
- [24:48]
B
I mean, it's overwhelming. The boomers love this complete non entity. Everybody else likes Massie. And unfortunately, the other people are the ones who, they go out and vote. They vote like crazy. No one's been able to crack that code.
- [25:01]
A
Even the night Donald Trump was elected. I remember saying this on several shows that I went on because I was trying to lay this foundation early. So it was stuck in people's minds if they had heard me say it, because it was the talk of the night anyway. Look at how much better Donald Trump did with younger voters. Look at how much better Donald Trump did with black voters. Look at how much better Donald Trump did with Hispanic voters. And it was something that we did see coming. Many did not. And so it was like a bit of a vindication moment for us. But the point was, I think people weren't understanding why he did do better with so many of these demographics. It's because he did better with younger people. Right? Younger demographics are less white and they're a crossover. We call them crossovers. You know, I mean, it's not just that he did better with black men. He did better with Black men under 50, you know, a lot better. It's not just that he did better with Hispanics. He did better with Hispanic men and women, by the way, under 50 years old. Right. So they're actually with them, it was a little bit higher. 55. But in any event, what you're saying is a real issue. It hasn't always been, but it's become a fixture of modern politics where it's so difficult to get these younger voters out. I honestly think, and let me see if I can put this the right way, I honestly think so many things in our society and in our politics because the baby boomers were such a huge entity for a while, I think it was designed for them on purpose to be like that. Because if you look back at voting rates over the last hundred years, you'll see that it's really odd how this became almost a modern phenomena. Right. Americans used to be, you know, they'd turn 18 or whatever. You know, it's different obviously for women, but you're able to vote. It's your civic duty. You have to go out and vote. And turnout rates in some of these early contests, you know, in the modern era, because at first you obviously couldn't vote for every office, were ridiculously high in states like New Hampshire, New England especially. It's like this now. And it's tough, but I've always argued it's not impossible. The reason why we have these gyrations with younger voters and then they don't come out until they're like peak frustrated and they find the candidate that they want to latch on to, Barack Obama in 08, Donald Trump in 2024. It doesn't have to be like that. This happens because we don't deliver for them. We're not addressing their needs. And that's what this book is really about. Because honestly, I'm tell them I'm concerned. We keep governing for a very small slice of the electorate. What's in their best interest and what Republicans, you know, they want to because they, you know, exactly what you just said in a midterm, for instance, there'll be an outsized share of the electorate because they vote consistently. Especially we're looking at that 65 plus boomers. But this world is going to change and it's going to change very, very quickly. And that's coming soon. The first boomers, they turn 80 this year. And I don't think Republicans or the right in general are prepared for how different this country is going to look and how fast it's going to turn that way. And we needed, with this opportunity, Donald Trump's opportunity, it was his coalition we needed to basically prove ourselves to them. Because I worry about the last time we saw younger people put their faith in a Republican, he let them down. At the end of the day, you know, we see these swings and sometimes voters punish you to the point of extremes. And we're going, you know, George Bush, his disastrous presidency, I mean, objectively speaking, guys, it ended in economic disaster. It led to Barack Obama. And we're at a point now where I think they're just out of. They're out of patience. And I'm very concerned what happens to these voters if Donald Trump lets them down. And this is something I've expressed to them that I really hope you take this with the gravity it deserves, because I wouldn't be surprised, look at Z Momi in New York City. I would not be surprised if we end ended up with somebody even far more radical than Barack Obama. And the reason it's called burn it down, because that's what voters want, wanted Donald Trump to do. And, you know, again, coming from the old textualist kind of conservative back at one point anyway, that is scary. And I understand it's scary to the Republican base who attend all these events and they have their pocket constitutions when they show up at the polling places like you just brought up. I understand that's scary. But the alternative is scarier. There's no third road here. There's going to be one of these two that we pick, and it's either going to be one that doesn't address the interests and constant need to be pandered by one side. You know, one slice of a coalition that's falling. I mean, it's a shrinking slice of the coalition. If we don't realize that soon, those voters will. They have no loyalty to the right. They'll go somewhere else. They're looking for a Franco, and whoever gives it to them, God help us all.
