Episode 738 Scott Adams: Democrat Hallucinations, Black Support for Buttigieg, OK Bloomberg

Here in America. And what are we thankful for? Well, all kinds of things, but one of them is coffee. And you may have a different favorite beverage. And you can enjoy it now thanks to a little thing I invented. It's called the simultaneous sip. Those of you who have experienced it know the joy, the pure unbridled fun, the deliciousness of the simultaneous sip. It's even strong if you watch this in replay. Still works just the same. And all you need to participate, doesn't take much. All you need is a copper. Margaret, glasses, snifter, stein, chalice, tanker, thermos, flask, canteen, grill, goblet, vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid. Those of you who have just water, that's the placebo. But it'll do for now. Get ready to join me in the simultaneous sip, the thing that makes everything better. The dopamine hit of the day. Go. Thank you. Well, last night I did a little appearance on Tucker Carlson's show. I hope some of you saw it. Oh, I see it in the comments. Some of you did. And man, there's a big difference when you're on the primetime, probably the top rated show. I don't know, maybe Hannity is top rated on Fox. A lot of people saw that. I hope I did not embarrass myself, but either way, I don't care. If I did embarrass myself, that's fine, too. And also last night I did an event at the Commonwealth Club and I met many simultaneous sippers there. So if you are one of them. Good to see you again. Thanks for coming last night. All right, we got lots to talk about. There's this weird thing happening in the news in which CNN is accusing Republicans of believing that only Ukraine interfered in our elections in 2016 and it wasn't Russia. Have you heard anybody say that? Because it's being reported like it's a well known understood fact that Republicans are saying that only Ukraine interfered in the election in 2016 and not Russia. I've literally never heard that. Have you? I've heard people say they don't know, which is hard to claim at this point because the 60 Minutes piece about Russia hacking seemed pretty solid to me. I mean, it's hard to tell, you know, anything could be wrong, but it looked pretty solid. And I would say that that's actually the first time that I've seen reporting that seemed convincing to me. Convincing that Russia definitely was behind the hacking because it was so detailed. Literally up until I replayed the 60 minute piece, I was still on the Side of. Well, could have been Russia, but it could have been somebody making it look like Russia. But when you see all the details of what we know about it and we know the specific people and all that, it looks like it was them. But I've never heard anybody say that it was only Ukraine and it was never Russia. I'm pretty sure that's not real, right? But CNN's treating it like it is real anyway. That's normal. Have you all seen the Bloomberg announcement video? Where's my phone? I think I have to play it for you, if you don't mind. Let me see it. Might take me a minute to find it here, but totally worth waiting for. Except my phone stopped working. Damn it. Work, phone, work. Here we go. All right, I'm going to play it for you. I hope it'll be loud enough. And I want you to see the energy that he puts into this. Okay, so you're going to watch it for all of his energy. And one of the funniest comments to it, I'll tell you in advance, was I forgot to write down who made this comment on Twitter. But under the video it said, fasten your seatbelt. So just remember that witty comment when you when I play it.

Lgbtq. Protecting women's and LGBT rights, supporting our veterans, and re establishing America's place in the world as a force for peace and stability. But more than plans, I offer the leadership to turn plans into reality, to roll up my sleeves, to motivate our country to unite and rebuild America and make it fairer and better. I'm ready to get to work, so let's get it on. Protecting women's and lgbtq.

