Why Republicans May Have Already Lost the Midterms

- Well, we're deep into September now.

“That means October is around the corner,”

and then of course November, and election day. In our guide here to everything next up. Welcome to next up with Mark Alpern. That's me. I'm the editor-in-chief of the Live Interactive video

platform two way, the host here. To guide you to everything next up, as we barrel towards these midterm elections early voting is starting pretty soon. Great full-top view for tuning in next,

I was on the road for a couple of weeks, and I met a lot of great nexters. One guy came up to me and said, "I'm not a nexter." He said, "I listen to every show I watch every show,

but I'm not a nexter." I said, "Why not?" He said, "Well, my wife's an extra." And she says, "We both can't be." I said, "We both can't be."

All of you can't be. Thank you for being here. Michael Nulls is here today. He's the host of the Michael Null show on the daily wire, excited to talk to him about the midterms.

And about this JD events puzzle that I'm just so obsessed with how people are viewing the vice president. Before Michael Nulls is here, though, my reported monologue on whether time is running short

and Republicans to turn things around on the midterms I've talked to at ton of votes. Very excited to bring to you my monologue on what I believe will be the best show here. I say with as much humility as I can muster,

the stay of the midterms where things are. A quick note, we call housekeeping. I like the phrase housekeeping. Normally, I do my eight for 28, top democratic presidential candidates for 28

beginning of each month. We're going to slide it back a little bit to the middle of the month, because got two very special shows coming for you next week, related to commemorating the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and the one year anniversary of the murder of Charlie Kirk.

“So that's what we'll focus on next week.”

Eight for 28 will come to you in the middle of the month. And then we'll have another one the following month. But that's the explanation for those of you who set your clock by it. So we'll take a quick break.

And then next up, my reported monologue on the state of the midterm elections is next up. (upbeat music) Alright, let's talk about life insurance. We all know we need it,

but we keep putting it off because it feels complicated and expensive or like something that can wait. Stop waiting. Take care of it today with select quote. In just 15 minutes, high quality coverage can be secured

to fit any life or any budget. Here is what makes select quote different. Their license insurance agents, they work for the consumer, not for the insurance companies. They compare options across multiple trusted 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 or add, with nearly 40 years of experience.

And over 2 million families help,

this is expertise you can trust. Even with health issues, like high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease, their agents know exactly which carriers will provide the best rate. And 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 saving, get the right life insurance for you for less at select quote.com/mark. Again, go to select quote.com/mark to get started.

(upbeat music) Alright, next up, my report in my blog on the midterms. I've spent a lot of time talking to strategists in both parties, analysts, independent analysts, folks in the state's working on individual campaigns.

And what I'm gonna bring you now

“is I believe the best reporting you're anywhere”

about the state of things. And I can't tell you the outcome 'cause nobody can. But I think I'm gonna be able to tell you with a lot of precision and reporting

where things are right now regarding the key thing,

which is what's gonna happen in the house, what's gonna happen in the Senate. For much of this year, when I talked to Republican strategists, really since the beginning of the year,

their view on the prospects of how the party would do, as rested less on what was happening at that moment. And more on what was gonna happen eventually, or what they expected to happen, or in some cases what they hoped would happen.

And they said, well, President Trump's poll numbers are gonna improve voters are gonna feel better about the economy that the tax cuts from the big beautiful bill would be better appreciated by voters. They hope that gas prices would come down,

that the Iran situation would be solved in some way, but the tariffs would be vindicated that the President's goal of helping the economy through tariffs would be since positively. They thought that the socialist movement

within the Democratic Party would scare a lot of voters towards voting Republican. And that the President and his team would get a really focused message that they would have a way of talking about things that would be effective.

Most of that hasn't happened. And so Republicans are in adding to that list of problems that they've had all year. Now, have a big macro problem, which is the calendar. Every week, they haven't fixed those problems

Republicans say, is a problem because we're weak closer to election day. Early voting is starting soon ballots

And the election's gonna begin.

“And the Republican theory that things would eventually turn around,”

it seems right now at a reach. Okay, it's not gonna be a wholesale change. There's just not enough time left. Charlie Cook, the great political analyst this week, wrote a column.

Dovetail's very much with my reporting. And he's been doing this for longer and better than most anybody analyzing elections. His current most likely scenario is Republicans lose anywhere from 26 to 35 house seats.

That's higher than Charlie had it before. It's higher than analysts had had it in general. 26 to 35. And of course, that would give up the majority. And that they're gonna lose either four or five

sentences either way if they need that a lot of support. Five, that would also mean democratic control of the Senate.

That's a big shift for a lot of people.

And it's roughly where I am too. The good news for Republicans, Charlie says and he's right, is things could be worse because of redistricting, because the nature of the Senate map,

Republicans are not in his bad shape

“as some of those other variables would lead you to believe.”

But the bad news for the White House is, there is a worst case scenario. And the worst case scenario could happen. Charlie's laid down now, his baseline is Democrats take control of both chambers,

but things could be worse. So what's changed? What's changed? Because for most of the time, I've said Democrats are unlikely,

you've heard me say it on the program.

Democrats are unlikely to take control of the Senate

because of the nature of the races that are out there. But also because the redistricting saved probably about 10 seats that Democrats would otherwise have won. Now, Charlie cook rates, the House,

almost certain to flip and maybe a big loss. And then on the Senate, how to Democrats find the four seats? Well, a lot of seats now that were in-rep that are red seats, currently held by Republicans in state,

Donald Trump won. Those states are now rated as toss-ups. He's got a lot of toss-ups.

“Alaska, Republican-held seat, he rates as a toss-up.”

Another one in Iowa, he rates as a toss-up. Maine, Republican-held seat toss-up Ohio, Republican-held seat toss-up. Now, taxes, Republican-held seat toss-up. Michigan's a Democratic-held seat. That's also currently a toss-up.

And North Carolina of the nine competitive races, Georgia, which on also considered pretty safe by most people to be held for a Democrat. But North Carolina is considered currently Republican-held seat is considered likely to flip.

Leans Democratic, but Republicans have almost given up on the seat. So that means Democrats need to find three more. So I mean, they hold all of theirs. This transformation, this move towards thinking not only would Democrats take the house,

but they'll take it easily, and that they are now probably at least slightly favored to take the Senate control. Has happened not because Democrats have done anything so great. Super important to point this out.