- [30:01]
B
Yeah. Well, let's say something about J.D. vance for a minute, and then I want to talk a little bit more about the young people, but I just saw a poll saying JD Vance, at this stage of the term, is the least popular vice president in U.S. history. Now, Vance is in a very difficult position right now, but I actually, you know, regardless of my own political preferences, I actually find him to be a very down to earth. I. To my mind, he's one of the most relatable vice presidents we've ever had. So I don't understand that poll result at all. People thought Walter Mondale was a warmer person than J.D. vance. Okay, well, what do you think about that? Because he is supposed to be the heir apparent for the Republican Party. Do you have any opinions on where he is now in the minds of the electorate?
- [30:43]
A
Yeah, I think there's no doubt that as image is going to take a hit. You really said it. It's unfortunate the American public doesn't care. It's just. Be honest. I mean, they view him as somebody who is a member of the administration and they don't view him in the context that it should be. You know, his limited, really, his limited ability to do certain things. I wouldn't say I. Because I'll tell you what, we measured Kamala Harris at the lowest of anybody, including Dan Quayle, who was the previous record holder before Kamala Harris said it. I don't see him falling to that level. Are people mad? Sure. Is he hurting in our polling too? Yeah, unfortunately, for the first time, he was trailing Democratic candidates we've pegged him up against. But he had been winning the entire, you know, the entire time before that. All. All of the. I believe it's eight or 10 times we did it nationally, so I'm not sure I believe that. I do. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, though. And I just want to acknowledge that unfortunately the connection with the war is a massive, massive letdown. I would use the word disappointment often. We use the word angry when we say, oh, no, voters are angry or whatever adjective we're trying to use to describe their feelings. But I think the number one sentiment or number one emotion we hear out of people is disappointment. And that's better than anger. That means, like, you know, JD has, I think, and I don't get too much into this, but I do think JD has laid the foundation for a way to politically maneuver out of this. I just think it's unavoidable for him now, you know, to not take these incoming tax and this more negative sentiment that he's going to be connected with the war later on. He'll be able to say, look, I did everything in my power to convince him not to do this. I did everything in my power to get a ceasefire, hold a ceasefire. He'll have those options. So he's being. What's the word? I guess he's being shrewd here. And figuring out this path to walk. But unfortunately, he's just got no wiggle room to engage with the public and say, look, you know, I didn't want to do this. He's got a toe line right now.
- [32:45]
B
Right, right, right. So I think that it's the general unpopularity of the administration that's really telling the story here. Okay, so here's the big question. Could this be fixed if they really, really were determined to turn things around
- [33:01]
A
before the midterms, you think? Is that more like what kind of a time frame? All right, look, I.
- [33:07]
B
There's no one thinking beyond the midterms right now.
- [33:09]
A
Yeah. I do think that politics is a funny game, and a month could see an event or circumstances that change the entire landscape. But with that being said, it would be extremely hard because I think Trump has done a few things here that has turned some people off. Republicans never had the grace with the Trump coalition. Republicans as a brand never had the grace that these voters gave to Trump. And they had to earn that. They had to earn. And it was. This was their two years to earn it, and they didn't. I don't think they succeeded on that level. That being said, it is a midterm. And, you know, like you, you brought up before the older voting dynamics, maybe you can do better. I just think that it would take something so radical. I don't know that Republicans are prepared to do it at this point, but I think the damage can be mitigated. But it would be very hard just to give people an idea. You'll always hear people say, but, Rich, it's early. It's early still. Well, I mean, got people like me. This is what we do for a living. It's technically not. Is it impossible for Republicans to be the ones who buck history and go on to somehow turn it around and win the generic House vote? Yeah, sure it is. It's currently sitting at like 11 probability right now. It's very low. What does that tell me, though? It tells me that it can be done, but it requires that much more historic break, a historic change, and they're just not willing to do it. I mean, we have given them option after option after option policy agendas that you don't even have to pass them, Tom. You just have to be seen as fighting for them. And. And instead, every time they take up or try to take up one of these issues, they wind up shooting themselves in the foot somehow. The SAVE act is a great example. Extremely popular, 80% of the public Democrats, you know, they're not going to support it. But instead, your fight is not with Democrats. Your fight is with your own people who won't support it or won't push it through a committee or won't take it up for a vote or your own majority leader in the U.S. senate. This is what Republicans have done to themselves. And