Who Will Win the Democrats’ Bitter Civil War?

- Hey everybody, what a week it's already been.

Only Tuesday, welcome to Next Up with me, Mark Calpronetron, Chief of the Live Interactive video platform two way. The host of this enterprise, a guide for all nexters to try to understand what's coming.

A grateful to you for tuning in.

“I think you will like this episode quite a bit.”

Some great guests and my reported monologue on something that I think you haven't heard elsewhere, at least that's my goal. Our guest today, Michael Smorkonnis, host of CNN, Smorkonnis, and on series SXME,

host of Michael Smorkonnis program on which I appear every Wednesday glad to have Michael here to talk about. Amongst other things, how the media is doing on a range of topics. And current mills will be here,

executive director of the American Conservative Magazine. He's a flattered to say, he's a student of the 8th or 28 rankings. And he thinks they did a horrible job with the August ones. And so it'll be here to take a part piece by piece how I've ranked folks of spoiler alert.

He has my number one choice. Governor Shapiro, not even on the list. And he'll explain why.

And then finally, Brent Schier will be here

at your chief of the Daily Wire. We're going to talk about amongst other things with him. AOC and her announcement that she's freezing her eggs

“and complexities that that might pose for the Republican Party.”

But before all that, my reported monologue on the war that we're seeing at playing real time within the Democratic Party. This one's real. I've talked to so many Democrats for the last few days

of on the progressive left, including some socialists and more towards the moderate middle of the party. And nobody's downplaying this how white-hot the anger is and the significance of it. But I want to tell you the full story of this battle.

Allow you to see it from both sides. The grievances that both sides have, the concerns of both sides have, because too often you only hear it from one side. The legacy media, what I call the dominant media, they focus a lot on the grievances and concerns of the establishment

rather than of the progressive. The progressive point of view is something that doesn't get enough attention. It's underrepresented. It's in the media, because the media is liberal, yes.

But the media also, the dominant media, is establishment. And so they tell this story almost exclusively from the point of view of the grievances of the establishment. The implications of this, as far as both sides are concerned, based on, again, lots of conversations this week

with Democrats across the spectrum. Their implications for the midterm, so whether the Democrats can take control of the House and the Senate, whether they can win some of the big governorships. But also, for 2028, to define the presidential race,

I thought this would be kept tamped down, as you've heard me say before, until after the midterms, but it's white-hot now, it'll be white-hot for 28. But also, maybe beyond, how will young progresses, who grow up now, as part of the left,

how will they relate to the Democratic Party? How will they relate to our political system to our country as a massive question for this country, for the Democrats as well? And so this is a big issue.

We all know, again, what the grievances are

“of the establishment, because that's how the media”

covers them every day. So where does that manifest itself? Right now, it's a conversation about electability in the midterms. But now, particular focus on the Michigan Senate race,

the establishment candidate, Haley Stevens lost, as you know, narrowly, but did lose to Dr. Abdul Al-Sayat, and a lot of Democrats are concerned about whether you can be elected. And then, the electability argument,

we might see in Wisconsin if the socialist candidate wins the nomination there. What a lot of Democrats are worried about.

First and foremost, is a two-related issue.

One is about 2026 and 2028, the electability. Is the party going to nominate people who are just simply too far to the left on a, you know, get rid of the police, get rid of prisons, et cetera. And on some economic issues.

But they're also worried about the image of the party. They're worried that the problem with nominating socialist or socialist-aligned candidates is that it infects the image of the entire Democratic party, the entire Democratic brand.

One of the people who's been so outspoken this week on this issue is my friend Joe Scarborough, who on his program on Monday, was faced with some liberals on his panel, who were kind of saying, you know,

the energy that comes from these progressives is good. This is a lot of what the party's about. Joe was having none of that. Strongly thinks that this is a huge mistake for the party on both political and moral grounds.

Here's Joe Scarborough from Morning Joe S.2, please. - This is not about me. This is about the Democrats. Once again, fumbling the football on the two yard line, when they have a chance to make great gains,

but being so woke, I don't know if you wanna call it woke, one woke, two are woke, three, but being too woke to call out the obvious. I swear to God, it's really, it's crazy.

If somebody says a woman being raped,

“doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, it's okay”

to call that person out and demand that candidates disins himself from those people. If you want to rule.

- Joe's basically making two points.

One is this is a disaster on electability, both for the individual candidates, but also for Democrats more broadly. And two, you'll lose some more high ground if you don't call them out, Joe, as he said,

has spent years calling out Donald Trump for the things he said, for the associations he's had. And Joe thinks if the Democrats don't call out their own people, such as Dr. Al Sajad and his relationship with the commentator, Hassan Piker,

you're asking for trouble, you're asking for moral trouble and political trouble. Okay, now here's another person who's expressed concern. It's a little bit less fired up, but Hillary Clinton did a podcast,

and it was asked about this notion of socialist and communist allegations being made. Now in some cases, I don't know

“anybody's a Democrat, not gonna use a communist,”

but there are people who are socialist.

The Clinton's grew up in Arkansas politics. The Clinton's understand the fragility of the Democratic brand with a bunch of voters, and that if you move far to the left, you're seeding ground that the Republicans are gonna take.

Listen carefully, if you're a student of Hillary Clinton, you'll pick this up right away, but listen carefully to Hillary Clinton on the pivot podcast a few days ago, describe what she sees as the potential danger

of Donald Trump's hands in the Republican hands, accusing the Democratic Party writ large as being socialist or communist. Here's Hillary Clinton as a please. - Think communist is an effective attack in 2026.

- Well, all I know is that's the attack that Trump is leading with, and I assume they've tested it, and I assume that they have reason to believe that it's effective, or they wouldn't be beating the drama on it, 'cause now it's not just him.

Vance has done it, others are doing it. - Now again, I translate Clinton because I've listened to them both, talk about politics now for many decades. When she says I have, they must have reason to believe it.

I take that as she and her husband have reason to believe it too. They know how dangerous it is to see the middle in American politics by moving to the left. And specifically, in the context of Dr. Al-Sayi, they're worried about losing that seat.

It's gonna be fascinating to see if the Clinton's go to mission he can't paint with them. I'll tell you that. Now, Michael LaRosa worked as the press secretary for Jill Biden.

He's worked in the Democratic Party for a long time. He's a loyal Democrat. And he's gone out and said, and taken huge heat for it. He's gone out and said, similar to the Clinton, similar to Joe. He can't support Al-Sayi because of the things he said

about Israel, the things he said about 9/11. It's association with Hassan Piker. Michael has been on sparing and he spoke at first on two-way tonight.

“I believe that's the first time he talked about it.”

Maybe he had a tweeter too. Here he is from two-way tonight. Last Friday, when asked about what he thinks about Dr. Al-Sayi, the Democratic nominee of his party for a vital Senate seat in Michigan.

S7, please. I find the guy gross in general.