Democratic-brand is still a huge problem. Republicans are losing the conventional wisdom, the reporting has moved towards a worse year for Republicans than just a few weeks ago. Not because Democrats have become beloved,

but because Republicans have not solved those list of problems. Democrats are vulnerable, not just a weak brand, but in talking to folks in both parties, you find there's an extremely promising concept for Republicans.

Some of the most targeted races have weak candidates, like in Michigan, where Democrats have nominated folks who are not perfect, they've got, in some cases, ties to the DSA, the Democratic Socialists.

Democrats are still dealing with their unpopular positions on issues like immigration and transathletes that on some economic issues that put Democrats into bad position. But midterm elections are not naturally

a beauty contest between the two brands. Midterms generally are a referendum on the president. And right now that's not going well, the president's poll numbers are poor, they're poor with independence. The enthusiasm gap exists, there's a rotors poll,

the president's approval rate in 33%. Some have them higher, some have them lower, but that's not out of whack, 33%. Put some at an extremely vulnerable position. In a midterm where typically the outcome is determined

by how people are feeling about the president. Among the independence Democrats are doing extremely well, as I said, they Democrats are more enthusiastic. This is a big problem, you took poll after poll. The president is not losing Republican Trump voters

for the most part to Democrats. That's not what's happening. What's happening is independence are overwhelmingly favoring Democrats. And Republicans are not as enthused as they need to be.

They're just not as likely to vote. So one thing I'll tell you all the time, and you'll hear different things other places than they're just wrong, every election,

is both a base election, energizing the base,

and a persuasion election,

“convincing undecided voters or swing voters”

to vote your way, everyone. There's no such thing as a pure base election, a pure turn out election. But in this case, the president has two problems. One is, his base is not energizing,

you have to find a way to engage them. And the other is, they have to figure out how to win over those independent voters. Those Republican leading voters who may sit out or may, in some cases, if they're independence,

they may switch the other way. These are the problems the president's dealing with now. This is why the party is so vulnerable. And you see it, not just in a public polling, but you see it in a private polling too.

Race after race, Republicans are big, big trouble. So the White House's goal, if they're going to win, this is they've got to get Republicans to turn out, and they've got to persuade more independence to vote their way.

In some of these very red districts, the worry is not that, again, they're going to be wholesale defections. The worry is that simply screaming the Democrats are socialists.

“It's not going to be enough to turn out Republicans”

and to win over the number of independence they need to win. The litany of problems that you hear from voters, all over the country, it's very similar to what it's been for weeks.

But the problem is, none of this has been solved

in the eyes of the voters. Home mortgage is a price of groceries, the price of gas, health insurance, farmers are just getting killed on a range of issues, the price of diesel, but everything.

For those voters hearing an extended seminar on the Democratic Socialists of America, it's not going to mean anything more to them than if somebody put in a political ad with the rules of Scottish Rugby R, they need, according to Republicans,

the White House needs, they need what they call wallet argument. Republicans, you're just going to keep telling me this, the president needs something to say, and Republican candidates needs something to say, not just what they've done on the economy,

but what they're going to do, why voting for Republicans will help make their lives better. The tax bill, working family tax cuts, Democrats opposed it, you'll hear that.

“You've seen that in a new ad, the president's pack put out,”

lowering the price of prescription drugs, dealing with some world health issues, manufacturing, immigration, border control, as an economic issue. There isn't economic case to may be made Republican say, but that is not what the president's talking about

for the most part. New ads came out from the president's super pack. One was about this stuff, although backward looking, but the president apparently wants to talk about himself. He wants to get his poll numbers out.

And the problem is they can make ads

all the ads they want, but what people are seeing in their social media feeds with their CNN TV, is the president talking about other stuff. He's talking about tariffs. He's talking about a war with candidates,

talking about building new things like the ballroom, naming things after himself, talking about the Kennedy Center, talking about whatever body of water in any given day is recently offended him. All of this stuff, when they do it,

Republican can strategists and candidates, they're not surprised. They know the president's obsessed with bringing money from the tariffs. But they're not surprised in president's doing it,

but they know Republican candidates and strategists know, that's not what voters are obsessed with. What voters are obsessed with is the amount of money that they see in their checking account. The Iran situation, every Republican strategist

told me for weeks, the war has to end. If we're going to do well in the midterms of war as to end, the fact that it has an end, it compounds a whole thing. Okay, the deployments are being extended. They're trying to put economic pressure on Iran,

but most analysts don't believe that that's going to end this quickly. Maybe won't end it ever. It is not looking like there will be a clean, finished message coming out of Iran,

and that has all these spillover effects. Gas prices remain high. The tariffs remain in place. The commodity prices are high. These problems are not a problem for exotic constituencies

or Republicans don't need. Like farmers in rural America, that's a huge part of the GOP base. Farmers are unhappy, suburban independence, they're unhappy as well.

And so what Republicans strategists said to me this week is, even in red places, where we're going to find the votes, our voters are not excited. Democrats are fired up.

The independence are leading to Democrats. And a problem the president has now that he hasn't really had very often, if at all, in his 11 years now in the national stage, as a candidate, as a president, is he's not dominating the populism side of things.

On AI, on prices, on corruption. The president is losing the working class of populist argument for a lot of voters. And the dangers of losing that are extreme. High prices for everything.

Stories about rich people getting rich or special access, government, extravagance,

It's becoming difficult.

Republicans strategists tell me to persuade voters

that Washington Republicans, including the president, are the champions of the forgotten men and women. Two issues that keep coming up in my conversation. And Democrats are going to be talking about this stuff all through election day.

They've already started in some of the early ads, and Republicans do not have a good answer. One is health care, which is an economic story, right? For voters, a premiums up deductibles up. Health care is a huge issue in this race.

You don't hear my colleagues talk much about health care in part because most journalists have health care plans that are pretty good. And don't understand that throughout the country and I saw it on my travels.

People are really, they're upset and worried. They have a lot of anxiety about it.

Democrats say, well, a Republican say,

it's all the fault of Obamacare. But Republicans say we need stuff about health care.

“That's why you hear the president talking”

about prescription drug prices so often. Because that's something where there has been progress. But in the minds of voters, health care is a bigger problem than simply prescription drug prices. And then the other issue that's under-recovered

that Republicans fear is corruption, is double dealing, self-dealing. You can say that the president is family and they've done absolutely nothing illegal. If you'd like, you can say that.

But Republicans, judge, say no more deals. No more announcement of deals that benefit the Trumps. Just wait until after the election, okay? Because voters talk about this, independent voters talk about it.

