How Politicians Ignored the TRUTH about COVID

Welcome in everybody close the week strong here on next up.

“I am more caliper and editor and chief of two way host of your program here.”

A guide for all next to everything that's next up. Glad you're here, a terrific show today. Three fantastic guests, two who are going to give you expert presentations that you won't hear anybody anywhere else. Former Clinton political adviser Doug Saznik is going to join us.

He worked with Bill Clinton in the White House. He's got a new op-ed piece on the true Democratic autopsy after the 2024 president election and a great slide deck we're going to share with you about how the economy is affecting our politics and could swing the midterms one way or the other. Then Drew Holden will be here.

He's been with us before. Author of the Holden Court Substack, but also a great thinker, a collector of receipts. And he's done a six-part series, another autopsy. This one on COVID, both about the pandemic, but also about how the pandemic was treated by government officials and by the media, super compelling presentation again, you won't read

about this in the media because Drew covers it the way the media for some reason will not. And then lastly, a great New York story, Mitch Modell, back with us in the wake of the New York next championship that has inspired Donald Trump and Barack Obama as well as many people around the York City and around the country will be here to talk about a big announcement about bringing his own iconic brand back to New York sports.

So all of that coming up in just a moment. Stay with us for it.

But first my reported monologue, on the state of the Democratic Party in the wake of those

shocking results on Tuesday, the New York primaries in the house races were three socialist, a two socialist candidates won and three candidates backed by Mayor Mondami won, two beat Democratic incumbents, including the head of the Hispanic caucus in the house. And they ran on very progressive platforms, also in New York state legislative races, same thing, a lot of victories for not just outsiders, but on these, almost all these cases,

socialist. This fallout is big. It's being navigated across the Democratic Party by Republicans, by the media. It says a lot about the internal nature within the Democratic Party, but also about the future of the party in our politics.

So that's my report of monologue. I've talked to a lot of Democrats since Tuesday night, some who are delighted by what happened and some who are freaking out. Let's talk about the political earthquake that hit New York City and the Democratic Party this week.

It's going to be studied for a long time, maybe for years, depending on what ends up happening. Most of the coverage for now is going to focus on what it means for New York. What it means for mayors or on Mondami for the Democratic Party for Israel, because Israel's at the center of a lot of these campaigns. It's become the litmus test in a lot of Democratic races.

And then this issue of Democratic Socialism, which is on the rise, the public opinion polls show that and these election results show it.

“All important stuff, but there may be a lesson here that ends up being more important about”

what I the Democratic Party is so unprepared, the establishment part of the party, is so unprepared to deal with this. For years, the Democrats, I think, made a huge mistake, they've treated Senator Bernie Sanders, the godfather, the leader of this movement. Like a historical footnote, like a fascinating detour when he ran for president, just something

quirky and interesting that happened. And then passed away, because he ran in 2016 and he ran in 2020, didn't get the nomination either. And now, he's on the peripheries and his 80s and people assume not me, but most others that he won't run for president.

I've always thought that Democrats made a big mistake in not working to understand how

Bernie Sanders almost became the nominee of their party. I was not a member of the Democratic Party, and you hear this week, some Democrats like Jamie Harrison, who's been our guest here, former chairman of the Democratic Party on Twitter said to the socialist candidates, "Don't run as Democrats.

“If you want to be a socialist, run as a socialist.”

They're not. They're running as Democrats." And Bernie Sanders came into the Democratic Party in 2016, just as Donald Trump came in, to run as a Republican, even though he wasn't a Republican. Sanders came in to run as a Democrat.

Now, I believe that Sanders would have been the nominee in 2016 or 2020 without the coordinated efforts of Democratic Party leaders to stop him. And I believe that in 2016, they read the rules in 2020. They just came together with hard-pulled politics to get Joe Biden the nomination in the nick of time from their point of view.

That's some of these disagreed, but that'll be argued about.

But here's what's not debatable.

You've had an independent socialist senator from Vermont. Probably, cause himself a Democrat socialist, and he came remarkably close, twice, to becoming the Democrat nominee for president. Not once, as kind of a fluke, but twice, that experience should have triggered years of soul-searching inside the Democratic Party that should be going on to this day.

these establishment, they just seem relieved. They survived.

The battle, and so they moved on, they never asked themselves in a profound way.

Why did Bernie Sanders come so close to beating Hillary Clinton in 2016? Why did he come so close to beating Joe Biden and arrest the field in 2020? They never really fully grappled with the forces that transform Sanders from a little known kind of eccentric for a monitor and outsider into a genuine contender to lead the Democratic party.

The very forces that propelled him, they're still around.

“That's what, that's what led to the election of Montgomery, the election, the nomination”

of these Democrats on Tuesday.

These forces, not only have they not disappeared, but by most measures, they've become

stronger, younger, more online, more organized, and even more ideological, more willing to challenge the party establishment, and with the election of Montgomery, with the nomination of these candidates in New York, they're more successful, Sanders lost, they've won. That's the parallel here, what's the thing that explains what's happened? It is Donald Trump took over the Republican party, but before that happened, there were

warning signs. Just as Democrats missed the warning signs from Sanders, Republicans missed the warning signs before 2016 about what was going to propelled Donald Trump.

“Papy Cannon loved, Pap was such a talented thinker and strategist, and he ran twice”

for president too, and in 1992, he gave George W. H. W. Bush's Scare, and then in 1996,

he could have been the nominee. Bob Dole was the establishment rallied around Bob Dole. He cannon showed that there was a very strong populist current inside the Republican party, anti-New York, anti-Washington, anti-Ele. Then Ron Paul ran for president, didn't have maybe as much success, but clearly showed that

there was an enormous appetite for this anti-establishment movement, something different, something separate from conventional establishment, Republican politics, of the Bush's and the Romney's. Most Republican leaders didn't take them seriously, they didn't take Pat seriously, they didn't take Ron Paul seriously, and then all of a sudden, here comes Donald Trump down the

golden escalator in Trump tower in 2015, and suddenly, here's a guy, seemed to many people well, this is new, this is a different, no, it was rooted in Buchanan and Paul, the very same things, and went from this kind of, these little rebellions into a complete takeover of the party. Now, this metaphor is not perfect, this historical comparison, Democrats are not the same as Republicans, my dummy is not Trump, the coalitions involved here are different, the ideologies

are very different, the personalities couldn't be more different, but there is a throughline here, there is a similarity, and it's important to think about what that is. The questions now that are facing Democratic leaders are the same ones that the Republican establishment has been grappling with because of Donald Trump for so long.