it's unfortunate because in two truth, they could use these fights just to draw contrast with the Democratic Party. They need to explain to the public again how radical and dare I use the word, but how far left Democrats did go last time and they've been remarkably disciplined and just letting Republicans tear each other apart and commit blame finger pointing already, this is, we're going to lose because it's the people who started the war. It's their fault. No, it's your fault because you interviewed Nick Fuentes. And while all this is going on, Democrats are just stunningly disciplined and quiet and nobody's asking the question, okay, if we give them back power, what will that look like? That question was already well underway in 2018. We're not even having that discussion right now. It's very smart on behalf. So the answer is yes, Technically, Tom, it can. But the problem is that throwing the war on top of it, this is something we did go over to and in a show, there has been no example of a party, an incumbent party, starting an unpopular war and not being punished for it. And war is risky, especially in the post 911 era. I don't think we've explored it enough or seen enough examples of this, but it's extremely risky. And sometimes we see wars that are popular at first now, then deteriorate over time and voters punish them for doing that, even though it was popular at that time. Iraq is a good example, but Grenada, I mean, there are all these smaller to larger conflicts. Never has there been an example of a president starting an unpopular war and then not paying a price for it. And that is even this is why this, the fact that it was Donald Trump is always so mind blowing to me because even in prior examples when we're looking for this, that president never ran against new wars and new interventions. In fact, this president was trusted more than his defeated opponents on a very, very important and very predictive question, which is who do you trust more to keep us out of foreign wars and military conflicts? And that question, it never fails. Never fails. And right now it's democrat plus 12. So it's not a good sign.
- [37:28]
B
Everybody. Tom woods here with a quick tip for small business owners. If your business isn't showing up online Your competitors are getting the leads and you're missing out. That's where Persist SEO comes in. For over 15 years, they've been helping local businesses grow through SEO, paid ads and the latest in AI powered search optimization so you stay visible and competitive in the digital age. Whether you're in home services, legal or healthcare, Persist SEO delivers real results without locking you into long term contracts or overwhelming you with tech jargon. Visit Ineedseo Help or call 770-580-3736 to schedule your free consultation. That's Ineedseo Help. Easy to remember, powerful for your small business. All right, let's do two lightning round questions and I'll let you go. So the first one is it's not just J.D. vance who's in the enviable position. Yeah. It's also every Republican running for reelection who might want to differentiate himself from some of the stuff that's been going on coming out of the White House. Because if he tries to, Trump gets wind of about it, you know, who knows what he could say? And so you have to navigate that. Is that an issue, do you think? For some of these people it is.
- [38:47]
A
And it's a constant question that I'm asked all the time by lawmakers like, what do we do here? What are we supposed to do? We can't go against him because if we do, we'll draw his fire. A lot of them are just kind of waiting. I mean, my answer to that would be soon it won't matter. It just won't matter anymore. So you'll have to decide whether or not your short term comfort is worth the long term pain that you could be experiencing. Anyway, right now I think Republicans are, if the election was tomorrow, Republicans would lose races. They have no idea, they have no indication that they would lose. So I don't think they understand how bad the beating would be if we had this today. So I don't know if that gives them any more courage or whatnot. But at the end of the day, you know, the brand's got to survive here. And the president, if the Republicans are, I mean, at this point, I think it's clear they're going to lose the House. And now finally people are realizing the Senate is in danger. If they lose both. Trump's opinion almost won't matter anymore. I mean, he's never going to run for reelection again. He'll be a lame duck president. So, Tom, if I was in Congress, I would absolutely differentiate myself right now. I would take the risk and I would do it Especially if you're in a battleground district. You are going to get clobbered if you don't come out away from this thing. It's not just that, but a series of other things. I would be talking about health care and housing. I'm not kidding. I would be talking about the cost of everything. I would be empathetic about gas prices. I would, I wouldn't give them some kind of lame excuse about how we had to stop evil in the world and it'll be worth it in the future. They don't want to hear it.
- [40:24]
B
All right, well, then the last question is this. You have a book called Burn it down that's coming out that I hope people will pre order, because I'd love to see this get on the New York Times bestseller list. And all those cumulative pre orders do count toward that. So burn it down, go to Amazon type. Wouldn't it be fun to type in Burn it down at Amazon? Go do that. But name me two major things they want to burn down.