At a time when people are under such economic pressure, Republicans say, "Strategists and candidates," say, just stay away from headlines. Anything doing anything to bring a headline that says, "The Trumps got richer off some sort of deal," okay?

There's frustration in the White House. They say, "Well, the Biden's got rich." They say, "We're doing, we've done this prescription drug, cost decrease, but it's not enough so far. It's not enough to ward off those two issues."

So right now, on the economy, on Iran, on tariffs, on the president's obsession with these issues, it's changed, it's made the House more likely to flip. It's made it, it's made it, as I said before, more seats are endangered.

The House has looked endangered for a long time. It's not for the very most optimistic Republicans. Most Republicans have said, "There's going to be a loss."

“Enough of a loss to lose majority of the question is how high?”

I told you Charlie Cook said, it says now, anywhere from 26 to 35 seats, which would be more than enough to win the majority for the Democrats. But it could still be lower. We'll talk in a moment about how Republicans are planning to try to fix this.

But no one I talked to in reporting for this said, it would be lower at this point than 15 seats. And that's again enough for Democrats to take the majority. The redistricting efforts that they did, as I said, it saved them.

It made it possible theoretically to keep the majority. The direction that was unmistakable. There could, in fact, be a genuine wave. That's even bigger. What I call tsunami, a blue tsunami.

Then I go up to a dozen, maybe even a little bit more, of more what are currently solid red districts coming into play. Most Republicans, I talked to said, we don't think that will happen, but we can't rule it out. And then you know you're talking about something bigger,

than just a normal bag year for the president's party.

“We could get up to close to 50 seats flipping.”

That wouldn't be the most ever, but it'd be big. And that's going to require some districts, Democrats, not only dominating independence and turning add Democrats, but winning over some of those Trump voters, but it's a possibility.

And that would be obviously a larger repudiation for the president, either way, chances are they lose the majority. Senate's different. It's a little easier to talk about because smaller number of seats. So let's run through the big ones, the nine ones,

that are going to decide the majority. John O'Sough in Georgia, Democratic Calcyate Safe, North Carolina Republican L.C. almost certain to flip at this point. Then you get down to the ones that really decide this.

Maine and Michigan, one Democratic L.C., Maine, or Democratic L.C., Michigan, Republican L.C., Susan Collins and Maine. Those are the knife fights. Those are the ones I didn't talk to a single strategist

with a super strong feeling about how those would come out.

And those are obviously super critical to the outcome.

Let's say, let's say, for the sake of our Democrats, hold Georgia, win North Carolina. That means they need to net three more. And let's say they win Michigan, Democratic Calcyate. I don't really don't know where that's going to end up

Dr. Elliside against my graduates. But let's say they hold Michigan. Okay, that means they got to win three more amongst Ohio, Iowa, last in Texas. They'd have to win three of those four.

today I'd say they might win them all. And Republicans, whereas before most Republicans, I talked to were dismissive about the prospects of the Democrats, beating Susan Collins, beating Dan Sullivan, Alaska,

winning the two open seats in Iowa and Texas. They're not dismissive of any more. Most Republicans are cautiously optimistic that they can win enough of those four. And maybe Michigan too, to keep the majority.

“Okay, but don't assume, I believe, based on my reporting,”

don't assume the old rules obtain here

that people say, well, Susan Collins always finds a way to win.

So, of course, she's gonna hold the seat in Maine. Or Alaska, Iowa, Texas, they're too red to flip. Maybe, but past is not prologue when there's a big wave that comes crashing in. And it is the case right now that Democrats could sweep them all.

I'm not predicting they will, but like I said, what's changed, or amongst the things that changes, to push back is not the same. Now, what are Republicans have? Okay, Republicans have a lot of money.

Okay, they're raising a lot, Elon Musk has started to kick in. They're doing a lot of opposition research on these candidates, the negative ads are gonna start coming in full force. And then again, Republicans in these red places and Democrats can only take the majority

in either chamber, both chambers, if they win in some red places. Okay, all those factors matter,

but a wave can overwhelm them.

“What looked immutable just six months before and now,”

is not immutable now. The math to get to 51 centers again. The easiest thing is they hold all their seats, they win North Carolina, they win Ohio, which is probably the next most likely to flip.

And then two of four of Maine, Iowa, Alaska, and Texas. This is probably a simpler way to look at it. Two of those four, as of today, as I said, none of them are at a reach. But we also have to consider that Democrats don't just

squeak to a net of four. We have to consider the prospect that they win even more, that they sweep all of those. And I've vying South Carolina. People laugh at me, and I did a lot of reporting on this,

and I didn't find many takers. But the Democratic candidates in South Carolina for Senate, the doctor who was here recently, and for Governor, our strong candidates, I want to see more data out of the state.

But there's a non-zero chance that Democrats makes South Carolina competitive in the Senate race and in the governor's race with those strong candidates. And there were public candidates or a week worth watching. One more wild card on the Senate worth watching is New Hampshire,

which could cut the other way, even in a big blue year. John Sanunu is running for an open Democratic healthy, former Senator against Congressman Papas. And Congressman Papas has been out there saying, this race is going to be close.

Now, New Hampshire has not elected to a federal office of Republican in a while, but they could take this with a Kelly A. I've seen come in Republican governors. She's likely to win a reelection easily.

And so if they do, that means the Republicans would have to lose five of their seats to get the majority assuming, again, that they hold Michigan. So watch New Hampshire, watch New Hampshire.

The governors get talked about less, even in a big blue year, Democrats are like that a whole lot of theirs, but their big pickup opportunities, likely, or Iowa, and Ohio, that'd be a big deal. It would probably take a tsunami for them

to win those two, but it could happen. Now, not ready to declare a tsunami yet.

“And honestly, I'm not ready to declare Democrats”

or sure thing to take the Senate. And even though right now, it's looking like they'll lose the house, there are some big mitigating factors. And so my reporting suggests you from my best Republican and Democratic sources,

we got to see how things play out here for the next couple weeks. Got to see how things play out because Republicans have some big advantages. Tag AI and crypto money, they're going to make a big bid to bring that in, not tens of millions, hundreds of millions,

to add to what is already an enormous cash advantage. That matters. Talk to you about candidate quality.

OK, in some of these most important

House and Senate races, the Democratic candidates are not strong. And they're vulnerable to a lot of negative ads. Talking about it, Dr. El Sajad and Michigan. Talking about Troy Jackson and Maine.