“Fundamentally, I believe, that most Republicans are in the establishment, are pretty much in the same”

places to media, pretty much in the same places as the Democrats, they don't understand what's happening and what has happened within size, the Republican party, they can't really explain the rise of Donald Trump even though it's pretty out there to see. What Tuesday's results suggest is that many Democratic voters in New York turn out wasn't huge, but the margins of victory in some of these cases was huge. A lot of Democrats, especially younger ones, they're looking beyond traditional politics,

they're not interested in the status quo. Mondami and the allies he has, they weren't running against the individual candidates they be, so much as they were running against institutions, against the party establishment, against by coincidence the two New Yorkers who are the leaders of the Democrats and the Congress Chuck Schumer in the Senate, Congressman Jeffries in the House, they represent the political status quo. So when you think about the rhetoric that these candidates

use, you think about Bernie Sanders, he wasn't running against Hillary Clinton so much as he was running against these same kinds of things. The institutions, ideology, campaign finance system of this status quo, against dice, against APAC, the group that by partisan group that's been around for years, highly influential, that has helped fund politicians, establishment politicians, both parties who support Israel. These Mondami and Doris candidates made opposition to Israel and Israel's

conduct in Gaza, one of maybe the defining issue. That Israel was a big issue, wasn't the only

much broader, much broader, anti-establishment revolt driven by real issues, affordability, housing

“costs, and then the generational frustration that's felt by a lot of these younger voters,”

a sense that the Democrats and the leadership of the Democrats, the folks who've been around for so long that they don't represent younger voters or disenfranchised voters. We're going to untangle this for a long time. What exactly happened in these races, truth is it probably wasn't one thing, different maybe, a candidate by candidate voter, by voter. But the implications of this, even though New York is New York, goes far beyond Gotham City,

in Maine, Michigan rather, in Maine, first Graham Platner, a Republican,

a Democrat nominee against Republican Susan Collins, that's another one of these cases of a guy who's an outsider who believes in a lot of these positions of Israel and about the status quo. The big case, case will come in Michigan where there's a three-way primary to be the nominee for Senate. Big news today, an endorsement, a nine-pleased, sender from Maryland, Chris Van Allen, who people say may want to run for president. Chris Van Allen endorsed in

that race today. He endorsed the socialist leaning candidate, the Sanders candidate, Dr. Al Saeed. And I don't know that I don't know that the guy's going to win, but most people

I talked to in Michigan say he probably will. Abdul Al Saeed has now a mainstream endorsement

in that center race. And you can see while some Democrats are speaking out. We'll talk about that against what's happened in New York. A lot of them are really kind of being drawn in. Republicans, of course, love this. They're going to spend the balance of the midterms trying to nationalize what happened in New York to make these Democratic Socialists and their controversial views, the face of the Democratic Party. The strategist and chief President Trump is already excited

“about it here. Is the President talking about the election results as 11, please?”

They want a lot of communists to come in. I'm saying it a little bit differently, but the people that they're pushing are communists. And this country is not going to have communists. Thank you. All right. The President says communists, here's the President's ally, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, who is linking his jobs over getting to run against has candidates like this as 10, please. The Democratic Party, the socialist, the Marxists, have nominated

some of the most radical candidates to ever run for office and they're running for Congress. The insurgent left is on the rise. The problem for Democrats, Republicans are going to argue that every one of these Democratic candidates, even the ones who aren't members of the socialist Democratic Socialists of America, are aligned with them. They're going to talk about immigration and economics and foreign policy and Israel and a range of issues where they're going to make

the case that this party is so left, it's left America. Now, we'll see how well that works. Democrats are going to try to distance themselves. They already are. What is Chuck Schumer going to do? What are he keen Jeffrey's going to do? They're going to say this is just about New York.

“That's what they're going to say for public consumption. But the question is, how much they”

realize what a problem this is? Today, recognize that this is a, there's a throughline from Senator

Sanders to this and this could, in fact, define the party. Here's what near-tanned, and she's a

Democratic strategist who is worked for Hillary Clinton and others Joe Biden. Here's her spin on it. She says, to me, a party that is addressing the needs of its base is in non-swing districts, but also putting up candidates who can win in swing districts and actually defeats Republicans is overall a healthy party. Neuros says, it's fine. This is a blue district. There are no danger of losing these seats because they nominated folks that we'll see about Maine and Michigan.

But she's, she's saying, grassroots support. Senator Schumer said something different. It's similar this week. He said, we're seeing tremendous energy from all different areas of our party. You're seeing central energy in Virginia, Iowa, New Jersey, progressive energy in New York City. We're going to harness it all in November because all Democrats united in the mission of taking back the Senate and defeating Trump. There's some truth to that. You want grassroots strength.

You want grassroots energy. But not everybody is going to be enthused here. Some people are going to be worried that this will define the party. And a person who is at the center of reading the tea leaves here in the poker faces of the Democrats is how came Jeffries. He's from Brooklyn, New York. He's the leader in the house. If these day candidates win and they almost certainly will,

grapple with the hardest question. So far, at least, he's avoided answering them. Which is,

“what do you think of the extreme views of some of these candidates? Here's a leader Jeffries on”

Squawk Box on CNBC with Andrew Ross, Sorkin and Joe Kernan, who are putting this speaker the question. These folks are pretty radical in their views. What do you think? Here's our speaker in waiting. How came Jeffries on Squawk Box? S12, please. This is Shavelier who, as you know, just won, was the leader of the anti-Israel protests at Columbia University after the 2023 Kamas massacre. She was four Kamas. They write. She would call for abolishing police prisons and

borders. She called Joe Biden. She called Joe Biden a rapist and a war criminal and said that the U.S. is occupied, Native American land and called the country, a F in disgrace and also favors seizing private property. What do you make it? Her views are clearly not my views and that should be obvious to everyone. In terms of views, her views are not the other. She says that's not denunciation.

“Andrew could have said, "Well, she likes a tune on Rai. How do you feel like that?"”

Well, now I like tune on white. Now, to be fair, Republicans have avoided answering questions about some Donald Trump's controversial views for a long time. Same thing, those who wouldn't have said it that way myself or I didn't hear what he said. But I came Jeffries is going to try to finish this. You know, privately, he endorsed Mandami at the very last minute. He knows how dangerous these views are to the brand of the Democratic Party. He's caught between not wanting to denounce them

both repeatedly because if he does, the base will be mad at him. But he also knows that these views are not popular and they could hurt his candidates and other races. And I can tell you the privately there's a real alarm amongst Democrats, strategists, amongst donors, amongst some other members of Congress who see in these candidates, including Platinum, including Outside, if he's nominated, Michigan, including these new house nominees, they see real danger. They see real danger.