I'm ready to go to work, so let's get it on. So fasten your seat belt. He's coming. Bloomberg's coming. Batting down the hatches. It's going to be a high energy. No, it's not. Now, I don't know if Bloomberg would look so sleepy if we did not have a President Trump who looks the opposite. I often talk about the power of a contrast. If Bloomberg were not running against Trump, I don't even know we'd notice. I mean, it seems like all politicians used to be sort of serious, low energy kind of people in the past, and we just didn't even notice. But now that you've got a little taste of the Trump entertainment juggernaut, it's hard to imagine having a president this boring. I don't know if we could do it similarly. I told you before that it's impossible for Me to watch a movie now in 2019. It's not just because the movies are bad now, because they are most of them, but they're too long and they're not any longer than they used to be. But now it's intolerable because I've shortened my attention span with Twitter. So now with Twitter, I can have. I don't know, this morning, I probably had 50 different, unrelated, interesting thoughts that I read about on Twitter in maybe an hour. And you watch a movie and it's just like, okay, I get it. I get it. The man and the woman love each other. Yeah. Okay, I get it. One of them is going to die. So you have to show that they love each other. Just tell me they love each other. I don't need to watch them talking. Love talk over breakfast. Yes, he's making her a cup of coffee. I get it. They're in love. She's going to die. He's going to get really mad. He'll get his revenge. So movies are just intolerable because you get the point. And you're like, I got the point a long time ago. Just show me the car chase, will you? All right, so Bloomberg has no chance. One of the interesting aspects of the Bloomberg presidency, and again, this is another matchup problem. Bloomberg has reportedly. I don't know if this. How confirmed this is, but it sounds true. Bloomberg apparently has massive business in China, and he says China is not a dictatorship. Now, technically, technically, Is Bloomberg right that China is not a dictatorship? Well, I think he was right until President Xi became president for life. Right. That sort of changed things. But until then, I was actually saying the same thing, because their system requires that the Communist Party is backing their leader. And. And if the Communist Party, the elite Communist Party, don't back their leader, that leader's probably not going to last very long. So it's not a democracy, but it's closer to something like, no, not a republic. More like a corporation. It's more like a corporation where if the CEO doesn't have the support of the board of directors, he's got to go. But as long as the CEO is performing, the board of directors say, well, you can stay as long as you want. So Bloomberg was sort of kind of technically almost right about China not being a dictatorship before. But I think once you name your leader president for life, you have to put into question whether even the Communist Party party in China could remove him if they wanted to. I imagine he's consolidated power by now. All right, there's a report that the New Star wars script for the Rise of Skywalker was leaked on ebay. Somebody put the script for the new Star wars movie on ebay and they say it was recovered prior to being sold. Is that what happened? Was it taken off of ebay before it could be sold or did nobody bid on it? Oh, you beat me to it, Monterey. John. I was going for the big finish, but you beat me to it in your comment. Yeah, maybe nobody bid on it. Somebody says promotional stunt. Probably not. I don't think that anybody would do a promotional stunt where they intentionally put a script on ebay. That would be pretty far outside of, let's say, the creative industries standard for good behavior. That would be so far outside it that I can't imagine it. But I suppose anything is possible. I tweeted around an article from a super racist publication called the Root. Have you ever heard of it? So the Root is. I don't know how they describe themselves, but it's primarily African American writers writing about racism and it's basically an anti white website. I think I can say that with complete sincerity. So they do not like their white people on the Root and I don't know how they stay in business, frankly, because it's so blatantly racist. It's crazy. But they do. They've come after me, by the way. So the Root has targeted me with a hit piece in the past. So that's my opinion of the Root. It's racist, it shouldn't exist. But I saw an article by a writer named Michael Harriot, I think I'm pronouncing that correctly, who was writing about Pete Buttigieg. And I thought, oh, this would be an interesting filter on what the black community or at least some of them think about Pete Buttigieg, which is pretty important. So I thought, I'm going to read this article. And the reason that I tweeted it is just because it was so well written and I thought you would enjoy the technique even if you disagreed with everything the writer says. I think most of you would have a little problem buying into the writer's main