- [40:47]
A
So, look, generally speaking, this is why the accountability issue, and I do think the Epstein issue, was a lot more politically disastrous than people realized, because the justice system for younger people is inherently rigged and they don't like it. That's part of the reason why they latched on to Trump. They felt, they, they felt bad for him. You know, the entire justice system was coming after this guy and in their view, unfairly. So they wanted people punished for that. Right. What happened with COVID they wanted people punished for that. Obviously, a lot of that's not going to happen right now. And I know this sounds terrible, but a lot of this comes down to a voter, the voters saying, well, what about me? What about me? They liked when Trump came in and started to do kind of controlled detonations in some parts of the economy, as long as they saw clearly the vision. So the we're going to do this tariffs, we're going to do this tariff strategy. I understand what is behind the tariffs. We're good with that. I don't care if you break stuff in the short term, as long as you get what you need out of them. And we have a better competitive advantage in these trade deals. They love that. They love Doge. Right? So Doge was taking down what they perceived to be this corrupt system. They could have, he could have gone in and burned down. And I know this was a plan, but it just didn't happen. They could have went down and gone in and burned down the fraud in Minnesota. And that didn't even Happen. I mean, generally speaking, they feel like this system is for the people who do nothing and for the rich at the top who want them to. Who want to just basically keep the status quo riding on their backs. And they want this broken. And a pollster friend of mine, he took a lot of heat for it. There was articles about what he said. They would love it if you just broke the housing market.
- [42:26]
B
They would.
- [42:27]
A
They would love it if you crash the housing market and homes were actually affordable for them. And I'm not saying, you know, that that is exactly be reckless and that's the way out, but they do not love it when you say, I want home prices even higher and interest rates, you know, are in 0% for them anymore. Once upon a time, it was. That helps people who have most of the stuff in society, it doesn't help them. And I hate to say it, but there are part of this economy that they would like to see. Broken court systems, the judicial system, they just can't, Tom. They can't stand any of it. They just figured this whole thing is just irreparably broken and that's it. We need a new way. And again, the Epstein thing was, I would say the Epstein issue overall was a proxy for how they felt about the system. And that's why it made them so angry that nobody was held accountable.
- [43:18]
B
Well, it's funny that their opinions about what they'd like to see happen are exactly mine. You know, I think we all want to burn it down.
- [43:25]
A
Yeah, 100%. They were cheerleading when the courts were constantly stopping Donald Trump. Turn that airplane around. Bring that guy back. We asked them, should Trump listen to these judges or is Trump doing what's in the best interest of America? And they just, they. A majority of people under 55 wanted him to ignore the judicial rulings. That's where they are. Just ignore them. Do what you have to do, let them complain, and let's fix this thing. I don't care if it's going to rock. See, the first Trump administration, he got in trouble for rocking the boat all the time, even often when it wasn't his fault. The media did it, the Democratic Party did it. One hoax after the other. This administration, they're wondering where that guy is again. Come back and break something. Where is he? Stop being nice with people. And they have not gotten that, unfortunately.
- [44:12]
B
Yeah, indeed. All right, Rich Barris, we want to recommend that people. First of all, they got to follow you on Twitter X. I'll have that if you can't remember the underscore Whatever. I'll have it all@tom woods.com 27x Little combative, folks. Little combative, but they follow me, so there'd be no problem. Tom was comma 2753 will have that link. It'll also have a link to burn it down. So you should go pick up that book. Rich, thanks for your time. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your analysis.
- [44:41]
A
Anytime. I was happy doing it. Talk to you.
- [44:43]
B
And when the book comes out, let's promote that thing the best we can.
- [44:47]
A
Yeah, absolutely. I appreciate that. And it does come out in September, folks. It'll be right before the midterms. This is a conversation this party has got to have because like a trying to insinuate there will be rap changes and they will be rapid and if we're not prepared for them, we're going to be left in the wilderness.
- [45:04]
B
Rich, thanks again. All the best and thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
- [45:10]
A
Make yourself and those you love less vulnerable to the regime, both mentally and physically. Get more forbidden information@tomsfreebooks.com and be sure to subscribe to the show wherever you listen. See you next time.
- [45:32]
B
Like the sound of the Tom woods show, my audio production is provided by Podsworth Media. Check them out@podsworth.com Enter code WOODS50 to get 50% off your first order. If your recording sounds rough, the Podsworth app can make it not only listenable but but professional. Remember, when you use code WOODS50, you get half off your first order and you'll also be supporting this show.