Here's what one Democrat, strategist said to me. He said, the person said, "Vettering Democrat,"

strategist said, "Democrats have a DFA problem, Democrat Socialists of America problem, and pretending otherwise is political, malpractice." These people, strategists went on, aren't trying to persuade the party. They're trying to hijack it. Slap a rose emoji on the wreckage and call it a movement. The DSA crowd has mastered the politics of performance art, promise everything, explain nothing, scream establishment,

when questioned and hope nobody who pays, asks, pays the bills. It's fantasy math, a dangerous public safety agenda, and too often, stoking anti-Semitism, wrapped in moral superiority.

Finally, this person told me, they're driving the party further away from the American

people. If they succeed, they could set the Democratic Party back decades. Other strategists and some members of Democrats and Congress have privately said the same thing to me. They don't think this movement is trying to become part of the Democratic Party. They think the Socialists are trying to replace the Democratic Party. They you may agree or disagree with that, but that is a conversation that's happening within the Democratic Party. And not surprisingly, John Fetterman is one of the

people saying it. He's been out spoken, but he's someone who speaks out sometimes when others don't. And then, of course, there's Mondani himself. Winning a primary is one thing, but now he is taking the same type of agenda, the same brand of Socialist politics, and he's running America's

“largest city. We'll see, jury still at, because he's relatively new in the job. Can he govern?”

Can he broaden the coalition beyond the activist base that got him the job? Governing is different than campaigning. We'll see how he does, but he remains clearly very pleased to now having the prospect of allies in Congress from New York, who share his brand of politics. Here is the mayor, as five please. I think we can see from each of these candidates that they have exactly what it takes to succeed. And we've heard from a public in time and again that they're

going to try and make these candidates the face of the Democratic Party to them. I say that we are ready for that. So he's happy to have these folks be the face of the party. Here's suit, here's who's not happy, eight pack. This is an organization that's been around for years. They've been

very powerful, very effective. They spend a ton of money, including this year, trying to influence

Democratic primaries. Two stays results, although they had a win in a Maryland primary, but what happened in New York is going to make them have to answer some questions that they've put aside. Is there strategy really good idea? Are some places are they actually strengthening

interesting to watch, because A pack has a lot of money to spend. Then we've got the 2028

“presidential contenders. All of them are worried about getting on the wrong side of the anti-israeli”

part of the progressive movement. How are they going to deal with this energized way? Are they going to try to confront it so far? Even the ones with long histories of support for Israel, like Roma Manual, instead of confronting the anti-israeli and anti-judge sentiment in the party. Have largely tried to accommodate to split the difference? It's going to be a fascinating intense part of the 2028 presidential campaign. These questions aren't going away. And the fact

that Democrats haven't grappled with them, even though all of this, all of this, was on vivid

display in 2016 when Senator Sanders had the nomination stolen from him. History does not

repeat itself exactly correctly, but as it's often said, it does rhyme. Republicans ignore the insurgency within their own party that they should have seen when Papi handed so well in 1992

“in 1996. The party got fundamentally transformed, because another insurgent Donald Trump”

followed in Pat's footsteps and took over the party. The question for the Democrats now, are they belatedly going to study the Sanders experience, study what happened in New York on Tuesday, and learn the lessons? Or are they about to repeat the process for Republicans went through? And they're going to become a party taken over by the young socialist. We should see, I'll keep covering it. There you have it. I want to hear what you think. Let me know what

you think the Democrats need to do to keep the socialist from taking over the entire party in this climate of anti-establishmentarianism. Send your thoughts to me by email next up at devilmakeairmedia.com again send me an email at next up at devilmakeairmedia.com, and let me know what you think. Great. Yeah. All right, quick break now. When we come back, former Bill Clinton advisor Doug Sausnick with some great analysis of the upcoming election in the political climate is next up.

Think about the last 30 bucks that you spent, maybe it was on a streaming service. You don't watch or a lunch you've already forgotten. That's $30 and it's gone forever, acre gold. Let's you turn that lost money into something better physical, 24-carot Swiss gold. You pick a plan, your balance builds up, and once you hit the price of a bar, they ship it straight to your front door. Real gold right in your hand at your home. And over time, you're sitting on something that's

invaluable since the dawn of civilization. For the collectors out there is something cool. They just dropped the limited edition Hot Wheels collection. These are officially licensed by Mattel. They're strictly Captain once they're gone. They're history. While you're checking those out, claim your free entry to the speed club sweepstakes. They're there giving away a 1-gram Hot Wheels gold bar. Plus, there's a massive grand prize. The 10-gram 24-carot gold Hot Wheels bar. Both of them

come in official collector packaging, and they're up for grabs right now. So start stacking for just $30. At getacregold.com/mark again, go to getacregold.com/mark and subscribe today. All right, next up and joining me now, Demo Crack Strategist Former Advisor to Bill Clinton, the White House Doug Sausnic Doug. Love having Doug on because he's very knowledgeable at politics and

campaigns. He's very honest. Doesn't always show for his party if he sees problems. And he understands

history and current data. And there are people who get it. History. People who get a current data Doug's good at both. He's written an op-ed in the Washington Post recently called Here's The Real Democratic Autopsy that we'll talk about. But we're going to start Doug with the latest version of your slides Doug. Every so often we'll do a deck. And again, draws on both history and current data. And there's nothing quite like them. So Doug, thank you for being here. We'd love to just go

through the slides and have you explain their relevance to where we are politically. And we'll start with number one, see one, top 10% of Americans share of the economy. What's the significance of this

“historically in the current political climate? Well, I think the single most important thing to”

understand about our politics today is the economy and who benefits from it. And we've unfortunately increasingly become a country in which the top 1% top 10% have a disproportionate amount of the spoils of our economy. And the slide there, these four wheels shows you, and the wheel itself it shows you the current statistic on the share of income and wealth is spending by the top 10% and then below on each of those, you can see what the numbers were in the early 1990s. And so

the consistency across the board on income spending wealth is that increasingly the people at the

numbers for those of you listening to the show, not watching, top 10% have 49% of the income,

“50% of the spending 70% of the wealth and 87% ownership of equities. Is that sustainable?”

Is a political matter or is that something that the political system will inevitably react to? Well, that only is not sustainable, but we are watching in real time the political system reacting to that. And you know, on the one hand, people I think were quite surprised when Mayor Mondami visited the Oval Office with Trump after his victory in New York, there was a surprise at how kind of have well they got along. But the fact is the rise of Trump

and the rise is what you're seeing happening right now in the Democratic Party and the cities are

out of the country. Is the people rising against the current system? The rising against the people

that are in charge of the current system and their saying is not working for them and they want to change. Yeah, the numbers are just extraordinary and COVID, of course, exacerbated this and AI

“has the potential to exacerbate it to allow the rich to get richer. All right, let's look at C2.”