I would never vote for my would never encourage anybody

vote for him, a lot to do with his associations and the things that he has said. Now, Michael wants Democrats to take back control of the Senate. Michael's an establishment figure, but he's not against progressiveism. What he's worried about

is the positions that these folks have taken. And so he's been on Twitter, been just been savage, including by a lot of former Obama advisors and current Obama advisors who are just going hard after him for saying, how can you jeopardize our chances of taking the Senate majority,

which, most analysts would say, vitally includes Michigan. Michael's view is, it just can't support the guy, just not morally right for him. Some Democrats care about electability,

but some of them just don't like the issue positions or the associations, they don't like the DSA, Democratic Socialists from America or socialist adjacent candidates. They don't like them on Israel. They don't like what they perceive to be,

but they call anti-Semitism. They do not like the association with hot-son piker, we'll get back to him in a moment. Here's another thing that they don't like. They don't like being called corrupt.

What a lot of a piker with Bernie Sanders does, what Dr. L. Saeed does is, they say the Democratic Party establishment, their fellow Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, just as corrupt.

And they don't like that, they don't want to be told that their relationship to big money is just as bad, it makes them feel a little bit weird to say the least, to have that coming from inside the house. And then they also don't like being told

who are socialist, let them run

for Democrat nominations in Democratic primaries. And then when they win, say, okay, now that we've attacked the Democratic Party, spend your money, Democratic Party, helping us get elected.

They do not like that, okay? Understandable. And they also, some of the establishment Democrats, look at the exit polls or the voting returns. And they say to the socialist candidates, typically,

this is true, your supporters are not the working class. You say you represent the working class, you look at Mayor Mondami in New York, you look at what we can tell from the voting returns in the Michigan primary.

These supporters are rich, white voters, not the working class. And so the establishment says,

if you think what Al's the Democratic Party

“is we're not representing the working class, you don't, okay?”

So those are the grievances of the establishment. And I understand them politically, I understand them intellectually, understand them emotionally. But what are the less covered grievances of the working class of the state,

rather the progressive way, the anti-establishment? I hear from them every day. Okay, number one, they say, the establishment doesn't want us to win. They criticize us because they just want to hold on to power.

They're not fighting to change the country for working people. And that if they were doing it and doing it effectively, Donald Trump would have been president. The Republicans wouldn't have the majority in Congress. So they make the accusation that the Democrats

and the establishment have had a chance and they blown it. And then they point to something we've discussed here before Bernie Sanders, she did add the nomination in 16, blocked by the establishment in 20. And then they say, again, we'll look at that led

to Donald Trump being president in 2016, an establishment Democrat winning in 2020,

“and not fundamentally changing the country.”

And then Trump winning again. And they say, they're the rising part of the party and the country that there's more support now than there's been for in the modern era for socialism. Gallup polls says, "Forented Americans have a favorable view

of socialism."

One third of Democrats describe themselves as quote

Democratic Socialist. Their view is we're the ascended wing of the party, pay attention to us. And they do indeed, as the establishment thinks they do, indeed say, the Democratic Party is a creature of big money.

And they say, in some cases, they seem to reserve special animists for the Democrats who are, they say, addicted to big corporate money, special interest money, then they have for the Republicans. Here's a letter, Bernie Sanders wrote,

to Senator Schumer and the other Democratic leaders in Congress last week. Bernie says, "Why are we taking all this super PAC money in our primaries? Let's make it so that you can't run in a Democratic primary

if you take super PAC money

“because Bernie thinks super PAC money should be outlawed,”

but the Republicans aren't going to outlaw super PAC money, so Bernie says in his letter. Let's just unilaterally say, you can't give money to any Democratic candidate from a super PAC. And Bernie knows they're not going to do it,

because they are addicted to the super PAC money. They want to have the super PAC money in the primaries, because I give some advantage over the grassroots, over the progressive candidate. So Bernie's right about that, they don't want to give it up.

Okay, now another thing about money that Bernie does not like is the allegiance to the corporate masters of the Democrats, their allegiance to Israel, their failure to stand up to get universal health care, their failure to stand up to the drug companies,

the insurance companies. They look at the Affordable Care Act where the insurance companies in particular survived. And they say, again, you're not fulfilling the vision that we have.

You may be Democrats, but you're more like Republicans in that sense. Here's another way they say the Democrats are indistinguishable from our Republicans, the establishment Democrats. They're consultants.

There's whole classic consultants in both parties. Sometimes they belong to their members of the same firm. They get rich on campaigns by charging the campaigns a lot of money. Then they move between government jobs and lobbying jobs

or advisor's special interests. And they make a fortune. They make a fortune. And their Democrats who've had, as someone when Democrats said the other day,

there's generational wealth that they make. And they make it by doing exactly what the Republicans do, exactly what Donald Trump and his people around him do. They use access by virtue of helping get people elected in campaigns and building those relationships.

To then charge corporate interests and other interests, special interests, a lot of money to get them access to people in the government who they help the elected. And the progressive see that and they call it out. They don't like it.

Then they have their own electability complaints. The mirror image of the electability

And these vetting issues. They say, how dare you be so concerned

“about whether our candidates that, how dare you,”

look at our candidates and say, well, your candidates are flawed. They look at Joe Biden and Kamal Harris, established been candidates who had huge vetting issues. Joe Biden's vetting issues were so bad. He had to quit the race with a hundred days to go.

Kamal Harris is vetting issues are so bad. The liberals, the progressive, will say. She lost a Donald Trump in a race that shouldn't have been close. They are sick of being told that they are the problem, that the reason the party has problems is because of them.

They're sick of being told,

progress is always need to vote for the establishment candidates.

But the establishment folks like Michael Larosa, they pick and choose who they're going to vote for. The leader of the voice of the establishment of the anti-establishment movement on this point of the last week has been the aforementioned hot songpiker.

Again, some of you probably haven't heard of him. He's a streamer, he's a commentator. He's aggressively against the establishment. And in the context of Abdul Ahsad's win

“to be the Democratic nominee in Michigan for the Senate race,”

Piker yelled at the establishment. He said, basically, you guys are hypocrites. You ask us to get on board. Now it's time for you to get on board. S13, please.

You literally called the dude a fucking terrorist for a month on end.

And call them a sexist misogynist, terrorist, bad candidate,

doesn't fake doctor when he has like two fucking degrees. And now you're going to sit there and be like, well, you know, you really got to come to me now. Like, what are you talking about? Do you want to fucking win or not?

Lock the fucking, okay? Lock the fucking. I'm just a reporter here. I'm not taking sides between these two camps. But, and I certainly hold no brief for that guy.

But he's got a point. The progressives say, we compete in your primaries. We win the votes necessary.

“And now there's this big song, and dance, should we support you?”

I just watched an interview with Bill Hammer did on Fox News channel with Haley Stevens, who lost that primordial doctor, else I had. And Bill Hammer asked her, you know, are you going to support him? And she was like, I support Democrats.