Talking about James Taloreco and Texas in the house as well. Candidate quality really matters. OK, let me talk to you about two races. Two guys you probably know, if you'd listen to him, watch his show.

Mike Lawler and New York, Congressman Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania. These are two guys who represent Districts, Kamal Harris one. They're both really determined to win. They've been challenged before. And the Democrats nominated to run against them.

Eh, they're not the strongest candidates. So even in a blue year, Democrats may not win races that they quote unquote must win.

don't beat Mike Lawler and Brian Fitzpatrick?

They could, but it's unlikely. OK, Republicans know that there's a vulnerable Democratic brand and some vulnerable Democratic tickets. He wouldn't put this Democratic brand on a box of weedies. The media, now, we talk about media bias all the time.

The media's actually been pretty aggressive at Democrats on this issue of the socialist and their ranks. Watch that theme. See if that comes up in ads.

“Democrats have, I believe, based on my reporting,”

weaker efforts underway to register new voters, to turn out voters. And another asymmetrical advantage Republicans have. I ask everybody about this, and there's no dissent. James Blair, the president's top political lieutenant, left his job from the White House.

He's running this whole thing.

He's very experienced. He's been given the authority of the president, commanding control over the whole thing to coordinate all the Republican entities, raising money spending. That's a big advantage.

If Republicans outperform where Charlie Cook and others have this now, where I have this now, a big part of it will be all of these factors. All these asymmetrical advantages that they have. But it is September. It's going to be voting.

It's going to be underway soon, as I said.

“Republicans have spent most of this year expecting waiting”

for the political environment to improve it hasn't. The Senate majority is in danger, for sure. The House majority may have already slipped away. And the president is going to have a convention in Texas. And they're counting on the president to try to take his

great political skill and change things. Here is an ad that the president's super PAC put out, which has free doubt Republicans. Because it's not about what the administration has accomplished. It's not about what they plan to do if they keep the majority.

It's about the glorification of Donald Trump. Here's an S1, please. He is the toughest, most resilient person that I've ever met. And nothing was going to stop him from fighting so hard for the country he lost. In the world, these courage, vision, inspiration.

It is still turning to America. There is no challenge.

“The Americans cannot overcome no frontier too vast for us to conquer.”

And our top priority will be to create a nation that is proud, prosperous, and free. Nothing about agenda. Why is that free to Republicans? They don't want money spent on that. Again, there's another ad that talks about what they've accomplished.

But they want a forward looking agenda. And the challenge that they have is that what Democrats want to do more than anything is link Republican candidates to Donald Trump. You're going to see a slew of ads in the all fall from Democrats saying, "My Republican opponent supports Trump and Trump's unpopular policies don't support the Republican."

Here's an example. This is from the Democratic campaign Super PAC supporting Senate candidates. This is against Susan Collins. The Republican in Maine, this is S6, please. She pretends to be independent, independent, but every time it matters.

Susan Collins caves to Donald Trump, the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roby Wade, the Iran War. Doubling health insurance premiums, a Medicaid cuts, every single time. Every single time. When it matters, Susan Collins sides with Trump, and she's hurting Maine.

When Senate is responsible for the content of this ad. Republicans would like to see Donald Trump not run ads saying Donald Trump is great. Donald Trump brought America back, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump. What Republicans does, if that's the message in Dallas at the convention, that'll make them nauseous.

What they want is to change just from a referendum on Donald Trump. That's exactly what the Democrats want this to be. The Republicans' strategists don't want this to be a referendum on Trump. They want it to be about.

Here's what Republicans would do if you vote for them and here's what Democrats will do.

Moreover, not the president's favorite strategist, but a smart guy set out loud in his common, the Wall Street Journal today. What many Republicans strategists privately said to me, why would they try to spend millions of dollars trying to rehab Donald Trump's image? They want the president to take his vast hundreds of millions of dollars that he's raised

and spend it on other candidates to take down the Democratic candidates. The president is not popular right now, and he can claim all he wants is, Roe says it's narcissism. I've heard other Republicans use the word as well, but what they really need is to change the dynamic of the race.

The president has hundreds of millions of dollars. Republicans have a money advantage and that's part of it.

spent, they've got redistricting on their side, they've got red states to defend, they've

“got candidates who can win in some vulnerable Democratic candidates, Republicans all said”

to me. There is still time, but the president better starts spending the money very soon. They better start going at it, because if they wait, even another few weeks until the Dallas can convince you next week, it's going to be very difficult for them to come back. They want the president to open his wallet, but not spend it on rehabbing himself.

They want him to stop talking about things like the ballroom. They want him to go back to being a populist candidate who spends two months fiercely taking down the Democrats. That's where we stand right now. Things could get worse for Republicans, but we're going to watch now closely over the next

few weeks to see can the president with the convention with spending take advantage of the weaknesses of the Democrats, more than having top of mind for voters, the weakness of the Republicans? All right.

Let me know what you think.

Am I being right on point about where things stand or are things worse for Republicans than I painted it to be? Are they better for Republicans? Let me know what you think. Send me an email, next up at devilcaremedia.com, next up at devilmakeairmedia.com, let

me know what you think. Also, if you haven't yet, become an extra subscribe to next up on YouTube. Watch our full episodes there. Get all our exclusive bonus content. Go to next up or youtube.com/at next up, Albert.

“If you want to listen to the show as a podcast, we'd love for you to subscribe there as”

well, Apple or Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, make sure you've got the downloads turned on. So you get the episodes automatically right away before anybody else. Thank you for being next. Thank you for watching the program and listening to it, please tell all your friends about

it. All right, quick break. And when we come back, next up, the great Michael Knowles will be here. Michael Knowles is next up. Everybody's talking about weight loss injections, because the results are 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 when you hear about some of those intense side effects? Well, that's why doctors created a weight loss supplement called lean, and the results with lean 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. It's not for everyone. It's not for the casual diet or who's only got a few pounds to lose.

The doctors at Breakhouse Nutrition created lean for frustrated dieters who have 10 or more pounds to shed. 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, visit TakeLean.com and enter next up for your discount.

Again, the promo code is next up at TakeLean.com. All right, next up, and you're going to be now the great Michael Knowles. He's the host of the Michael Knowles show. It's on the daily wire every weekday at 930, Eastern Time, and Michael Knowles is, I'd say, a frequent guest you're in part because we like him because he's like Gavin Newsom could

coast on his looks, but chooses not to stop it, get at it. You're going to make me blush, even with my smarty, ready to die in skin.