And just by the way, I'm at it, but the, the, the, the, the gap between the people at the top and the rest of the country began forming in the early 1970s, but the economic crisis of 2008 really accelerated even more of that gap because the people who've been suffering the most economically since the 1970s is we transition away from the manufacturing economy or the ones who

are the hardest hit during the economic crisis and there were the people last to recover

in the 2010s and that gap, as you said, even widened deeper did a COVID. And of course, the, the, the kind of bumper sticker Democratic solution for this would be higher taxes on the wealthy. Republicans don't really have the solution. Most of the, the solutions would, would involve long-term changes. And, and the people, the Trump supporters who are who are upset by this reality and, and now people on the left were upset by, typically don't, they're not interested

in short-term solutions. They're interested in immediate solutions. And again, with the exception of tax increases, right, there's nothing. There's no public policy supported by either side that that's going to solve this or address this immediately, right? And no one's worried about the deficit of the economy. Yeah. Yeah. All right, let's go to the next slide. As C2, this is a recent

“wage growth, uh, describe what this shows and why it's important for our politics. Well, it's this,”

what I call the nine virtuous cycle, where increasingly people at the top are doing better than everyone else and the gap between the people and the top and everyone else is widening. And these charts showing wage growth show that. Yeah. So if you go back to 2023, the wage growth was highest amongst lower income and middle income. And you see that around a couple years ago, the lines crossed and now the highest income are seeing real wage growth grow fastest and,

and going up at a higher rate and, and, and the two middle and lower are back there. It's another illustration of the same thing, which is the, the wealthy are doing better now and that's just not sustainable politically. And I don't know how many slides we want to do through today, but there are 50 or 60 of them, but virtually every slide tells that same story. Yeah. Okay, here's another one, C3, the declining share of economic output. I employee compensation is a share of US GDP

from 1947 to to 2026. You can see it's, it's gone up and down, but it's way down from its high. And then corporate profits are, again, it's gone up and down, but corporate profits are up. So corporations have got richer, which means stakeholders get richer and executives get richer, but employees are not doing as well. And that's another, as you said, another illustration of the same thing. Let's go to C4, upward mobility in America, tell us what this shows. Well, so Mark and I

were growing up. There were two God-given rights as an American. One was that if you worked hard, you could get ahead no matter what economic background you came from. And the other was that everyone in America knew that the next generation is going to have a better than the last generation. So this chart shows, going back to 1940, this chart shows the percentage of people that believe that the next generation is going to have a better than they had it. And you see in 1940 over 90

percent of people believe that. And you can see almost complete linear downward trends since then. And now half the country doesn't believe the next generation is going to have a better. Yeah, it's one of the polling questions I cite all the time, because it speaks to people's

than you, it undermines the compact that's supposed to exist in this country, which is that

as the time marches forward, people in America will be uniformly better off than the previous generations. And it's just not there. As C5, again, same thing, Americans believe that they can improve their standard of living. You see here, percent of individuals who agree or disagree that people like them can improve their standard of living. And you can see there that agree, agrees. Well, gotten to describe what we see over time. So this just tracks from the early 1980s. So on the

“left, you'll see that three quarters of Americans back in the 1980s, I believe they can improve”

their standard of living. They had hope for the future. And you can see on the right that that's down down to only 25%. And again, that's a pretty pronounced negative trend going back to the mid to late 90s. Yeah. And again, this is the environment which Donald Trump rose. It's the environment which Bernie Sanders rose. And it's the environment now in which Democratic socialists are winning elections. Gap between mainstream Wall Street. Let's skip over to C7, please. We'll

skip over one there. C7. And again, again, another version of the same story, but these illustrations are all important. You can see the green line of Wall Street is rising high. And then the purple line of mainstream used to be higher. But they crossed in the 1920 and or 2020 rather. And now, now this now, what about the argument that a lot of people have investments through their retirement funds in stocks? Does that play a role? Yeah, much of what. And let me tell you why I think this chart

is significant. So if in the past, there was a relative correlation between how mainstream fell in Wall Street fell. And you can see that there's a breaking point where the Wall Street

“sentiment is delayed from the mainstream sentiment. And that's why it's a challenge that Biden”

had that he never quite understood. And it's a challenge Trump has he doesn't understand. Which is

essentially the kind of broader traditional macro economic data is generally pretty positive. Wall Street sentiment as a chart shows you is quite positive. But the sentiment in America, Main Street is much more negative. And in a sense, this this is as we talk about the K shaped economy. This is a K shaped chart. And the reason why is this the linking is because there's such a disproportionate amount of the benefits from our economic growth to the 10% and corporate Americans.

Doug, as Doug said, the full deck is longer and we'll share the full deck in my sub-stack and on Twitter so you can go read it there. We've chosen the ones that I think are most important.

“The next one is to me the most important slide and it's some I learned in the Clinton campaign.”

But the media and a lot of rich people who control the public conversation get it exactly opposite. So put up CA. If you ask somebody at a Manhattan dinner party is the country on economic, liberal or conservative and it's a country on social issues, liberal or conservative. They'll tell you the country's conservative on fiscal issues, government spending.

But liberal on social policy and Doug, the reality is this is this complicated and beautiful

chart shows. I learned during the Clinton campaign from from Carval and Begel and you, it's exact opposite. It's exactly right. So just I'll try to quickly describe this busy chart. So this is each dot represents people's poll and responses and it's several thousand people that responded. And so the thing we're measuring here is whether people consider themselves social conservatives or social liberals and economic conservatives or economic liberals.

So on the top right box, those are social conservatives and economic conservatives. And they're overwhelmingly as you can see Republicans. On the bottom left are people who are social liberals and economic liberals and they're overwhelmingly democratic as you might expect. The bottom right box, which is virtually empty, is a box where a lot of educated people live. And that box are people who are socially liberal and economic conservative. And you can see

that that's the least representative part of America. The top left box is where you went and lose elections. And these that box are people who are socially conservative and they'll come back to that and economically liberal. Now on economically liberal, it's largely populist. And when I say

I do mean is they are right of center on social issues. And they definitely do not subscribe

“to the woke policies of the world. Yeah. And so it's the top left. This is the sweet spot in”

American politics. And the reason, or a reason, but I would argue maybe the reason that Democrats don't understand why Donald Trump has been successful is that as largely how he's covered.

Not entirely, not entirely. But when he said, I'll never touch social security and Medicare.