thesis. But here's what you want to look for in the writing. It is sensationally visual. If you can write an article with lots of visual elements where you're describing them visually, that's always better. And this is crazy visual. So if you don't know that rule, you would just know you liked it, but you wouldn't know why. Here's why. It's visual. It's super visual. It's like so Good that it's just one of the best examples I've ever seen. But there was one sentence in particular. Oh, and he also has a story arc. So if you don't finish it, you're going to miss some of the magic. A lot of it, actually. So if you start reading it and you bail out before the end, you're going to miss a lot of what makes it special because it's got a big finish, like a really good finish. So here's the sentence that caused me to retweet it. I laughed when I read it, and I laughed for about 10 minutes afterwards to myself, just because, I don't know, sometimes a turn of a phrase can be just so delicious that you can't get it out of your head for a while. So I'll tell you what it is. I'm going to read it to you. So it's Michael Harriot writing in the Root, and he's talking about Pete Buttigieg, and he's quoting Buttigieg, who, when he was running for mayor in 2011, was talking about what could be done for the African American community. And he was talking about education and the need for, in Buttigieg's opinion, role models who had made good through education. So Buttigieg believes that if there were more better role models who were taking advantage of education and being successful, that minority neighborhoods would look at that and they'd be more inclined to value education, and that would fix things. Michael Harriot has a different opinion, and he writes this sentence. So he starts with quoting Buttigieg, and he says, quote, kids need to see evidence that education is going to work for them. Buttigieg explained whitely. That was a sentence that got me. Buttigieg explained whitely. Now you can dislike the Root and you can say to yourself, hey, this seems a little racist. I'm not going to argue any of those points today. I'm just going to say that this sentence is just sort of delicious that he explained whitely when he was running for mayor. I'll just finish it off here. So Buttigieg said, you're motivated because you believe that at the end of your education there is a reward, there's a stable life, there's a job. And there are a lot of kids, especially in the lower income, minority neighborhoods, who literally just haven't seen it work. There isn't someone they know personally who testifies to the value of education. Do you know who's the last person who made that point to me? An African American pastor. So the Last person who made exactly the same point about one of the biggest problems in the black inner cities especially is very similar to what Buttigieg says. So he's certainly compatible with what some people in the African American community think. I don't know what percentage, so I'm not arguing that's true or false because I don't have that experience myself. I'm just saying that there's some disagreement. Anyway, read that article. It's great. When I tweeted it around, I got Twitter bitch slapped by Paul Graham. If you recognize that name, if you know the tech world, you would recognize that name. Paul Graham, a famous investor. I think he's probably a billionaire, but anyway, he's quite famous in the investing startup world and he tweets at me. He says, either you believe Buttigieg explained whitely is great writing the phrase Buttigieg explained whitely is great writing, or you're lying. This is what Paul Graham is saying to me this morning on Twitter, or you're lying. And it's hard to believe it's the former. So he's having a hard time believing that I believe that the phrase Buttigieg explained whitely is great writing. So let me say as clearly as possible, Paul Graham, I could never invest in startups as well as you, but you could never write as well as me. And you could never write as well as Michael Harriot either, because that is great writing. It's provocative, it makes it impossible to look away. It's clever, it's subtle. It's a visual, too. It's such good visual writing, I can't get enough of it. Anyway, Trump is donating his third quarter salary of $100,000 to fight the opioid crisis. Now, of course, $100,000 doesn't buy you much in the fight against opioids, but I love the fact that Trump is getting a double hit on his donating his salary. One, it's good that he's donating because he's a billionaire, so it's sort of just a good look. But secondly, he's using it as a way to point out things that are priorities. So he's pointing out the priority of fighting the opioid crisis. I like that. So thank you, President Trump, for donating your salary. That's not the big part, but for calling out the importance of the opioid crisis. A guy named Greg Sargent on Twitter says, and I love this. For students of cognitive dissonance, this is a great lesson here. If you're trying to understand cognitive Dissonance. It's when there's something about a person's worldview that doesn't work. In other words, it doesn't explain what they're observing. So they have to paste