“How often are you recognized on the streets of Nashville when you go out?”

Well, when I'm recognized in Nashville, it's really nice because people are given me kind of adaboys. Occasionally in LA or New York, it's a little more of a little as Guadalupe, but it was kind of cool. I was just filming in Europe and in like weird places in Europe in Malaga, Spain, and there was at the Rock and Gibraltar and all sorts of, and there were some people who

came up and were, they were listeners to the show. So apparently we have an international audience. It's not all just the Americans, but the reason is really that America is the world empire. And so our elections actually matter to everybody else around the world. Right.

When you're recognized, but they mistake you for somebody else who is a typically. Well, they're very disappointed when I take my glasses off. I have them here actually and they say, "Miss Maddo, it's such an honor to meet you." And I take them off. They say, "Who are you?"

Hold on a second. You're not my MSNBC host. Yeah. MSNow. Yeah, we have a policy here.

If you say MSNBC, you're fine 20 grand. That's weird. We'll wave it because I don't think you knew, but we're, but I'm going to go broke. Thank you again for making time. I would start with the midterms.

That was the topic of my monologue. It's pretty clear from my reporting that Republicans look at the clock and the calendar and believe that a lot of the problems they've had all year politically have not gotten better in some cases, gotten worse.

What is making you, we'll do optimism second?

What's making you most pessimistic about Republican prospects in the midterms right now?

soon.

There's some of this structural problems that people feel are exacerbated by other issues

that are actually somewhat unrelated. So a lot of the economic problems, people are blaming on the war and Iran. I don't think that's totally fair economically.

“I think actually the government has done a pretty good job of managing the price of”

brain crude, for instance, which I thought would go much much higher. If I were an active investor, I would have lost a lot of money on oil, betting on the run war. So it's not that, but the issue is prices are still high. Their high, because inflation was very high for years, and even though the Trump administration

has brought the rate of inflation down, the prices haven't necessarily come down, except for a few goods like eggs. And so you think, okay, well, people still feel that coupled with the bad optics of the war and Iran, for instance, they're going to draw conclusions. And you're not going to really convince them out of that with some logical argument about

how inflation is just based on the rate coming down, but the price is getting a little higher over time.

That doesn't really work.

So I think you've got that structural issue. You've got, obviously, the historical headwinds, which is that with the party that controls the government is probably going to lose the midterm elections. And you have Democrats successfully exploiting wedge issues on the right, the wedge issues being things like the war in Iran, the wedge issues being things like even economic policy.

I mean, looking ahead to 2028, you're seeing a return of the people who are more in doctrine, air free traders, laissez-faire economists against the populism, the pro-terrorist, the pro-industrial policies of Trump. So you're seeing that fight already breaking out. It's brutal.

It's brutal.

“And I think three months ago I was really confident we would not lose the Senate right”

now. I'm much less confident of that. Yeah. Yeah. I'm the same way as you are.

Well, what's giving you confidence in other words, what are the variables you cite the major two or three things to say? Maybe the house isn't fully out of reach or maybe the losses will be minimized and maybe the Senate can be saved for Republicans. What would you cite on that side of the ledger?

Okay.

First thing, the courts have given us some wins on redistricting.

That was months ago now, but the U.S. Supreme Court and the Virginia Supreme Court, all in, we probably pick up seven congressional seats or so thanks to have the redistricting. The unjust redistricting was shot down by the courts. So okay, that gives you a little bit of a boost in a tough election year on top of that. I was speaking to a senior administration official on background.

And he made the point that August is the worst time for polling for the party at a power in the midterms. So as specifically for Republicans. So the polling almost certainly will tighten up between now and November. This should be the low point in our polling, but the polling is quite bad.

So you know, we'll see how much of a boost you can get. And then obviously the third consolation is just that the Democrat candidates are not only bad, but they're squirming. In other words, they're not only bad, but they kind of know that they're bad. This, the struggling of a sonpiker has been wonderful.

It has been effective. It is making guys like Abdul El Sajad and AOC squirming. Abdul El Sajad and AOC both of whom have embraced a sonpiker as the intellectual thought leader of the left. Now they're trying to diminish him and say, oh, he's, he's just a streamer.

So the streamer from California. Yeah, who cares about that guy? His name will not be uttered. Yes, never mind. They've invited him out on the campaign trail.

And what I love is that a sonpiker is not taking that lying down. He's saying, hold on. Abdul asked me to go campaign with him. Now he's pretending like he doesn't know me. Hold on.

Yeah, all those things are accusing you guys up. I hate America. This is the other thing. Well, here are all my clips of me saying that. And you guys are only distancing yourselves now because you want to get past the elections.

“So I think the candidate quality is pretty rough.”

Obviously you've got the incestuous guy in Maine who replaced the Nazi rapist in Maine. These are not great. I think Susan Collins is exploiting that pretty well. But that's a big gamble. That's a big risky gamble.

You saw some evidence that Republicans were actually boosting these radical candidates like Francesca Hong in the primaries, which is great if then you can eat through a victory in the general election. We could end up in a world in which we're looking down the barrel three months from now at Senator Talleriko, Senator Sayed, Senator Jackson, and so on.

So it's all I'm a glass half full kind of guy. This is as bleak as the midterms have looked since we started looking at the cycle. Yeah. And in part because the problems haven't been fixed in part because the president continues to announce things that are enriches family.

He continues to be on the wrong side of public opinion on AI. He continues to talk about the ballroom in the Kennedy Center.

These are all unpopular things.

You can say the presence entitled to do these things or it's a good for him that he's standing up for principle on AI. But the presence doing a lot of very unpopular things here two months before the election. Yeah. It's tricky because I do think the president is making long-term investments.

I mean, certainly with AI in the data centers, that is a long-term investment. I don't, I don't see how you can side with the kind of populism against the data centers. Entire, obviously there are some ways that should be regulated and you don't want energy costs to go up where the data centers are built. But we are in a war with China right now and we're in an AI arms race.

“And so yeah, I think he's standing up in the right way for long-term gains.”

I think a lot of that is true in the deportations. I think a lot of that is true on the tariffs if they could be implemented in an effective way for long-term industrial gains. So yeah, those are all long-term plays. They're actually pretty responsible plays, but they cause a lot of short-term political

pain. And yes, right before a midterm that can be tough, on the question of the corruption or anything like that, there's this very worrisome number that just came out of gallop 89 percent of Americans think that a corruption is a serious issue in the country right now. That's in all time high.