She's not on board. She went on Fox News, knowing she'd be asked that question. And she's not on board. So I see that I see the progressives point of view, the socialist, the line candidates point of view.

They compete, they win. And in some cases, you see this in Michigan, see in Wisconsin, see in a few other places, all they hear is the litany of grievances from the establishment.

Now, Piker is a special case ladies and gentlemen. This guy is a aggressively offensive. And is not someone who Democrats think will help win the Michigan Center race. Still curious to see how much he campaigns here.

Here's one of the famous moments he had after. He said that America deserved 9/11. He went on a show with his uncle and on the young Turks. And he was asked to take the opportunity to say, did you really mean to say, America deserved 9/11?

Here's Hassan Piker. This is back in 2019. As five, please. You said America deserved 9/11. Did you mean that?

No, obviously not. In context, I was simply referencing the fact that all of the foreign policy decisions and our arming of insurgent groups in the region and our efforts in destabilizing the Middle East have a direct consequence, a boomerang effect, rather,

if you will, in causing 9/11. In that moment, I said, I thought at the very least,

I was saying that you can draw a direct line, basically,

and it was a consequence of all of the things that we have done in the region. But you understand now, and not just now, but you understood fairly soon after you said it, that saying Americans deserved 9/11

is a completely different statement and one that's wrong. No, I didn't say Americans deserve 9/11. I said America deserves 9/11. But that's still wrong. Well, maybe you can chalk it up to English being my second language

or whatever you want to chalk it up to. I mean, if you listen to reality, what the guy said, he said, no, I didn't really mean to say it, but he did, and then he repeatedly repeated it. This guy is not the spokesman for the socialist wing

of the party, or the extreme progressive wing of the party. But he is a guy who has supported many of the socialist and socialist line candidates in this cycle. He is a guy who wants to be a power broker, along with Dr. Elsa Ed in 2028.

And they've got their grievances, but the establishment does too. And I have struck by how quickly this has become so emotional. And so much now depends on the Michigan center race. How does Dr. Elsa Ed conduct himself?

How much his piker campaign with him and by his side?

If he wins, I really do think if some say he might run for president,

“but he certainly will be a massive voice in the party.”

If he can win a battleground state like Michigan, that is both purple and blue. And he can do a piker by his side. It's going to revolutionize things. And the conversation is truthly loses with piker by his side.

It's going to be a massive reputation. Both sides, as I've said, had their grievances. Both sides believe that while there's plenty that unites them, including hatred of Donald Trump and wanting to put a check on Donald Trump,

these divisions are real. And I was wrong about whether they'd stay in check before the midterms. I now think I was wrong about whether they could be finessed in 2028.

This is a huge division within the party. And it's fueled not just by ideological differences on things like the economy. It's fueled by grievance on both sides. All right, there you have it.

I'll keep talking to the Democrats and I'll keep reporting on this. This is a massive, massive story. Let me know what you think whose grievances are more justified. Email me your thoughts on today's report

at [email protected]. Again, it's next up at Devilmakeairmedia.com. We're going to take a quick break. I'll be dabbing my forehead and doing some dabbing. When we come back, the great Michael Smurconish

will be here. Michael Smurconish is next up. [MUSIC PLAYING] Everybody's talking about weight loss injections because obviously often the results can be so dramatic.

They work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite. But what if you're looking to lose weight, but not interested in painful weekly injections, especially after you've heard about and seen some of the intense side effects there?

“That's why doctors create a weight loss supplement.”

It's called lean and the results there 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, a lean is not for the casual diet or with only a few pants to lose. The doctors have forecast nutrition created lean for frustrated diers with 10 or more pounds to take off. So let's get you started now with 20% off and free rush shipping.

So you can add lean to your healthy diet and exercise plan as soon as possible. Visit takeline.com and enter next up for your discount. Again, the promo code is [email protected].

[MUSIC PLAYING] Next up, and joining me now, Michael Smurconish. She hosts his own program, a mere three hours a day on series XM. And on the podcast channel, 9 to 11, 2 noon east.

And then Saturday mornings on CNN. Michael, great to be with you. Thank you for joining. Thank you. I want to talk to you about some stories

that are new stories, but there are also media stories that I'm finding challenging to cover. And I want to hear your thoughts on, if you agree there, challenge, and if so, how you think they should be covered. They're kind of the best practices are.

And first is the Michigan Senate race

between now, between Dr. Al Saad and Mike Rogers. I hear directly from so many of my audience, members of my audience about how I'm screwing up the coverage of that race. Do you see covering that emerging primer,

a general election as a challenge, and if so, why? No, I don't. Are you being challenged as to whether you do or don't refer to them as doctor? No, more broadly, just should the focus be on his associations

on some of his past statements. Should the focus be on the Trump economy? Should there be more scrutiny of Mike Rogers? Why am I not covering hot sunpiker more? Why am I covering white and white cover and less?

Is it where the emphasis on the race should be an arrangement of issues? Yeah, I would say all of the above. I mean, I'm being accused of spending too much time talking about democratic socialism, by the way.

I recognize doctor, I'll say it, doesn't claim that label. But nevertheless, this very progressive direction of the democratic party to me is the most fascinating issue of the day. So I continue to talk about it in the context of Maine,

in the context of Michigan, I guess tomorrow, in the context of Wisconsin, and I'd be derelict in my duty if I didn't. But I guess like you, I will get people who call me

“and I say, well, why aren't you talking about Trump, X, Y, or Z?”

And my answer is because we always talk about that,

and this is the emerging trend of our time. By the way, Mark, if you're curious, I do believe that democratic socialism ultimately engulfs the democratic party. Well, it's a subject to my monologue,

and it's a huge topic, and I agree with you. It's interesting. Tell me why you think we'll go there. Why do you think it will engulf the democratic party? In a word, attrition, because when you study the numbers,

you see that it's a young person's brand, and the capitalism has fallen out of favor more

Frankly, among all Democrats, but particularly, among the young.

And they're going to vote for the next 60 years.

“The only way that the democratic socialist blow it”

is by not cutting loose the real craziness, the defund the police, let's open the prisons, open the borders, et cetera, et cetera. If they stuck to a core message of Medicare for all, talked about wealth and income disparity,

and the cost of college tuition. I think they'd have a winning hand sooner than they otherwise would. - Okay, and in the case of Michigan, is it unfair to say that Dr. Al Saad's, his mantra? Money out of politics, money in your pocket, Medicare for Medicare,

for all, he's not emphasizing defund the police. He's not emphasizing Israel in his core message. It comes up, he does bring it up occasionally, but is it unfair to say that he should be covered

on what he's want to emphasize and where he sees a common ground,

rather than what the press seems to want to cover? - I would cover him on all of the above. I think the uniqueness of what you do is your fearless nature at offending, whomever, might be at either ends of the spectrum. So as long as you're, as long as you're in this instance,

this specific instance, as long as you're similarly talking about Mike Rogers, having once said X about Trump

“and now saying Y, then I think you're on good ground.”