And when he said, and when he's opposed to woke and he's opposed to trans athletes in sports, no one's perfect on these scores. But he has governed largely in the minds of a lot of people. Even the MAGA people who would say, well, we want, we want fiscal conservatism. They actually don't. A lot of them want big government spending and entitlement programs. That's exactly right. And and you know, what's happened has been a significant change since 2000. It's the

percent of people in America now that are most dependent on government support. Whether it's Medicare, Medicaid, so the security are now overwhelming to Republican. And so the Republican base now is more dependent on government aid than the Democratic base. Right. All right. So that's the historical foundation and economic foundation. Let's talk about the midterms. The smartest and best informed people I know in both parties are more bullish on the Democratic

chances than the popular perception. And so again, as Raiders here know, I'm not a partisan. I'm just telling you what I know from reporting with people in both parties. If the election were now, or if the conditions that pervade now pervade, when people start to vote, and as Doug will tell you, people set them and start to settle around now of Republicans are going to have a worse cycle than the cook political report in these other places currently suggests.

Because the president's in a big hole. Let's run through some reasons why. C9, a majority of the country disapproves of President Trump. You see there,

the average is of them as significant polls. 58 percent disapprove, 39 approved. What's the

president like C10 on the big issues? The economy, 33 percent approved. On Iran, 36 percent, 34 percent approved. Israel, 35 percent approved immigration used to be a great issue for him only 40 percent

“approved. See 11. Do you prefer Democrats or Republicans control Congress?”

Average of polls is Democrats 48 to 46 or 42 as six point gap historically has meant why. Well, it's meant a, you know, a good year for the out party. So I would just say the Democrat to thanks to dresser initial point. The first is by historical standards on the slides you just shown, and they're whole out other slides you haven't shown, which we enforce it, that Democrats should be poised for historic blue and election. Trump's job approval is 8 points lower than Clinton's was in 94,

when there were Republicans, whatever 50 house seats took back the house for the first time since

the 1950s. It's saying about when Obama and the Democrats without white doubt in 2010, we lost over 60 house seats. So the two operating cross currents here, one is by historical standards, Democrats should have an historic election. However, due to the structural changes in American politics, we have to get a Democrat. We're not going to have the kinds of gains that we would have in the past. And I do think we're favored to win the house, although a bit more narrowing

“and, you know, history would suggest based on the data. And in the Senate, and Mark, I think you”

were the first person a couple of months ago to kind of lay this out. While the abstract, the macro numbers, the Democrats should win 78 Senate seats, you know, you put it out and you start walking through these seats race by race. It's going to be difficult to spot how bad the Republicans are. It's going to be difficult for Democrats to take the Senate skill. Yeah, I agree. Assuming things improve the war ends, the economy gets better, inflation continues

to go down gas prices go down. If all that happens, then it will be difficult. If the current conditions pervade, I think Democrats can do it, although it's not nearly as easy as some sometimes. I think it's very unlikely, based on historical trends. I think it's very unlikely that the fundamental economic environment that when voters start deciding, if they're going to vote here, they're going to vote for, which, by the way, increasingly is earlier than it used to be,

so, literally, in six weeks from now, people are going to start, or in the early September,

is going to be appreciably different from the days today. I agree with you. Although, not impossible,

but unlikely. Lastly, again, one of the wise things you pointed out, and Joe Biden should have realized this. Joe Biden took the 22 midterms as an indication the 24 would be a great year for Democrats at the presidential level. Not true. You've pointed out that however well Democrats do in 2024, they shouldn't assume, or 2026, they shouldn't assume that 2028 will be a Harbinger, or the 2026 will be Harbinger for 2028. You wrote not that piece in the Washington Post looking at

the last presidential. What are the lessons you drew about that that should pertain for Democrats, as they think about the next presidential? Also, it just to be clear, these midterm elections really tell you nothing about the next presidential election. This is an election that's a referendum on the Republican Party, and it's leadership. The two biggest midterm elections in terms of a wave, whereas I mentioned earlier in '94, in 2010, in both cases,

Republicans who won overwhelming victories in those elections, lost the White House two years later.

“So, these are completely different elections. You should not read anything”

into what happens in November as it relates to '28. In regards to the lessons from 2024, the underlying lesson is, which I think you're seeing it every day now and voting, is you cannot run for office defending the status quo. You have to be running for office for change, for changing the system, and if you're on the wrong side of change, you're not going to

get elected. So, the case of Biden, he was kind of a unique situation because it was basically

elected largely to beat Trump, and he said he was on the wrong one term, and then he went back on that. So, I had three sort of key moments in the 2024 outcome, and that very little to do with the end, the first was Biden's decision to run diagonal on his commitment to be a one-term president. The second was how he governed in the first nine months, which he got that box in the squares that we showed earlier, Mark. He did not go on the upper left box in terms of governing.

He was governing much more, you know, left of America on social issues, and did not deal with the economic issues in inflation. And then the third element was, is as you mentioned that about our Democrats misreading the 2022 results was the out of belief either certainly Biden or Harris could could have won in November if they're running on the status quo. So, the only hope we had as a party was to have someone else run announced after the mid-terms and be a candidate to change.

And neither of them was equipped. Obviously, to do that. The full deck that Doug has, as well as a link to his op-ed will be in my sub-stack. Mark, I also, I, that's our just a subject. I, I, I, I, I, I, I finally, to your admonation. I finally, I create, I don't use it much,

“but I have a sub-stack now. So, anyone think that in my sub-stack and find these articles?”

Oh, all right. What's the name of the sub-stack? I didn't know?

Well, we don't have a name. I guess he's put my name in it. I never used it.

Doug saw us like, all right. Well, five Doug sub-stack will link to his sub-stack. How about that? In, in my Twitter feed as well. So, you can find the full deck and I recommend it to you. You won't, you won't find a high-quality presentation explaining both the electoral environment, as well as the data about the mid-terms. Doug, grateful to you always for making time. Right. Let's see Mark. Thank you. All right. Quick break. The next up, Drew Holden,

author of The Holden Court Sub-stack, will be here with his new look, receipts and all on the failures of America's political leaders and media during COVID from the lockdowns through the aftermath. Drew Holden is next up. If you're 64 years or older, here's advice that I'd give to a friend. Check your Medicare plan, especially if you have a Medicare supplement. Here's why,

identical supplement plans, they can have precisely the same coverage, but wildly different prices.

“That's how crazy our Medicare system is, depending upon what you happen to see or what you miss,”

you can be dramatically overpaying for literally the exact same coverage benefits for everything. And you're none the wiser, unless you go looking. Chapter does the looking for you, either the only Medicare advisors that compare every plan nationwide, every carrier, every rate. Their advisors in chapter, they're not paid to push one plan over another. So they'll look at what you have, and if you're already on the best rate, they'll tell you that.

But if not, they'll help you switch to something better. They've helped many folks in my audience, say thousands on their premiums alone. That's real money. So if you're turning 65 or already on Medicare, give my friends over a chapter or call,

under 20 minutes. Call them now, 262-454-0503-262-454-0503.

All right, next up and joining me now, the man who always brings the receipts.

“Not the only thing we like about him, but we like it a lot.”