together a rationalization of their worldview that to an observer looks absurd. It looks like it doesn't even make sense. But to the person saying it, they actually believe it because they had to fix their imperfect worldview with a little spackle. So Greg Sargent writes this tweet. He says, there's a weird framing in the media right now. Now, the phrase weird framing is your first signal that what follows is cognitive distance. Because there's framing, there's good framing, there's bad framing. But is there weird framing? Weird framing is the signal that his worldview doesn't make sense. Because if it made sense, he'd say, oh, they're framing it wrong. Or he'd say they're framing it right. It would be something like that. But to say it's weird framing is your signal that his worldview doesn't make sense. So now he's going to go, and the cognitive dissonance sets in. And he describes what he calls a weird framing in the media. Quote, has the impeachment inquiry then he emphasizes, changed the minds of any Republicans? Now he's saying that when the press is asking that question, has the impeachment inquiry changed the minds of any Republicans? That's weird framing. And he goes on to explain, he says, the problem with this is it furthers the assumption that Republicans are making an actual good faith evaluation of emerging evidence. So in other words, he's saying that asking if Republicans have changed their mind is sort of an illegitimate or ridiculous question because there's not any reason to believe that any Republicans would ever change their mind based on evidence. Does that sound like a reasonable opinion to you? So his only hypothesis to explain the weird framing he's seeing, so his worldview doesn't make sense. But he explains it away by saying that the news is making a bad assumption that Republicans can change their mind based on evidence. Now, of course, it is true that people don't change their mind too much based on evidence. So that part's fair. I say it all the time, but it leaves out a possibility. And so I tweeted back at him and I said, another possibility is that Democrats are hallucinating that a credible argument for impeachment has been made. And then I said, I didn't see one. So Greg Sargent starts with the assumption that there was credible arguments for impeachment. And he saw it. What he doesn't think is a possibility is that we all watch the same thing, and many of us didn't see it. We're looking at the same thing. I don't see it. The reason I don't see it is because. All of this is making you think past the sale. And the sale is whether the President was asking something of Ukraine that was in the interest of, and the great interest of much of the public. So if the President was asking Ukraine or even pressuring Ukraine with any kind of leverage, doesn't matter what kind. If the president was using any leverage on Ukraine to get them to investigate something that the public wanted investigated, and I think we did. I did. Probably many of you did. You wanted to know what's going on with Biden and Brismo. And if the answer is nothing, if the answer is there's nothing to see here, I'd want to know that right away, as quickly as we could find out. So President Trump and his supporters, I think, screwed the pooch on his defense. They should have stuck with. He asked the questions that the public wanted to know and should want to know, and he never should have left that point. But when you've got people defending you who are sort of lawyers, by experience, lawyers are going to lawyer, and I think they, they lawyered him in the wrong direction, persuasion wise, because they spend a lot of time arguing about the details of stuff and about whether it's impeachable, you know, sufficiently impeachable, whether the quid pro quo was direct or just implied. As soon as you're arguing all that stuff, you've left behind, the only question that matters, if it's true that the President asked Ukraine to do what the public wants him to ask to do, or should want them to ask or should want him to ask, then there's nothing else to say. That's the beginning and the end of the story. It wouldn't matter if it's also good for him. It would only matter if he's doing his job. The public wanted it, he asked for it. That's his job. Arguing that it was or was not quid pro quo, or what he said in the letter, whether it was a perfect letter, who did what, all of that works against your argument, because the only argument that matters is was he doing what the public wanted him to do and was it legal? Yes, it was legal. Yes, the public wanted him to do it. And here's the next part. Was there another way to get there? Could the President have let it Happen at, say, the Department of Justice level? Well, not if you have any experience in these things. If you have any experience with big organizations, any experience with probably dealing with countries. I'd imagine that for something that big, that's a pretty big ask. You need to get the president's approval and you need to get him to say it. If he doesn't say it, even his own people aren't going to do it. And part of the reason for having it, a public statement is that it's talking to the Ukraine. It's not