- Yeah, what about this issue of democratic socialist? The press is now seems to be in a mode of saying, if some member of the group, they're not a party, goes on with David Remnick or goes on with Fox News, and they say outrageous things that now everybody

in the party needs to be accountable for it, or stamp it out, is that fair? Is that a fair way to cover all Democrats?

If they're not members of the DSA?

- So you asked me a few moments ago about difficult issues to cover. I find this to be a difficult issue to cover because the group really doesn't have a leadership, really doesn't have a structure and hierarchy

that I can determine when they met two weekends ago, I guess it was in Chicago. I remember wanting to know, what exactly do they represent the people who are coming together and getting the platform

and reading the platform? I think holding them, if you call yourself a democratic socialist,

“I think holding them accountable for that platform”

is fair game. And in the case of Dr. Elsa Yed, one question I'd like to ask of him, I think I know how he would answer it is, well, what in this document do you not agree with?

Because I know that he says that he embraces capitalism but it seems to me he's pretty much in the same boxes as most of the people who are gaining all the headlines. He's just smart enough not to wear that label as he tries to get elected in Michigan.

- Well, but again, he's not a member of the party. - Right. - I'm not a member of the Canadian Green Party. - Oh, but I might, if I read their platform, I might see some things I agree with.

But I don't think if I were running for public office, I would be fair to just ask me, well, what about this element to the Canadian Green Party? Or this is the other member of the Canadian Green Party or this member went on TV and said,

she wants to cancel Valentine's Day degree with that. See what I'm saying? Just because there's some overlap, he's not a member, why should he be, why should he ask to answer for everything they've ever said?

- Okay, how about, how about an approach that says, Dr. El Saiyad, as you well know, there's a great deal of passion among democratic socialists who are loosely under your umbrella. In what areas do you disagree with that group?

- Well, again, if I were running for office, would suggest me that quest, would it be right to spend time asking me about that about the Canadian Green Party? - I think that it would, if you've just emerged victorious

in a primary where you were the more left of the two, as compared to representative Stevens. Yeah, there are a lot of things I think to be sensitive about. This is not one of them. - Okay, what about when the Republicans use his full name

in a press release? - I don't like it, I didn't like it when Trump made it, Barack Hussein, Obama, I heard Tim Scott tried to, well, you know, my name, what did he say his name is? - Timothy, Timothy, something, yeah.

- It didn't wash, like I was listening to it. I wish I could have seen his face when he said it, but nobody refers to me as Michael Andrew Smirconish. What's your middle name, by the way? - Evan, thank you for asking.

- Okay, Mark, well, this guy, Mark Evan, how I'm turned. - Yeah, well, I mean, what they're doing is the most obvious dog whistle in the world. I almost don't want to call it a dog whistle.

who's widely respected as a good man,

“who just lies through his teeth about it.”

He couldn't have been comfortable when he offered that. You know what I reminded me of? It reminded me of that old Claude Pepper. I think it was Claude Pepper. She's a well-known fest-being, right?

- Right. - And she's an extrovert and all that stuff. - Yeah, I mean, I guess, I guess it politics is a rough business. He can't make a federal case out of everything. But I find this where like,

they're sitting around the room right in the press release and they say, yeah, let's put in his full Islamic name, his full Egyptian name, whatever you want to call it. - Yeah. - It just seems, it seems to be the kind of thing

that just shouldn't be allowed. And yet, you know, a few people ask about it and then the parade moves on. - Yeah, it is not a whistle. It is a horn honking, you know?

That's what it is. - There's no direct point. - But shouldn't there be more accountability for they're doing it? - Yeah, I think that there should be.

I think that there should be. And I heard Tim Scott called, you and I are calling him out for it.

“You know, it wasn't lost on either of us.”

It wasn't, but I don't see it like in the New York Times. I don't see it in the Washington Post. You know what I mean? - I can't answer for them. - I know, but it just, it just seems like.

- It seems so far over the line. - In this case, now. - I have to, can I mark, may I say whatever points you gain by using that reference? I have to think that it's an offset

that there are an equal number of things. - Right to think so. - Who might not have even been drawn to the race who are now like, that's bullshit. Why are they doing that?

- Yeah. All right, let's talk about Dr. Fauci and the media coverage of Dr. Fauci. This is another one I struggle with. I interviewed Rand Paul last week.

I followed this closely.

I was all the by normal third claim.

Decision making during the pandemic was very challenging. Dr. Fauci served in government for a long time and lots of people credit his time in public service. I know many people who think he's nice man. I dealt with him over the years.

Seems like a nice man. But the story line with evidence laid out by Senator Paul and others is extremely compelling. And if Senator Paul is right, it's one of the biggest stories of our lifetime

that the senior public health official during the pandemic was involved in the creation of the virus in denying the origins of the virus and in giving a public information about how to handle the virus

that he knew was not backed by scientific evidence and that he then asked people to destroy evidence of some of this. That's an extraordinary story. Where are the long investigative pieces

by America's leading news organizations? Examining those questions. - Great point.

First of all, let me say that you are speaking to someone

who used his platforms in the thick of COVID to host Dr. Anthony Fauci. Scott Atlas, Jaybada Charria and thereafter Robert F. Kennedy Jr. because like you, I wanna hear from everybody.

And in this instance, my solution was to say and I said it before one of the members of the committee said it, give the man immunity, bring him back but give him immunity because this is a story we need answers to.

I took time on CNN to lay out the long list of individuals that the Trump administration has used law fair against, starting with James Comey and ending with Jack Smith and including Fani Willis, even though that was really more state-directed.

But it's like it does in different instances. Mark Kelly for the video.

“So Trump, who I think was a victim of law fair,”

has used law fair against his opponents. Two wrongs don't make a right my mother would say. I do get it, therefore, that 84, 85 year old Anthony Fauci doesn't wanna be on the receiving end, even of some bogus perjury charge.

Nevertheless, it was a mistake for him to take the fifth the optics were horrific. I also though, don't condone, I mean, Senator Moreno, man, stick to your domestic squabble with the sun in law instead of dropping the F bomb and I'm no prude on Fauci.

I thought it was such show-boding and grandstanding and at the end of the day brought us nowhere nearer the truth. I'd like to hear answers to Rand Paul's questions. I think dispersing the college campuses was a disgrace.

The distancing apparently had no logic behind it, maybe the masks that we all wore as well. I'm more inclined to believe that it came from a lab in Wuhan than a wet market and I openly questioned whether game of function researched, played a role in it.

I'll tell you something, Mark, if you haven't already spoken to Annie Jacobson and this new book of hers biological war, a scenario, I highly recommend it right in your wheelhouse and Annie blends together some of the historical fact of COVID

as she's laying out this case that we should be worried about with biological warfare. So she's kind of sharpened my thinking very recently

- Thank you for all that including the recommendation.