Drew Holden, managing editor of American Compass, and the author of the Holden Court Substack, where he's now published a six-part series on a incredibly important topic. Some of you would like to put the COVID experience fully in the rear of your mirror and never glance at it again. But there is such important lessons that we need to learn not just for history and journalism, but to make sure that if we do have another pandemic and God willing,

we want, but history suggests we eventually will, that we handle it better. There's so many things that have occurred during the course of the pandemic in the aftermath that the mainstream media, the legacy media, the dominant media, whatever you want to call,

has not scrutinized. And Drew and I talk about this all the time. It's just,

Drew shouldn't be the one who has to do it, but if no one else will do it, Drew will take it on Drew, welcome back. Thank you for being here. Mark, the pleasure of mine. Thanks so much for having me back on, and I couldn't agree with you more. If it would that I didn't have to do it, but unfortunately it needs doing. Yeah, now a six-part series is a so-called autopsy of what happened.

So much of what happened in real time is, it's like with a Biden mental acuity thing, there's the original cover-up, and then there's the failure to acknowledge what went wrong. And in the case of COVID, there's mistakes that were made by the government, and mistakes that were made by the media, and you covered them both. I'm going to start. I'm going to start with an area of broad disagreement that I have for you.

I'm more forgiving than you are about some of the mistakes that were made. Because this was an unprecedented situation, a complicated situation. A time when the country was already politically divided and federal government had to do with the states and public health officials. So for instance, one of the things you write about is kids. The public policy decisions that were made about how to treat kids in retrospect were just

“off. The science wasn't there, but nobody wants to take a chance with kids, right?”

So shouldn't we give some forbearance to government officials who aired on the side of caution, rather than saying, well, it doesn't appear that kids are really as affected by this. So let's take off the masks and open all the schools right away. I think so Mark, I'm open that I'm uncharitable, perhaps a little bit in some of this framing something I'm thinking about it. And I do think you make a really good point about this

as an unprecedented situation. First time the federal government of the state government

have to interact in all these weird ways, I want to allow for some grace in terms of the way we look at things. But I actually think the area that is at least deserving of grace is the way that kids were treated during COVID. Because throughout the conversation, the media, I think in retrospect, of course, they did a really good job of highlighting this. Still much of the conversation early, early, early on was we're not sure about kids. We're not

sure if they're safe. But then that shifted pretty early, right? And particularly by late 2020, we were pretty confident. We could say with a high degree of confidence, kids are not impacted as negatively by COVID as adults are. They're considerably safer. And so the shift that you started to see in late 2020 and early 2021 around school closures wasn't for the sake of children. It was for teachers. Yeah. And the risk that

“base teachers. And I think what ended up happening as a result of that is, and what”

they're not we want to talk about workers of any kind, whether the teachers are otherwise being able to be safe. I think that's a reasonable conversation to have. What I think happened particularly in the pages of the legacy press is that kids were offered up as almost a sacrifice. What we were really talking about was teachers and teachers' unions and there were a few days ago back to their jobs even a year after the COVID had started. What we were framing it as

instead was, well, this risk to kids that at that point we knew, again, not right off the bat, but at that point we knew, wasn't nearly as bad as it was for adults. Yeah, I agree with the hundred percent. And one of the under-covered stories is the role that teachers' unions and how outrageously they elevated their own concerns. And of course, no one wants teachers to be put at risk. Sure. Their teachers, their job is to show kids. And we, you continue to hear stories

from parents whose kids were greatly affected. People who lost their senior years, for instance. It was driven by the teachers. Yeah, okay. That's one area. Let's do it this way. Because again, it's a such a rich series. I recommend everybody go on the subject and read the whole thing because there's just so many different facets to this. But let's talk about hindsight. If we could go back to the beginnings of the pandemic, and one thing you write about, which again,

I had three people in my life who said, "Hey, I had COVID last year, the year before it's

supposedly around." So the start date is not what people commonly think it is. If we go back with full knowledge of the science and of the public health implications, full knowledge. Not what they should have seen. But what they sure, full knowledge. Well, how would it have been handled better

“handled overall? I mean, I think the biggest thing for me would have been lockdowns, right? I think”

lockdowns would have been different. I think if we knew one, what the long-term consequences would be on physical health, on mental health, on the social fabric, about what extended lockdowns can do, a lot of information. I will note we had before all of this started. But if we had all of that in hindsight, we knew what the learning loss was going to look like. I think lockdowns would have been a week. Two weeks, maybe it was really 15 days as low as bread. I remember one time walking

out of my apartment building where I lived in DC at the time. And it was probably, you know, 40 days into 15 days as low as bread. I looked over at the, you know, the woman I was dating, who's now my wife and I was like, "Wow, can you believe this is day 40 of 15 days as low as bread?" And in retrospect, it's like, "Well, we had California had a year and a half of 15 days as

low as bread." And so I think with the knowledge of hindsight, which is always unfair to look back

“at things. I understand that. I think we would have said, "All right, we don't know what this COVID”

thing looks like." Maybe it makes sense to stop something, right? Maybe it makes sense for kids to not go to school for a week or two until we know more about what's happening about transmission. Maybe it makes sense for businesses to close for a couple of days. Maybe it makes sense for who will not go to work if they don't feel comfortable. But it wouldn't have been this endless boundless forever in lockdown that we saw in so many states. We wouldn't have had all of these fights

and these protests and these kind of debilitating social... I hear these bosoms. What would the proper trigger, again, with full hindsight? What would the proper trigger have been

for a given community or school or office to end the lockdowns? What point should they have said?

Okay, we don't need this anymore. I think it would come down to the immediate reaction of what did lockdowns prevent and what is still happening beyond that. In New York at the time, that had these really, really stringent, serious lockdowns. You couldn't go outside, you couldn't do anything in a sun. They saw that COVID cases continued to take up and they continued

“to take up despite the lockdowns, despite all of these measures. I think as soon as we realized”

hopefully a lot earlier, again, with the wisdom of hindsight, that lockdowns weren't working the way we thought they were and there were causing all of these other issues and problems, right? Within a couple of weeks, I think really compelling data about increases in deaths of despair, of alcoholism, of mental health issues, mental health hospitalizations. For adults and kids, I think we would have looked at that and said, "Whoa, maybe we're over our skis to say you can't

leave your home." All right, again, I'm jumping around the parts I'm most interested in, but the thing is so wide-ranging and monumental. The Chinese have denied that this was developed in a lab. They're not really, not really been clear about how they think it developed, but it's pretty clear from the evidence now that the Chinese developed this and that they caused untold number of deaths and financial costs and they won't acknowledge it. And the President

of the United States then and now said this is Chinese virus, the Chinese causes, and the American media continues to be to this day. The uninterested in truly one of the biggest stories of the last hundred years. This was not some fluke of nature. This was whether they unleashed it on purpose or simply short. Made of error. Another country, one country, through their activities, caused a worldwide recession and killed, how many people died? I don't even know worldwide. How many

people died? Millions. Millions, I think. Yeah. Millions. So what is your view based on your research of what happened and what's your theory about why the American media is not interested in that story? Yeah. So there's, I've spent, you know, there's one part of the series that looks specifically at the lab late theory. And I spent probably more time thinking and writing and like, about the things that frustrated me, Mark, there's nothing worse than the lab late theory.