just talking to the United States and helping the president for his reelection, although it definitely does that. It would be helping the president of Ukraine make sure that people understood he wanted it so it could get done. If they think he doesn't want it, they're not going to do it anyway. I saw Andy Ngo. Ngo. No, I think I'm pronouncing it right. Who was just banned by Twitter. I don't know how long, but he got banned by Twitter for saying, I wonder if I'll get banned for just saying it. Somebody says, blah, blah, blah. Scott said Whiteley. So he got banned from. From Twitter for arguing that transgender murders are mostly committed by black men. And I thought to myself, well, if you get banned for. I don't know if that's the reason he got banned, by the way, because Twitter is not that specific. But I thought to myself, well, that's the sort of thing you don't want to say without a little more explanation. You know, that's one of those things you need to soften with a little context. Because what he said may or may not be true. I have no idea. But you don't want to say it this way. The way he's saying it certainly makes your antenna go up and say, hey, why is he saying it like that? So I don't think that being banned from Twitter was appropriate for this comment. My personal opinion, but I can certainly see how someone else would take it differently. I can definitely see the other side of this, but I don't think it was the right decision to ban him. I assume that it's temporary, so it's no big deal. But he tweeted around in a separate thing, so this has nothing to do with him getting banned. He tweeted around a study that showed that was talking about people's feeling about their own ethnic group. And apparently, apparently conservatives like other ethnic groups. Fine. And they like their own ethnic group. So conservatives kind of like all the ethnic groups, according to this poll. But liberals like all the other ethnic groups except the white liberals don't like themselves. So white liberals have actually a super negative opinion of white people. And I suppose we knew that, but to see it on the graph was kind of funny and shocking. All right. I didn't realize there was so much self hatred going on, but apparently there's a lot of it. And here's the thing I don't understand. How can anybody take pride in their ethnicity? Why is that even a thing? I suppose I see it differently because I'm sort of a mixture of different stuff. Now, in my case, all the stuff that's my mixture turns out to be all, know, white person stuff from Europe. But I've never identified with a country or a specific ethnicity except for being generically white. I'm kind of a mutt. Yeah, somebody used the same word. So I'm kind of a mutt. So because I'm a mutt, I don't think I've ever had a strong ethnic identification except for what visually I am. And when I see, when I see racists say that, you know, yay, white people invented everything. And I've said this before, what are the racists thinking? Because the racist didn't invent anything. Like the person who's actually saying, hey, white people invented everything. Well, that racist didn't invent anything. Why is he taking credit for what other people did? Because they sort of look similar. Pigment, tone. You don't get credit for my accomplishments. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All racists. If I succeed, you don't get any credit because you're also white. How does that work? It doesn't make any sense. Racism isn't something you could agree with or disagree with. It doesn't make any sense on its surface. Like, what's it even mean? How do I get credit for what other people did? How does that work? It's not even a thing. But likewise anybody who's. Anybody who is saying good or bad things about an entire ethnicity. How does that even make sense? I've never understood it because individual differences are so tremendous. I mean, there are great individual differences within a family, even if everybody is the same stuff. So I mean, the individual differences are so overwhelming that I've never really understood racism as a concept. I just don't understand it. I understand it exists. Tucker Carlson apparently said when I wasn't paying attention because I was on his show last night, but I didn't watch every minute of it because I was traveling to and fro. And apparently he said that Michelle Obama might enter the race. And he had some good, let's say, circumstantial evidence for it, including the fact that Obama is holding back on his nomination or on his endorsement. She's got a new book out, so she'll be in the public. She's got a great reputation. So there are a few other things I'm going to say. No way. So my prediction, just to put it out, there is no way Michelle Obama gets into the race. But remember I said that about Bloomberg. I said, Bloomberg's not so dumb. He's going to get into this race because he can't win. But somebody on Twitter said maybe his game is simply to hurt Trump for the benefit of whoever does get the primary nomination. So it might be that he's just running because he'll get lots of anti Trump attention and it will change the mix of things. But then last night when I was at