Just circle back though to this question. - Yeah. - These are such important stories of our time for accountability, for history, for understanding Dr. Fauci.

Not just not just why not see long investigative pieces. I don't even see this flavoring the coverage of the question of how could this man is being accused of what would be amongst the most consequential and monstrous set of crimes of our lifetime.

And yet that's treated as, it's treated as just kind of like a squabble between a quirky senator and a sainted doctor. - You're absolutely right. I have this vision in my mind of the coverage,

the day after Fauci's testimony from the New York Times which old school, I still like to touch the times and I circled and highlighted and marked up to conduct my radio briefing. And I remember it had a lot of column inches

and only like two graphs that were dedicated to,

“what is it that the senator Paul says about Dr. Fauci?”

- Right, right, it was buried in his hair. - So why? Why aren't they interested in this story? Even if they decide after investigating it, it's not true.

Why are they uninterested in this? - I can't answer that question. I mean, one of the answers has to be biased, but I would like to be the person who'd write that story. I would think there'd be great notoriety

and a claim in it if you could tell the other side. - Yeah, and again, Senator Paul, amongst the things he's alleging is a Dr. Fauci ordered the destruction of evidence and ordered communication to be taken off government

that communications channels between him and his government assistance as government advisors. That's an extraordinary charge. Just that alone. - Yeah, I agree.

I agree, I'd like to know more. I think the way to get answers is the way that the Senate treated Fauci, but I hear you. - All right, lastly, a question about the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and your governor, Governor Shapiro,

as you know, you and I discussed on your program last week, I developed it into the most likely of the Democrats' bodies. - Yeah, go ahead. - President, I know there's been, I'd say, with the modesty. There's been a little bit of reaction in the Commonwealth

to this. I'm wondering if the extended's reverberated in your life since I made it, that's I made him number one. - Okay, so here's the reaction. And including my own, it's one of Mark elevated

Governor Shapiro's an up, that can't be right. And then you go through the other seven on your list. - Yeah. - And you can't make a stronger case for any other. Like I find myself saying, well, I mean,

“I like Governor Shapiro and I think that Shapiro”

is a comer and then I say, yeah, but shouldn't it be no, no, no, some's got baggage, Kamala? She ran a disastrous and I go through the whole list and there's no one else on that list that I can do a better job arguing should be elevated.

So by default, I think you get it. - There you go, it's a process of elimination. The last Philly question, are people super excited about LeBron or it's like whatever? - Wait, do you not know that you are speaking

to the only person in Philadelphia who thinks this is a mistake? - Why do you think it's a mistake? - I think it's a mistake 'cause I don't like it. I mean, there was a sign-feld skip that he did. You know, one of the intros to the old show

where he talked about moving player personnel and how in the end we are only cheering for laundry. And like the idea, yeah, for the uniforms. And I went on record before they cut this deal. And I said buy rights, he ought to go back to Cleveland.

That's where the story started. I'll leave what ending. Try and do it for them. I appreciate that he's coming here

for only eight million over two years.

But no, I don't like it. In Mark, if I were calling the shots,

“everybody would be playing, this is ridiculous, I say up front.”

But everybody would be playing for the team, nearest where they were born. So like Jamie Moyer, who went to Saadrton High School in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. And then eventually comes to the fillies.

That's what I'm looking for. I want you limited to wherever you were born and raised. - That's brilliant. - That's brilliant. Has any pros for what's Lee ever done that?

- Not that I'm a, not that I'm a wearer, but wouldn't it be smart marketing? - Yeah, it'd be amazing. - Oh, he's great for the local people. - Roo, rude for the home team.

- Yeah.

- The problem is that if the quarterback things stood,

the Steelers would win every Super Bowl. - Michael's for college, ladies and gentlemen, subscribe to his newsletter, listen to him, listen to him weekdays on Series XM and watch him Saturday mornings and CNN.

And if he shows up in your neighborhood and he's selling tickets, attend. Mike, thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you for that. - Great to see you all see you on Wednesday on your program.

- Looking forward. (upbeat music) - Let's talk about life insurance.

because it feels complicated, expensive, or like something they can wait. Well, stop waiting.

“Take care of it today with select quote.”

In just 15 minutes, high-quality coverage can be secured to fit any lifestyle, any budget.

Here's what makes like quote different.

They're licensed insurance agents work for the consumer, not for the insurance companies. They compare options across multiple trust for carriers to find the right coverage at the absolute lowest price.

Unlike other brokers who push policies, that pay them the most, select quote agents, actually shop around with nearly 40 years of experience and over two million families helped. This is expertise that you can trust.

Even with health issues like high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease, their agents know exactly which carriers will provide the very best rate. For those in good health, same day coverage is available

with no medical exam required. Don't delay peace of mind, select quote. They shop, you say, get the right life insurance for you for less at select quote.com/mark. Again, right now, go to select quote.com/mark.

Today, don't delay to get started. (upbeat music) All right, next up, whenever we do aid for 28, we get a lot of what we like to call affectionally, 8% or 28, hate people who challenge the rankings

and say, I've got no idea what I'm talking about.

We always love to engage with folks by email,

by tax here on the program, but occasionally, someone's objections are so vociferous, they're so thoughtful, they're so principled. And so wrong, then we like to have them on the show to talk about it face-to-face.

So joining me now, next up, Kurt Mills, Executive Director of the American Conservative Magazine. Kurt, welcome in. Thank you for being a patron of 8% for 28 and for expressing your strong beliefs.

- For sure, thank you for having me. - All right, let's put it up. We're gonna focus on your objection to my number one. Again, this is the August 8% for 28 rankings and Josh Shapiro, Governor Pennsylvania,

was my new number one. Kurt has other objections who will may get you, but I wanna focus on that. And Kurt, I'll remind you,

someone has to be the nominee.

And while they're down sides to Governor Shapiro, I'll start with this, tell me who on that list, or someone I don't even have on my top eight, who you think is more likely than Governor Shapiro. - So, the criterion is just gunned our head,

who's the most likely, and we have to price in... Mayor, Mayor Ron, right? - Mayor, have to price in, whether they'll run, have to price in, the trajectory of the whole thing, have to price in, who else might run,

somebody in their lane or not. So, yes, you gotta price in everything,

“and you have to say, it's not a prediction,”

it's a snapshot of where we are today. So, you tell me today, who would you make more like you've been Governor Shapiro and why? - Well, my answer's a little boring, it's new soon. I think just by every objective measure

that he is probably the most likely nominee. I think he's a weak front runner. I think he's in a position similar enough to where Romney was in 2012, where the party kind of hates him,

and thinks he's a phony, and they're gonna keep trying to throw alternatives to beat him, but I do think he is clearly the man to beat. I would take the field by a country mile over him, but I think he's imminently more likely than Shapiro.

- Okay, let me make the case, because up until August this month, as Houston had been my number one every month. So, I'm not unaware of his charms, I'll say. Here's why I loaded him down.