So my personal view on it is that Joe much of the media's resistance to it is that it sounded like Donald Trump was being a racist, right? He's talking about the China flu. It came out of this, you know, it came out of this lab. We weren't really sure what was happening. And it sounded somewhat implausible. And so rather than do what I think and I think what you would agree would be good journalism to try and get the facts to try and get the information,

the media dropped immediately into Donald Trump's pushing another conspiracy mode. And they ran

That said, definitively, this is not true. There's an ABC piece headline that said, sorry conspiracy theorists, the scientists proved that COVID came from nature or something along

“those lines, right? And so I think they were just fixed in this mindset of, it can't be real.”

It is not worth investing any time into, there's no gain of function ratios happening. Look at Dr. Fauci, he's an American hero, we can't be like, why would we spend this time questioning

what he has to say about this, which is the first and foremost job of a free and independent media,

is to question what someone in the government is telling you about the facts of any case. Right? And so the fact that they could be so turned off to the idea that perhaps, again, not even being definitive to say this is really what happened, that they could look at a situation where there was a level four bio lab, a couple of miles away, doing, in many cases, not scientifically sound research with very, very minimal safety precautions, miles from where these cases first started,

and we can't possibly look at it and to even think about looking at it was racist. It is mind blowing. It is truly mind blowing. I think there is, I think there is a little bit, again, I want to give them a little bit of grace of like early on, to say, hey, we don't know what's

happening, but to immediately say, Donald Trump is wrong, this theory doesn't hold water,

“and we know it because science said, I think it's maybe one of the biggest failures of”

journalism that we've seen, is actually in my lifetime. It's bonkers given the stakes involved in the importance of the story. Yes. It's given, and given the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the absolute completeness with which the media just wouldn't entertain it until this day, it just won't entertain. What a, what a, what a tragedy. You mentioned Dr. Fauci. I grew up in the Washington DC area where Dr. Fauci was, I'm going to family friend, but he was, he was omnipresent in the media,

and, and, and, and, and, and, and he's rolling in, in combating eight, he's seen as, uh, like a saint, like a patron saint of, of, of public health, uh, and, and present Trump chose to keep him on.

Now, the, the, the, the, the red view of of Fauci is he's, he's an, he's an incompetent crook and liar,

and, and the blue view, which, of course, is the dominant media view is, you know, heroic Dr. Fauci tried to help poor Donald Trump, evil Donald Trump, and, and, if it's not for Dr. Fauci, many more people

“would have died. Now, it tells the gathered on our way out the door as the N.I., direct to national”

intelligence, uh, puts more meat on the bone of the accusation that Fauci played a role in, again, he couldn't make this up in the, in the, in the scientific research that led to the development of the virus. So, what do we know now, separate from the media fog machine? What do we know now about the role, Dr. Fauci played? Yeah, and, and, and Mark, what we know now, I, like, again, I won't let you my own horn here, but I've been talking about since 2021. We have long known this. So further,

the, the quick snippet is that Dr. Fauci had been finding the insane what's called gain of function research, which, in the medical sense, takes a virus or some other pathogen and makes it more potent, sounds preposterous, makes it more potent as a way to evaluate how can we stop it in the future, right? And so before COVID, there was some research being done that was funded by American tax dollars, the EcoHealth Alliance, it was, it was, it was any of the company that was

operating in China, where they were doing research specifically around coronavirus, isn't how they could make them more lethal and more dangerous, so that if we had something like the Spanish flu that came out again, we would know how to address it better. When, when you see Dr. Fauci funded it, did he have unilateral power to say send this money to this place? Not, I don't think it was quite unilateral, but as the, you know, as the, as the operator CDC, right, is the director of the CDC,

he was able to charter grants for entities in the United States and externally, and there was a big fight before Fauci was revealed to have done this about whether or not we should be funding gain of function research at all, right? And then whether or not we should be funding gain of function research internationally, right? One would think of all the places we might be a little bit worried about enhanced pathogens, potentially causing an issue, it would be a Chinese lab run by shady

communists with no oversight and with what we knew about some of these labs, they were biophore, level four biolabs operating with biosafety level two certification. There's a huge mismatch, and so the danger that through no, like through no malicious action, stupidity or chance or whatever it is, something bad could happen, and Fauci just pressed the accelerator anyway. And he fought a lot back in 2021 to say, this is an actually gain of function research,

sure they're taking pathogens and supercharging them a little bit, but it doesn't meet the strict definition that I coined as the head of the CDC for what constitutes gain of function research.

by Republicans and Congress, is there any doubt in your mind that he's lied about his role?

“No, not a microcosm of doubt, and this is Mark, you know, I'm pretty squishy on a lot of things,”

right? I'm not a fire breather, I'm not a hard charger. The idea that like, hey, we should get a scientist to actually testify on the record because he might have done something so awful that we would need to have some sort of legal consequences for it, like that scares me to say out loud. But it does seem impossible, truly impossible to dispute that Dr. Fauci lied repeatedly to Congress about the most serious issue that we could possibly

imagine for years. And because he's gotten a pardon from Joe Biden, he'll never face criminal

accountability, could he face civil accountability for what he did? It's a great question, you know, you'd have to think so, right? Like to me, Mark, I'm not a legal expert, but the stakes of this just seem so impossibly high, right? If what is alleged, if a fraction of what is alleged is in fact true, and that the COVID pandemic was only made possible. It was only experienced by the entire globe the way that it was, because of like,

errant and attempted to be covered up decisions by Dr. Anthony Fauci. It is impossible in like a cosmic sense that we could just let that go, no matter whether or not he got this, you know,

this blanket parted by Biden or Biden's ought to be. Right, extraordinary.

Drew Holden does such great work on everything he touches, often will do media criticism, but here he's done, not just media criticism, but criticism of government policy, and this one of the biggest stories of all time. It is. Go read the whole thing, ladies and gentlemen, you won't find this in the New York Times, you won't find it in the Washington Post.