And so people point to President Trump and they say, well, you know, Trump has crypto coins or whatever. Again, I haven't seen a strong argument that he's done anything illegal in office with regard to crypto or his family having business interests. Obviously, he's the second, well, now I guess the richest president that we've ever had.

Previously, he was George Washington. So rich presidents can be good presidents, too.

But he always was going to have business interests in his business as his name.

So this was an issue in the first room also.

“I think much more of the fraud and corruption is on the Democrat side.”

The kind of stuff we're digging up in Ohio and in California and all the rest. But corruption is a big issue. I mean, corruption is one of the main reasons, Orban got booted out of power in Hungary. Even the perception of corruption is really worrisome because it's like a miasma in the political discourse.

It just reduces trust in institutions and it just, I don't know, it leaves a sour feeling on the tongue. So again, to your point, I think I don't see any evidence that Trump is breaking laws or anything like that. He doesn't need to fix the perception because I think there's a ton of corruption on the

left. Yeah. The left has got a ton of problems. But you've drawn what I consider a straw man line at illegality. Doesn't have to be legal to say, here's a billionaire whose family's gotten significantly

richer while he's been president. Here's a billionaire building a ballroom getting a new jet from a Middle Eastern country. These things might all be not, they might not only be legal, they might be good ideas. Yeah. They certainly feed into the perception for a lot of voters.

This is a left-wing talking point. You see it in the data qualitative and qualitative and qualitative and qualitative and qualitative. This is not the right time when Americans are struggling economically to get rich while in office. The ballroom might be fine, but the ballroom is another issue that drives me crazy.

I mean, clearly the Democrats have done a decent job messaging on this, but the ballroom is being built, they're private funds that are going toward it. That only, that only private funds.

“Not only private funds, but why would there be public funds going toward it?”

Because the ballroom is not merely about hosting dinner parties at the White House. It's not just about Trump's ego.

First of all, there should be a space at the White House where they can host state

functions in a serious way. On the second of all. Yeah. I got to interrupt you. All these things are defensible, are almost all of them are defensible.

On that level. Of course, the president's been right. He tried to get a Proco-bomb and a build-a-ballroom before he was even running for president. It's also a military center. Let's not forget.

Yeah. I mean, it is. There's all sorts of reasons. But building a fancy ballroom in Washington and talking about it. Just build it.

Stop talking about it. That's what Republicans say to me. Today's episode sponsored by Roe. A lot of people here at GLP1, and immediately assume treatment is going to cost a fortune. If GLP1 medications may be more affordable and accessible, then you realize Roe helps eligible

patients find a path to FDA approved GLP1 treatment that fits their budget. Whether they have insurance or whether they're paying cash. I love that Roe makes getting started so easy. Their free insurance checker lets you check whether certain GLP1 injections are covered by your insurance.

You simply submit your insurance information and receive a report with your coverage. Details so you can understand all your options and if the insurance doesn't cover treatment, Roe also offers FDA approved cash pay GLP1 options including pills and injections. Also, this is great. Roe provides ongoing support if you become a member, including access to a provider for

questions, all throughout the process. I know someone who's used Roe, very positive experience. So it's definitely an option that I consider if I was going to try GLP1 treatment. Go to Roe.com/nextup and see if you qualify that's ro.co/nextup to get started on Roe.

I want to talk to you about the vice president. I've really been struck by this strange confluence. You've got JD events and Dr. Alsaid going back and forth attacking each other. Seems to be more enemies, but they share a common bond. Jewish Americans really don't trust the summit least, they're both in the last week by

coincidence. Simultaneously, they were attacking each other, but they were also going to Jewish groups, Alsaid and Michigan, the vice president, and Las Vegas, the Republican Jewish coalition, and trying to convince them that they're not anti-Semitic, not anti-Israel, not someone who should be looked at with distrust.

You know, I know you know without even asking you.

You know many prominent Jewish Americans who now say, "I will never support Republicans.

I will never support JD events." I find it extraordinary, and I'm wondering what you think about this is effortless Vegas, whether that helped him with that group or not, and whether this is a press creation or the creation of a small group of people who don't like him, or this represents a larger problem for him to solve.

“Yeah, well, it's a political problem for him, because I think that Vance's internal”

enemies within the GOP are having trouble lobbying attacks at him, and so the only two attacks that they can make are that he has articulated Catholic social teaching on matters of economics, but so his Marka Rubio, Marka Rubio, coined the phrase "common good capitalism" in much, very much in the rayroom, novaram tradition. So I don't think that one sticks as well, especially if people are trying to pit Vance

against Rubio, which I think they've kind of given up on that.

And then the other one is, you can say, "Well, he's anti-Israel, he might be an anti-Semite, you know, he's been pals with Tucker Carlson and Tucker is at all these comments that we don't like." And so, you know, we'll try to have this guilt by association. I think it's pretty silly on the merits, you know, I don't see any evidence whatsoever.

Forget that JD Vance is an anti-Semitic, which I think is preposterous. I don't even see a lot of evidence that he's all that anti-Israel. You can look at very pro-Israel figures who are very much in JD Vance's inner circle. And you just look at his public statements and his policies. I think it's crazy.

And the fact that he's a vice president to Donald Trump, who is the most phyllo-semitic, pro-Israel president we've ever had, and he has a town named after him in Israel.

“So I think the attack is pretty weak. The reason that they can come in there, obviously,”

is because JD Vance is pals with Tucker Carlson. Again, Tucker Carlson's been pals with like most people in the GOP at the high-level for a long time. But that's going to be the way an Abdul al-Sahad has a very different problem here. Okay, but let's stand a vice president for safety.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but some of the people who say to me, and again, I bet you here, maybe even from the same people, these are not political people. These are not people looking for a reason to be against JD Vance to the contrary. There are people who would like to be friends with the vice president, would like to have an era parent to support.

And yet they feel passionately that he is, if not anti-Semitic, unworthy of their support. And again, I'm just trying to figure out how that happens, and how that could possibly be fixed because he doesn't want to be at crosshairs with these folks. That's why he went to Las Vegas. Yeah, what is motivating these people because they're not politically motivated.

They're not looking to be against JD Vance, as they said, to the contrary.

“What do they see that makes them say to me, I will never support JD Vance?”