Number one, the press hates him. The New York Post, the California Post alone, has made its business to be devil to guy. They write stories on everything about what he does. And as we saw with veterans for truth,

it's very hard, if you're the Democrat and the conservative press is going after you, it can bear bets over the other media. And then, number two, I'm not sure he's gonna run. And number three, he lives in California,

a very hard place to run for president from, even if he does run. And I'd say the New Some California record objectively, not quite as good as the Shapiro record in Pennsylvania. All of those reasons to me,

make him more less likely, although I do have him as number two, are you persuaded by that laundry list compared to what Shapiro has on offer?

“- I think this year has been bad for Newsom Relative to 2025.”

I think the Iran War, the Iran War has been bad for him. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about in foreign policy, it's not a native crown for him. Additionally, it pierced the invincibility of the Republicans, so the Democrats no longer have to nominate,

you know, spiritually, they're quite best available, they can nominate a potentially a real hard liner in this calculus. And then additionally, I think, you know, it will put greater pressure on Newsom's donor network,

which has gone from maybe being a strength to a weakness. You can see all kinds of people complaining about him. These are pro-Israel, the owners, etc., etc., etc., all of that stuff has become more saline, if the war goes on.

If the war doesn't go on, I do think he's in better shape than he is. Now, but I still think he's the man beat.

I think Shapiro's service in the IDF is not helpful with him. I know it was sort of like a short stint or whatever,

but it's not going to be easy to explain in a 30 second thing.

And then additionally, he may be a robust Governor of Pennsylvania, but Pennsylvania is more relative relevant in the general election than the primary. California is more relative than the primary. I mean, that's a lot of delegates, if this is a protracted fight.

And I believe they vote earlier. - Yeah, although it's not winter take-all, so I'm not sure. - Yeah. - You know, it's not that big in advantage as if it were winter take-all.

Take your point, and again, there's no doubt Shapiro has some disadvantages as he cited. If you think about the calendar that we now have, I still, I've felt people not to take where New Hampshire's gonna be for granted.

But if you think about South Carolina, think about Michigan, think about the two western states, the silver state, and New Mexico. Think about New Hampshire. Does that early calendar make you think if they both ran,

it would favor one or the other?

“- I think that the fundamental thing here is that the base”

is gonna hate Shapiro, and I'm not sure the base is gonna hate Newsom. I think Newsom is in the position not to similar to where Biden was, which is his machine politician. I think there is a remaining Irish Catholic network

within the party that Newsom can tap into. And I think the left will accept Newsom. I think they're gonna have a hard time accepting

your first and third choices, both Buddha Shaj and Shapiro.

And I think we saw a preview in taste of this in the 2020 primary where there was a lot of left pushed back towards Buddha Shaj after he co-one the Iowa caucus or whatever. And then you saw a lot of hatred towards Shapiro

when Kamala Harris didn't pick him and picked him walls. And I think you hadn't seen that hatred, I think she would have picked Shapiro. - Yeah, you mean, there was a pre-pec hatred of Shapiro? - Yeah, yeah, I mean during the running,

I think Shapiro was the wheel horse and then they turned against him. - And when you say the base of the party way Shapiro, I know in part you mean those for whom Palestine is a big issue. But the base of the party also includes labor,

LGBTQ, black voters, young voters, will they all hate Shapiro too? - You think Shapiro is gonna be in a better position with black voters than Nusom? - Nusom is pretty strong with black voters,

but Shapiro's got a very large black support in his stay. So I don't know, I don't think that's a mismatch. I don't think Shapiro, whether Nusom runs or not, I don't think Shapiro will be out of the running for black vote.

- And you're sure, Shapiro will run. - I mean, I'm not sure, to me, I'm not sure.

“- But I think he's more likely to run than Nusom.”

But put the list back up. Again, your arguments about why Nusom is more likely in Shapiro are, of course, perfectly credible. Do you, does that mean you think Shapiro is the second most likely or you're saying he should be?

- No, I don't think he should be on a list personally. - Literally, so my number one, you say, for the reasons he's here, dangerous for him, not on the list. - Who would you make his on a list?

- Who would you make number two? I know from what you said it wouldn't be Buttigieg. Two would be here. - I have my list right here. - Yes, sir.

- One moment. I have also second. - I didn't feel as high conviction about that 'cause I also think also has had a relatively bad month, but it's early.

And then I have AOC third. - Yeah. - And I have someone who you don't have on your list fourth. I have Dr. Saeed, fourth. - Yeah.

- I have Harris, fifth. I have Roman manual, sixth. I have another person who you don't have on your list. Hunter Biden, seventh, serious. I have Rokana, eighth.

I have Gresham Whitmer, nine, and Bernie Sanders, 10. - We only go to eight here. - Oh, okay, sorry. Well, then we'll cut off my bottom two. - Yes, sir.

- We're not on Sanders. - Now, awesome is an interesting thing. What makes you think he's gonna run? - I think he's got a real shot on it. I mean, like he is approach is if the exact opposite

of Trump's so far as we've seen, right? If he's literally half the age, he doesn't do autonomous media, and he does very polished appearances that quit for social media.

It's very non-Trump who's basically ambience and not rehearsed.

“I think he's gonna whip Congressman Collins in Georgia.”

It's gonna be pretty clear. I think Georgia is a megastwing state. I think that will demonstrate that he has a relationship with African American voters. Georgia also borders South Carolina.

And I think it's just pretty low risk. I mean, worst case he loses, and he has a 60 year Senate, term in front of him, and he could be VP or elevate him for cabinet.

I don't know why he would pass other than the young children thing which he've also cited, but he's had a real boomlit.

And everyone's kind of always looking for the next Obama

his public presentation.

I think he's a little stilltid,

“and he's sort of across the by reporters.”

He's not as smooth. But again, we have a tendency in this country to view from one extreme to another. We went from Trump to Obama and there's similarities there,

but they're different, they're different human beings. - We went from Obama to Trump, right? - Sorry, Obama to Trump, you know, it's okay. - Just for sure, Biden, I have a bad memory. I take all eight for 28 hate, both literally and seriously,

and I'm taking years seriously, even though both of us have a better chance of being the Democrat nominee than under Biden, it will save that for an algorithm. Save that for another episode.

That guy is not gonna be the Democrat nominee. Very grateful to you for watching, for thinking bad, for weighing in, and I'm gonna study your list, like it's a combination of Bill James, Encyclopedia, and the Talmud.

So thank you. - Thank you Mark. Where can people see your works, sir? - Yeah, so I'm the editor of the American Conservatives, the American Conservatives.com.

“If you were to call when you started the show,”

we were an early follower of your second 24,

and you could find my own stuff at CRT, M-I-L-L-S at Curt Mills on X. - Thank you. - Say that one again, that's gotta be slower. - Curt Mills, C-U-R-T, M-I-L-L-S at that name

on X Twitter. - Got it. - Curt, thank you, grateful to you, truly. I'm so appreciative of how carefully you looked at my ideas and shot them down as wrong, and I mean that.