the Commonwealth Club, my interviewer, slash co host, if you want to, I don't know what the right name would be, but the person on the stage with me, Melissa Kean, had a theory that I thought was pretty good. So here's a theory that you probably haven't heard unless you were at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last night for why Bloomberg might be running, even though you and I can tell it's ridiculous because he's not going to get elected. And it goes like this. Consultants make a lot of money if they're working for a rich candidate. Were there any really persuasive consultants, people who wanted to get hired by Bloomberg to help his campaign? Were there any very persuasive consultants who convinced him it was a good idea? Now, I hate to be unkind to the elderly, but you can tell that, like Joe Biden, Bloomberg has lost a step. It's kind of obvious when you see him talk. And it makes me wonder if he's sort of reached an age where he can be, let's say, unduly influenced by people who would have a tremendous financial incentive to do that. And I thought to myself, thank you, Mark. I thought to myself, how likely is that that Bloomberg simply got talked into it by consultants who just wanted to get paid to run his campaign? And I thought to myself, what are political consultants except persuasion experts? If persuasion experts get you in a room and tell you you should run for president, are you going to leave the room thinking you shouldn't? They're literally persuasion experts. They run campaigns. They know how to talk people into things. They know how to frame things. So I think that's actually a pretty good hypothesis. We may never know the answer, but let's throw that on the list. And I feel bad that it didn't occur to me. Like, when you hear it, you say, oh, yeah, that's at least possible. All right, Charlie Kirk has an interesting article on Fox News website. You've heard the Democrats talking about how they can chew gum. They can walk and chew gum at the same time, and they're talking about they can do this impeachment stuff, but at the same time they can do their jobs in Congress. Is there any evidence that that's true? Nope. All the evidence is that they can't walk in chew gum in this context. And Charlie Kirk has a good article on that. And he calls out the USMCA as being an obvious example. The USMCA is something that Democrats and Republicans like. They both like it and they can't get it done. Why? Because they're busy. Is there any other reason? Now it's not just busy. They don't want to give the president a win at the same time they're trying to impeach him. So your impeachment process isn't going to go as well if you're handing out wins for the person you're trying to impeach. So is it true this is what Charlie Kirk says? This is one of the sentences from his article. He says, contrary to their boasts, the Democrats are violently choking on their gum while stumbling blindly toward defeat in the 2020 elections. Violently choking on their gum while stumbling blindly toward defeat. That's a good sentence. I probably would have gotten rid of the adverbs, but it's funny the way it is. All right, So let's say I think I've hit my high points, but let me check my notes because I don't want you to go away thinking there was something we should have talked about and didn't. I think we hit it. I think we hit it. All right, Nunes. So there's some weird story about Devin Nunes allegedly went to Ukraine, but apparently he didn't. It's just another fake news thing. So he's suing some people. Tucker said Assad was innocent of the gas attacks. Well, there is a finding that says that. Right. If you recall. Fact check me on this. I want to check your memory. Most of you have been watching my periscopes for some time. Did I not say that when the gas attacks in Syria happened, the very ones that the president ended up sending missiles into the Russian airport? Did I not tell you that that was probably fake. I believe it is. And here's why you should think that's fake. Every time there's any trouble in that part of the world, somebody's going to stage a fake, fake disaster, fake death, fake gas attack. It's just basic. I think you saw that with the Kurds. The Kurds had a video of a mother holding her little baby that was allegedly dead, but obviously was not dead. So you should expect. You're always going to see the fake ones. Even if there's a real one, you're still going to see fake ones because you can't get enough. Okay, yeah. Anna Navarro not getting suspended. Yeah. So Anna Navarro had a funny tweet about the black vote. Remember the rule I told you that you can be offensive if you're also funny. If you're very funny, you can be very offensive, and people will get that it's more about the joke. But if you're offensive and you're trying to be funny and you miss the funny part, well, then you get kicked off of Twitter. Anna Navarro, who is a rabid anti Trumper, had a very funny tweet, which actually made me laugh when she was talking about. So there was a survey that showed 34% of African Americans in the United States support President Trump, and there were two separate polls. I think it was Emerson and Rasmussen. And so Anna Navarro