Well, I think, look, there's obviously a pretty coordinated effort against Vance from political operations on social media and in the question, but I'll say again, that's not what these people are about. No, but I guess the reason I mentioned that is I think some of the popular opinion, it can come downstream of that.

I mean, that's the reason the people have information operations in the first place. Right. So even if there is a disconnect, yes, that perception can be a big problem where the real

parallel that I see for the anti-vance stuff right now is with never Trump in 2016, which

also you will recall spooked Jewish voters and pro-Israel voters because what never, sorry, never Trump 2016 was really focused on in terms of issues was this allegation of economic populism was an allegation of isolationism which relates pretty directly to the Israel issue. There were these vague insinuations of bigotry. You've got a lot of that with Trump in 16 and you've got this argument that he was betraying

the Reaganite coalition, the fusionist coalition. Those are precisely the elements of the attack on Vance right now and so why is Vance dealing with this? Well, I think in part, it's because he is the Arab parent and this is precisely what Trump dealt with in 2016 and so as there were a lot of figures who I think were hoping for a

When Trump went out, I think J.D. Vance is going to deal with that and the insinuations

“that he's anti-Israel or anti-Jewish or something like that, I think they're convenient”

to make so they're going to make them but I think there will be a lot of other attacks on J.D. Vance along the way. Yeah, I told you you're at the end again just to be clear, I'm as mystified as you are that they've reached this conclusion, it doesn't, it doesn't compute for me based on everything I know about.

I mean, yet I've been struck because they are never Vance now, and maybe they'll change

there are people who are never Trump who are now for Trump and they're bad. I think that's probably what will happen and even the toughest hit is this guilt by association thing because he's been pals with Tucker. This has Donald Trump, as this is most everybody in our contact list. I have not taken seriously a challenge to the vice president if he does run for the nomination.

I don't think Marco Rubio will run against him. I think he'll have the support of the president, the White House, Marco Rubio, and he'll raise all this money. But now the Wall Street Journal has finally written up what the story you and I've been hearing about for a long time.

Take Cruz is running. Take Cruz is often derided, but he has more political experience in J.D. Vance. J.D. Vance is a newbie to electoral politics. Take Cruz among other things, beat Donald Trump in the Iowa caucuses. Not many people have beaten Donald Trump in a primary caucus.

Donald Trump went all in in 2016 to win Iowa. He knew how dangerous a loss there could be and take Cruz beat him. Take Cruz will be underestimated as peril and the Wall Street Journal's story while it doesn't go all the way in explaining the things Cruz has done to lead the roundwork for you for this possibility.

Tell me what you think the degree of threat would be if it were basically a one-on-one race.

If no one else of significance ran and take Cruz and J.D. Vance competed in Iowa, I was not going to be first for the Republic Democrats, but it will be for Republicans. Take Cruz, the champion of the Iowa caucuses from 2016, there haven't been competitive Iowa caucuses since then, because in 2020, Donald Trump is in combat, 2024, Trump blew everybody away.

So, tell me what you think the contours of a mythical Vance Cruz, one-on-one nomination fight would look like. Take Cruz is one of the most underestimated politicians in this country and that helps him, I think. I mean, to your point, he did very well.

He was the number two guy in 2016. There's a strong argument that had rubio dropped out of the race before Florida. Ted Cruz might have won the whole thing outright.

“So there are a lot of people who are dismissing his candidacy, and I think they do so at”

their own peril, because he'll be a serious candidate. Now, he will have a major uphill slog. And the uphill slog is really not even so much about J.D. Vance, who is very intelligent and very capable. You point out, you know, he doesn't have as much experience as Ted Cruz.

Some people are comparing him, a Wall Street Journal op-ed columnist did so the other day, comparing him to Obama. Well, that's good news for J.D. Vance, because Obama came that I know where anyone two terms, so that's the kind of comparison you want to hear. But what it's really going to come down to is the degree to which Trump has a lock over

the GOP. If Trump maintains his lock over the GOP, which he today certainly has, then it will be J.D. Vance, and there won't even be much of a primary, it will just be a coronation. If those issues that we were talking about earlier, the Warren Iran, the messaging on the economy, so on and so forth.

If all of those really go to pot, then J.D. Vance's in Big Trouble, Marka Rubio, if he did want to run, would be in Big Trouble, Pete Heggsath, there was reporting that he wanted to run, would be in Big Trouble. There, you really have an option of a dissentous or a cruise. Those are really the only national figures who could do it.

DeSantis would be running, as he did in 2024, as Trump, 2.0, bigger, better, faster. But running in that Trumpian lane, whereas Ted Cruz would have the advantage of running as he did in 2016, as the alternative to Trump, who is conservative. He's not a liberal alternative. He's a conservative alternative to Trump.

So in that situation, if the Trump administration really felt to pot, Cruz is looking very, very good. He's running not so much in the Trumpist lane, as DeSantis would have to, but in the Reagan

“lane, in the fusion of slain, in the GOP, if the conservative movement of the last 40-50 years, so that could be very good news for him. That said, assuming Trump maintains his lock on the GOP, then I think JDVans is still looking good.”

But if I were on team vans, if I were running that campaign, I would not take anything for granted, because the guy who came in number two against Donald Trump, probably a world historic figure, that guy is pretty good at running for president.

No, not just question about it, not just came in second, but beat him in Iowa.

Yes, that's what. With everything on the line, now I Cruz versus Vans campaign, and I believe, unless I've missed it, you and I are currently having the most detailed conversation about this topic.

Cruz would run as the more, you said, Reagan, right, a lot of the elements of how he'd conge, I think so too, how he'd conge. Yes, he'd say, and of course he's not out of favor with President Trump, he's been a huge supporter of the president since they're, they're, they're tension between them in 2016. He'd be the more pro is your old candidate, right?

“Yeah, he'd be the more, he'd be the more anti-terrorist candidate, he'd be the more, uh, I think he'd be the more anti-putton candidate, maybe.”

And he'd be the candidate of change, she'd say, on economics, if you didn't like the way the Trump folks did it, maybe he'd be the more anti-Ai candidate, I don't know. But what else, what other things, if you're thinking about the, the, the Cruz frame on Vans, if it's one on one, what are the other things, he'd say, don't vote for that guy vote for me, what are the other elements of that? Well, yeah, I think because, as we mentioned earlier, I think the anti-vans attacks are going to be almost exactly the anti-Trump attacks in 2016.