Thank you, sir. - Likewise. - All right, make sure to subscribe on to our Instagram page, reminder there. We can get bonus content,

and all the best moments from the program, and follow us on Instagram @nextopalprin, or of course, listen to the program as a podcast. If you're not doing that now, you're on the go, and don't wanna watch the video, do it as a podcast.

Subscribe to next up with Mark Alperon, wherever you get your podcast and turn the downloads on to make sure you get everything. Right when it runs, including for breaking news, only on next up.

And next up here, after this, a friend shear, lighter and chief of the daily wire, we're gonna talk about science, technology, morality, and AOC. So what I said,

friend shear is next up. (upbeat music) There's a through line here, runs under everything we talk about on the show, no matter what we're covering. Who's actually looking at for you,

and who's just looking at for themselves? I wanna ask that same question now about something a lot of you are dealing with, immediately, and that's your Medicare coverage. Two Medicare plans can have the exact same coverage,

the same doctors, and wildly different pricing. Same benefits, different bill. And unless somebody goes looking at the differences, you'd never know it. Chapter, a company of independent Medicare advisors,

found exactly that for someone in our community last month. Same coverage, three different carriers, and switching, just one of them, put a couple thousand dollars back at her pocket over the life of the plan. That's the whole idea.

Chapter is the only Medicare advisors who compare every plan from every carrier across the country. Their advisors aren't paid to push one plan over another. If you're already on the best plan, after they check, they'll let you know that.

But if you're not on the best plan, they'll help you make the switch. A real conversation with a real person free in under 20 minutes. Folks who switch which after last year saved an average of $1100.

So give my friends over a chapter call. Their number there is 262, four, five, four. Zero, five, zero, three, call chapter. Two, six, two, four, five, four. Zero, five, zero, three.

People who check with them tell me the very same thing. They wish they'd called sooner. [MUSIC PLAYING] All right, next up, and joining me now, the great Brent Sheer Editor in Chief of the Daily Wire

and a man with his finger. On the pulse of just upout, everything.

Brent, we got to start with, well, first of all,

welcome, thank you for being here. Yeah, of course, Mark. I have to start with one of my two great fat topics of fascination these days. One is the war within the Democratic Party,

which I talked about earlier. But the other is how conservatives view Vice President Bans. How would you say, as we approached the end of summer, how does the Vice President doing amongst people you know

in the conservative movement?

“You know, I think the Vice President is doing a lot better”

in the real world and probably with actual voters or interacting with the news cycle every day through table news than he is on the internet. And I think that's probably because he's one of the most on the internet politicians, maybe out there right now,

J.D. Vance. So once he's entered that and is kind of in that online conservative media fray and everybody's discussing him, it gets tough and as we're grappling for 2028, as much as he wants to say, he's not thinking about 2028,

about 2028 and sometimes I think they actually may be thinking

about 2028 a lot more than they're thinking about the midterm elections, which is a mistake because to me, the thing that could crack J.D. Vance's inevitability in 2028 most is a very fractured Republican party and the best way to fracture a party

is a crushing, crushing electoral defeat. So if everybody sees in 2026 a massive review of the Trump agenda at the polls across the country, that is what will have people thinking, maybe we don't go with the obvious choice

and just take Donald Trump's vice president.

“So I think there needs to be a little bit more thought”

about how you win in 26 and less concerned about boxing out anybody who may even think that J.D. Vance isn't gonna be in the nominee. - All right, a little bit of an adjustment there.

I want you to be exacting here.

I want you to give me three adjectives, two sets of three adjectives. You think about the vice president now. What are the three positive adjectives you dissociate with him in terms of his standing

within the conservative movement, the mega movement, three positive adjectives? - That he's effective with on fraud that he's aligned with Donald Trump and that he has a very good relationship

with the Republican base. I guess those aren't adjectives, but I really think those are the three strongest factors. - I'll count it 'cause goodness, and now give me three negative adjectives.

When you talk to people in the conservative movement who don't like him particularly now,

“what are the three adjectives they would give negative?”

- That he's two online, Tucker Carlson. I don't know if he's an adjective. - That's a Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson, yeah, sure. And like I said before, that he's overly concerned.

He's like over concerned about criticism of him when really he should just be focused on doing the things that are effective, which is advancing the Trump agenda, getting rid of fraud, which is his main kind of marching order

in the administration, and getting things done and helping Republicans win in the midterms. - Okay, awesome. Let's talk about this thing with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes.

She came out over the weekend and said she was going through the procedure of freezing her eggs, dealing with the expense of it 'cause it's not covered by insurance typically, dealing with the physical aspects of it,

and the challenge physically of it. And she said she wanted to kind of bring it out of the shadows. Mixed reaction from conservative. Some have said it's ridiculous, it's oversharing. And some have said politically,

the party does not want to be critical of her on this

because a lot of conservative women go through it. And then of course, there's the larger debate at the typical scientific debate about whether these procedures are ethical or morally right. How do you view just a politics of this

from the conservative point of view? And what the approach should be? - Yeah, from the conservative point of view, I mean, I saw there was a story in Axias this morning, I don't know how true it is,

that there was concern from the White House about a lot of the conservative criticism of AOC freezing her eggs. That criticism was of course that when you're 37 years old freezing your eggs isn't,

“what you should be doing, you should probably”

just be starting a family the natural way with your fiance, I think he's still a fiance, but they've been dating since she entered politics back in 2018. I think for her, this is a political move. It makes her seem very relatable,

especially inside her party, the oversharing is kind of what works on the internet today, kind of letting people into your daily life. She followed it up yesterday with her going, bringing the audience with her,

I long not a weightlifting and fitness class, she was in her gym gear, not like her office, Congress gear, in the end, I think I mean, it's a tough debate in the conservative movement. And we've had it before over IVF and other things

when it comes to infertility and that sort of thing, because conservatives believe that having families is good, but then there becomes a point where there are questions over how are you getting that family?

Are you doing it in the best way? AOC probably is moving further towards where she should be moving, which is having a family, getting married to her husband, having a kid, which is what's going to be good for her,

You want to be a married woman with a family, if you're running for office.

But look, for Republicans, this is always hard,

because the politics of this is not just going to your base, in the midterms, which we just talked about, we're actually probably only fighting in about 20 districts across the country with all the redistricting that's happened. And none of these districts are places where the base

photo that's really upset about AOC freezing her eggs is. We're more talking to moderate voters and trying to bring in those Democrats who maybe voted for Trump, 'cause they're furious about the border or egg prices or Fauci and Democrats handling of COVID,

not the base voters who are really, really online and angry about AOC. So the White House, I think, understands that,

“and that's why they want people to just kind of pump the brakes”

a little bit and just let AOC freeze your eggs. - Yeah, you can say a lot of positive. One can say a lot of positive things about the president, but I don't know too many people would identify them as a preaminent, theological leader or someone who,

in a sophisticated and thoughtful way, wrestles with moral issues. These issues have been an issue for the party. There's a lot of ways to frame it, but this question of giving parents

would be parents an opportunity to have more kids because of the belief in the importance of family, but also concern in some quarters about the technology that's used, the medical efforts that are used. Who would you look to today?