tweeted that there was zero chance that that was accurate unless the poll was taken inside the homes of. What did she say? Inside the homes of Kanye West, Ben Carson and the sheriff guy with a hat. The sheriff guy with the hat. So if I'm being fair, you know how often I like to separate the technique from whether I agree with the message. So I don't buy off on her message, but her tweet was actually kind of funny. You know, the sheriff guy with the hat. Everybody knows who that is. It's hilarious. And, yeah, she threw diamond and silk under the bus there, too. So. But the fun part of that is you could detect panic. Imagine if you're a Democrat and you're thinking, oh, I think. I think we've got a chance of beating him. I think we can beat Trump. You know, we just play our cards right, get the right candidate, we can beat Trump this time. And then a poll comes out to say that Trump has 34% African American support. Anything over 10% would pretty much guarantee him a landslide reelection. Now, I'm going to agree with Anna Navarro here, and she said there's zero chance that the poll is accurate. I agree There is zero chance that poll is accurate. Now, I do think the president's black support will be up, but that's a lot. And I think it probably. This is just speculation, but probably it had to do with the way the question is asked. Because if you ask, are you going to vote for Trump? I think you get a different answer. I don't think 34% of people are going to vote for Trump. But it wouldn't Surprise me if 34% look around at the country and say, you know, I don't see any problems. I got a job. You know, employment's good. The president keeps talking about black issues. He's talking about, you know, prison reform. He seems to be doing good stuff. So I'm not surprised at all that 34% of African American voters have a positive feeling about Trump's, you know, Trump's performance. That should not surprise you at all. In fact, it should be higher if they're being objective, which is hard to do. But I wouldn't translate that into votes. Would not translate that into votes. Yeah. And Mayor Pete has just about zero. So the candidates we know can't win are the ones who don't have black support by now. You would see it by now. Now, I know that Biden has sort of absorbed most of it, so maybe you have to wait for Biden to leave the race before you can see how it trickles down. But I don't see Warren getting it, and I don't see Buttigieg getting it, and I don't see Yang getting it. So you have to ask yourself, who will be left in the race who could also get the black vote in a dominant way? You know, not just majority, but a really super dominant way, the way Hillary Clinton could have or did, really. And Obama did. And I think there are not many people. There are not many people in that group. Kamala, Cory Booker, and probably Bernie. I think Bernie, if he got the nomination, could probably do all right with the black vote. Because there's no. I don't think anybody's disliking Bernie. But if you look at a Bernie crowd, how many black people do you see in the crowd? That's sort of a. Do me a fact check on that. If you had a photo of a Bernie Sanders event, let me call one up. Bernie Sanders rally. So I'm just going to look at some images when I searched for Bernie Sanders rally, and I'm just going to blow up one of the photos, turn it sideways, and I'll tell you what I see. So you probably can't see it. I don't see any African American. Oh, maybe one. It's hard to tell. I'm not really good at judging people's ethnicity just from the photo. But yeah, of course, you can't trust the photos of who's behind the candidate because those are actually selected for the visual effect. So I guess I can't tell from this. You'd have to see the larger crowd, not the ones behind the candidate, because they're selected for the camera. But even when Bernie had his commercial last election, it was an award winning commercial where everybody was streaming toward the ocean to hear Bernie. I don't think there were a lot of black people in that picture. So. Maybe Bernie. Anyway, I'm sticking with my Kamala Harris prediction because she's higher in the polls than Cory Booker and probably the only one who could lock down the black vote. She's actually saying that somewhat directly now by calling it the Obama coalition. And sooner or later, the people in charge over at the DNC are going to agree. Now, remember I told you that Harris has the second most endorsements. I think Biden, is it Biden or Warren has the most. I forget, but she has the second most. But she has the most major endorsements for a candidate who could also win or at least win the primary and make a good run at the presidency. So I'd say she's still dangerous. And I will point out again that her biggest problem was that laughing like a little girl at her own jokes. And it looks like she stopped doing it. So we're gonna have to give her a little more exposure on camera for me to be sure that that's the case. But it looks like she's cleaned up her game, you know, just her presentation game. And if that's true, that's gonna make her a lot harder to beat. So keep an eye out for that. All right, I will talk to you all later.