So you're going to see accusations of isolationism and, uh, probably from a Cruz campaign, you'd, you'd, uh, here a piece through strength and, you know, a strong robust muscular foreign policy, uh, you would, you would, you would see Senator Cruz probably running as the more libertarian candidate.

Um, which again, you know, Donald Trump did not run as a libertarian. You had the, the Tea Party was probably peak libertarian in the GOP, but there's always been that strain there.

I think Ted Cruz could probably grab, grab hold of that. And, uh, probably his campaign would run as a return to normalcy, you know, um, but not crucially to your point mark, not anti-Trump. He could say, look, the president and I have worked together very well in all of these years, and so, you know, I've, we've got all these achievements under our belt. I'm going to pull the best of Trumpism, but I'm going to return to a more normal kind of GOP.

“And I think what you would see from the Vans campaign is, well, hold on, you know, I, I certainly involved in the Trump victories as well.”

I am the man's vice president. I am his number two. And we want to push that further. We want to advance Trump's line of thinking the way that he has changed the Republican Party. I think is for the better. And so we're going to keep pushing even further and continue that legacy.

And, uh, but we're speaking ideologically here, what's funny is I think that the race will ultimately come down to personal political power.

That is to say, I think Trump is going to pick the guy. If he still has the juice to do it within the GOP, and it's very difficult to imagine that he would not pick the person that he picked to be his nominee in the non consecutive second term. However, there's, there's no doubt that, oh, you could, you know what you could see is you could see something like Reagan in the 88 campaign, which is Reagan is probably going to go with his guy, but he might wait a little while. He might not quite, you know, Reagan, Reagan didn't endorse Bush and told was over.

“Yeah. And Bush had been coming to me. And you know, you may not know that's what he endorsed.”

I mean, mispronounced his name. I actually did not. He said, you go, go, go, pull the video. It's on social media. He said, I endorse my vice president, George H. W. Bosch. He said, which, you know, symbolic. If Vance runs, I think Trump has to endorse him. I don't think he could sit it out. And I think he wants to endorse him. Yeah, that's my advice. But, um, but Ted, as he said, he's underrated. He's a beast. He's run for president before. And even though JD Vance has been on a

ticket and even though he's been vice president, there's so much experience comes with that. It's not the same. It's not the same. Yes, I mean, Ted has this amazing advantage, which is that he's run a very successful national campaign. And being on the ticket, look, Trump 2024 was a very successful national campaign, but not leading the ticket, you know, is just just a different thing. That said, though, the guy came from nothing. Also, also underrated. Yes, very underrated. He came from nothing.

He likes internet cruises. Very intelligent. He's very well read. He has a lot of credibility vans with that working class constituency that Trump has tried to really emphasize

for the first time that we've really seen since Ronald Reagan. So, uh, he has amazing political

skills as well. And the fact that he was selected as the second vice president, I think to your point, makes it almost a certainty that Trump is going to endorse him. It would be one thing, if, you know, in, uh, Reagan Bush 80, Reagan Bush kind of hated each other and they were at odds with each other. And he picked, they made the picture unified the party. And then he wasn't going to switch horses halfway through the race here because we had the interregnum. And we had the non consecutive second

term here. Trump is picking a guy who did not run against him. He's picking a guy who's much younger. He was picking a guy with him being the successor in mind. So, I think something would have to

would have to catastrophically fail in the Trump administration for Trump's endorsement not to be

“the decisive factor. That said, though, you know, we are at war right now. And the economy is”

teetering in some ways. So, there is a world in which things really, really do go south. And, regardless, if anybody's going to pick up the other lane in the race, I can't think of another Republican in the country who could do so more persuasively than crews. Yeah, and crews can raise money, uh, uh, whereas other people would have trouble raising money against the combat vice president. Yeah. The other thing is, uh, uh, I had thought no one would run against the ants if ants

decided to run and cut Trump's endorsement. I just thought, it's too for voting in terms of raising money, et cetera. Ted is fearless. And, and Ted would be happy to run and lose because

“there'd be benefits to that for him. And I think the other thing about him is he loves a fight”

whereas with someone like Rubio who, in, has so many qualities that would make him such a great presidential candidate, I think structurally it wouldn't make sense for him to run against vans in after and personally. And, but, but, but I don't know that Rubio loves the fight. He'll fight. He's a fighter. He can, you know, he can win a scrap. But I don't know that he loves it in the same way that Senator Cruz does. And, and, and he's good at it, you know,

I mean, this is a guy who's been, who's been scrappy and fighting since debate club at Princeton. And, uh, so he, he, he is, I think probably ready and rare and to go for that sort of a thing whereas the other potential candidates in the GOP, I don't, I don't see it. Yeah, totally agree with you. And, and, and as he said, Rubio will fight if needed. But, but, but Ted, his, his adrenaline gets up. He likes it. And, you cannot overstate the degree to which he's become a more skilled and knowledgeable

player, uh, as compared to 10 years ago. Uh, the podcast, you know, he's just, he's just a very agile guy and he's so sophisticated. You read his tweets and it's like, he just, he's a sophisticated guy.

“He's a political operative, masquerading as a, as a U.S. Senate. Yeah, well, I think his choice for the”

first co-host on that podcast. I mean, I thought there was a stroke of political genius. Genius, genius,

pure genius. Um, all right, uh, you and I are going to continue talking about this because I want us to have a virtual monopoly on breaking down the Vance Cruz primary ahead of everybody else because it's called next stop plays in gentlemen and what might not happen, it could. Uh, Michael, if people besides listening to your program, which we'll, we'll sing the praises up in a moment, where else can people see your content? So you can find me all over social media, Michael J. Knowles, you can very

importantly get Mayflower cigars. If you're 21 years or older, some exclusions and restrictions apply, uh, and you can catch me every day on the daily war. Yeah, every morning, what time to get up to your show? I, I barely go to sleep mark. I just flew in from here. I haven't slept in, I don't know, 18 months or something like that, but we are live at 930 Eastern every single morning and for the members and then you can download it on all the various platforms, my space, sang, uh,

you know, Commodore 64 chat chat forums. All right, thanks to Michael, that's it for today's program. Don't forget to listen to Michael's program every weekday 930 Eastern time on the daily wire. It's called the Michael Knowles show and you will enjoy it every weekday 930 Eastern time. And that is it for today. Back on Tuesday with a brand new episode of Next Up, please make sure

you subscribe to us on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast so you always know what's coming next

(upbeat music)