One or two names of leaders, associated with the concern of movement, not necessarily elected officials, but who do you think speaks to the complexity of these issues in a thoughtful and modern way to your ear?

- It's a good question. I mean, I think the heritage organization is a good voice on this, but they are voicing that kind of more base Republican, we need to be worried about the theological questions

“about how this life is coming about politically.”

I mean, I think Josh Hawley is there talking about that and a lot of ways, but then there's Brad Wilcox. I would say is another person who's talking about the importance of family and just having kids and how it actually makes you happier

and your kids more successful, you more successful and just it's good for basically every aspect of your life. And those are the questions that, again, we get into 'cause if what we want is more kids and you know, Elon Musk is a mister, I don't think he's doing it

in the right way that the conservative right would be a fan of,

but he's just always talking about how having kids

is the most important thing you could do. Another one I bring up is Terry Shilling, Terry Shilling in the American Principles Project. They just talk about all the time about how family is really important and how our policies and our government

should be helping big families and supporting big families and making it easier to make that decision to go have a big family, but look, there are questions about how you get there and it's a difficult kind of path for Republicans to navigate.

I ask all Republicans, two questions about the potential Democratic presidential nominees. The first is, what if they're potential to be formidable in the general election? How strong could they be if they were the nominee?

“How strong would they be to win the general election?”

And then second is, what capacity do they have

to be a unifying figure to do? What Barack Obama did for a time? What Donald Trump did when he first started run? Which is to create the possibility in people's minds of crossover of, in other words,

could there be Republicans for AOC? So let me know what you think. If you can, she'd be a formidable general election candidate and can't if she becomes the nominee, can she unite the country to some extent?

- Well, look, I think that AOC is definitely going to be either the front runner or have her front-runner moment in the 2028 primary. I mean, we saw it in 2016 when Bernie Sanders was the strongest candidate, I'd say,

if it wasn't for the establishment kind of knocking him down and propping up Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders had the most successful campaign in 2016. And then he did it again in 2020 and got kind of the establishment again

to take it away from him and give it to Joe Biden. That is AOC's lane. I think she has the ability and she's starting to do it now, kind of brushing aside how crazy woke one point I was to moderate because she realizes

that that wokeness is what's going to occur as a general election candidate.

who in 2026 have the ability to prove

that they can appeal to Republican voters. The main one here being John Osloff who's running across statewide in Georgia. He can show that he can win a statewide election in a state that Donald Trump carried in 2024, Georgia.

And then show that he has this ability and now experience both as a congressman and a U.S. Senator where he's been in a red state, remain popular in a red state and then got reelected in a red state.

And that is a big, big thing to hang your hat on in 2028. Let me ask you about the other question I ask about all these potential candidates. What is her potential to be uniter?

What is her potential if she were the Democrat nominee

to win substantial Republican votes to compete

“in some red states, to win those battleground states?”

I mean, it's tough for AOC because of this track record of what she said during what she now calls woke one. She was not just agreeing with woke one. I think I don't identify anybody with woke one. More than AOC, she was woke one.

She was the leader of the squad. She was the one pushing all of this nonsense. And in this day and age, it's not that easy to just memory of all all that stuff and get rid of it. I think what the question is going to be

is whether other people in the Democrat party and I'm mainly talking about not only

awesome in Georgia but say Gavin Newsom,

whether they try and use all that wokeness as a cudgel against AOC, which isn't that easy because Gavin Newsom's pretty woke too and so is John Hausser. So it's going to be hard for them,

especially during a Democrat primary, to stay away from those far left issues, which even Joe Biden adopted during the 2020 election to get elected. He did not run as a Democrat moderate,

even though he's running against Bernie Sanders.

“So I think the question as to whether you can use woke”

to destroy AOC and a primary is going to be whether the people running against AOC are willing to do it. - Okay, very well said. Another issue related to science and public health and politics is the announcement this week

by the White House and Secretary Kennedy on vaccines. We had been told, through all sorts of channels for a while, that keeping Bobby Kennedy in the topic of vaccines out of the news was in the Republican Party's interest before the midterms because there's not a universal support

for the vaccine skepticism that he reflects. It's the fact that they didn't have that assigned that they're ignoring politics or they think this is good for the base or they think people have the politics of this wrong.

Why would they have done that event so close to the midterms in such a visible way? - You know, I think it's two things.

“One is I think they think the politics have changed.”

And if you look at it, RFK is one of the most popular cabinet members of Trump's cabinet with Republican voters. They like what RFK is doing. So I think they're thinking kind of lean into it.

The other part of it, it couldn't have been better timed. With everything that happened with Fauci last week, pleading the fifth, Fauci and the whole vaccine regime couldn't look worse. So if there's ever a time to question the experts

who have been telling us what vaccines are safe for the last, you know, a few decades, it is now when believe the science and trust Fauci is at an all-time low in my power rankings. So RFK kind of has the ability now to be like,

look, I was right about that vaccine, give me a chance on the other ones. Again though, we go back to the same issue. This is something that the base is going to love of Trump voters.

The midterms is not about the base. The midterms is about convincing people who voted for Haley Stevens in the Michigan primary that they'd be better off voting for my graduates the Republican than Abdul El-Sahed.

And this sort of thing is not how you do it. - If you took every figure in America today, including Hakim Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, AOC, is there anyone less popular with Magga that you can name than Anthony Fauci?

Anthony Fauci is probably at the very, very bottom.

I think Elano Omar, because of not only her won't miss,

but also her role in Minnesota as part of the Somali community, where all this fraud that we've reported on is coming from and just everything she represents about this turn of the Democrat party

towards this kind of immigrant-led population.

“I think Elano Omar is right there with Anthony Fauci.”

And many Tim walls up there in Minnesota too, but he's not really hated, he's kind of just mocked. - Yeah, maybe I'll go to the Iowa State Fair and put in a booth, I'll put a photo of Tim walls on one side and Anthony Fauci and other and give people water balloons

“and just see as a scientific way to answer the question.”

- That's a fun video idea. - Yeah, let's pull it. Remind everybody where they can see your works are in here. - Yeah, dailywire.com, we're putting out the time of stories every day of a ton of podcasts.

All dailywire.com. - Yeah, Brent, thank you. Love having you on hope.

“I hope summer ends with a big bang in your part of the South.”

- Great to have you. - Great to have you. - Great to have you. Thank you for your time. Thanks to Brent, thanks to Michael Smurconish and that's it for today's program.

We'll be back on Thursday with a brand new episode. Subscribe to the next up with Mark Alperon on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts, notice I didn't say war and to do them both.

So you always know what's coming next up.

(upbeat music)