“This is extraordinary work on, on a really important and interesting topic and something that”

needs to be excavated before we face something like this again. There's a lot of answers in here and a lot of important questions raised. Drew Holden writes, "The Holden Court Substack, which is where you can find this series, Drew grateful to you." The pleasure of the mind, sir. Thank you so much for having me on. I happy I get to talk about this more. Great. I go read the whole thing. I didn't. It's fell binding and infuriating all at once.

All right, take a quick break and when we come back, Mitch Modell will be here to be an announcement about his attempt to get New York's sights even more about the next championship. Mitch Modell is next up. Here at Everwhere, everybody's talking about weight loss injections because the results are so dramatic. They work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite. So what if you're looking to lose weight but not interested in painful weekly injections especially when you hear and see

“some of the intense side effects? That's why doctors create a weight loss supplement. It's called”

lean and the results are remarkable. The studied ingredients in lean have been shown to lower your blood sugar burn fat by converting it into energy and curb your appetite and cravings so you're not as hungry. But listen, lean is not for the casual dieter who only has a few pounds to lose. The doctors in precast nutrition created lean for frustrated dieters who have 10 or more pounds to lose. So let's get you started with 20% off and free rush shipping so you can add lean to your

healthy diet and exercise plan. Visit takeline.com and enter it next up for your discount. That's promo code next up at takeline.com. All right, next up and joining me now, Mitch Modell, former owner and CEO of Modell sporting goods and manager director and partner, G.S.H. Development. Mitch, every year, somebody wins the NBA title. But New Yorkers are taking this like a big deal, including me. I'm not just the, you know, half century drought but the nature of this team, the spirit of the

team and the way the city has responded. I don't mean to diminish other cities but this is something special and you've reacted to it as a lifetime New Yorker tell us how you've reacted on the business side

to the next championship. Mark, in all my years in business, I have never, you know, we've been through

the 1994 Ranger celebration, you know, the world series with the subway series. Superbowl with the Giants in 2012 insanity. Never have I ever seen an event that has brought every New Yorker together in a way that it will revive our brand. Even though I don't own Modell's sporting goods IP and I do not, we're not affiliated with Modell.com. As the result of the next hysteria, we set up a website, Mitchell Modells.com. We're was selling a commemorative T-shirt with a

pigeon on it. What is the pigeon represent resilience, gritty, adaptable, loyal, just like New Yorkers

the apparel business in the wake of this dramatic victory, which is, as you say, just energize

New York and brought New York together in an incredible way. So symbolically, Modells is synonymous

with sporting good sports apparel in New York, who is for years. You stepped away from the company

“and now you're coming back. What's the goal here? Is it to make money? Is the goal starting?”

Is it the money? Is it the money? But is it to start a new business for the long term? Or to just be in the short term for the next? Nope. This is a long-term play. The goal is to give all working families a chance to be part of a celebration, no matter what team it is. So we started with the next. We'll be going on to baseball, football, in a fun way for the fans and more important and affordable way. You know, with this T-shirt that's on Mitchell Modells.com,

the championship T-shirt, $5, the T-shirt costs $20. This $10 shipping and handling charge with makes the 30. We're giving $5,000 to prostate cancer. And we're going to be setting up free PSA exams in our restaurant and our rooftop bar that we own with orthopocole. In July, celebrating and giving people free PSA tests that can't afford it to stop prostate cancer. Because my father died a prostate cancer in 2008 and June is prostate cancer awareness month.

Now, how did you get this up and running so quickly? How is it that you went from a championship a few days ago to a website and T-shirts and this new plan to help folks with prostate screening? My two sons are absolutely brilliant Max and Matthew Modell. They set it up. They found a back-and-guide, they created the website, thought Shapiro, who was our public relations company, is incredible. Got the word out.

And the thing went viral. I mean, people were crying. So, don't forget, Mark. We have not had a championship in New York since 2012. 14 years. Forget about the next for 53 years. The city was

starving for a team. People always came to Modell's list. I always took the risk. I always preprinted

early. We preprinted the C-shirts from the next one up 31. But we take risk and we give value.

“And that's what New Yorkers were crying for. And as a result, we said, you know, what? Let's”

go back and visit again. We are not affiliated with Modell's.com or Modell's Sporting Goods. And we're coming up with a brand called Mitchie Mos. I have a patented. I just set it up yesterday. You have a first thing here about it. I know you like juicy material. So, to be Mitchie Mos at MitchelMotell's.com. Mitchie Mos. And again, if you're not in New York or you may not know, this is New York, NYX, a great New York brand, legacy brand. And Modell's a great legacy brand.

Now, Mitchie Mos. And it's a great sports story. It's a great story about the city. But it's also a great business story because you you hunger to be part of the sports experience in your beloved New York city, right? I was born and raised in New York. I have five kids I live in New York. My ex-wife Robin, my best friend on the planet lives in New York. I mean, I'm DNA in New York is in my blood. And so, it's a way of accomplishing three things,

giving the working families an affordable price where they could afford t-shirts. Again, it's not sanctioned by any of the leagues. It's not sanctioned by any of the teams. We didn't have very creative way. So we used the team call is, but more important. We're giving back $5 to prostate cancer so that someone, if we could save one life, it was worth everything. And is it just going to be online or are you going to get in brick and mortar retail?

We will be in brick and mortar down the road. Right now, we're starting online with the parallel, licensed the parallel. And then you're going to start to see some other categories being added. Now, there's all sorts of apparel makers, sports apparel makers in New York. You can walk down fit that avenue and buy neck stuff. You can buy it in Chinatown. You can buy it of course in

“Models. So what's the vacuum you're filling here? Price. We're all about value. That's what”

we were born and raised on. My grandfather, Henry Modell, may rest in peace. Never get rich on a

customer. You make a buy, pass it on to the customer and that's what we're doing. We're working folks, get their $20 next celebratory t-shirt. Mitchellmodels.com. And if you start looking, starting on Monday, we'll look for World Cup T-shirts. Amazing. And you get a better on the U.S. team.

be on the lookout. And that's the whole key. Keep me at fresh. Keep me in fun and make it affordable

“for the customer. Now, I can't buy a TV set at crazy eddies, but I can't buy a next t-shirt from”

Mitch Modell. Mitch, the New York excitement over the next is palpable. And again, it's not just New Yorkers saying that people around the country have been taking in President Obama, President Trump, rare moment

“of confluence between the two of them celebrating this extraordinary next team. And now an opportunity”

for New Yorkers and really people from around the country and around the world to participate

in the second legendary New York brand. Thanks to Mitch. Mitch, great to see you. Congratulations.

“Check out this site, Mitchellmodels.com. And then Mitch, you most come in soon. Thank you very much.”

They're great to see you. Congratulations. Have a great day. Where's the pleasure? All right, that's it for today's show. We'll be back on Tuesday with a brand new episode. Subscribe to next

up on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast. So you always know what's coming next up.