Tucker Carlson: реакция на поражение Томаса Мэсси и «начало новой Америки»

Tucker\u2019s Official Response to Thomas Massie\u2019s Defeat and the Beginning of a New America

Источник: https://tuckercarlson.com/live-show-may-20-2026

[Транскрипт]

Tucker [00:00:00] I was thinking last night when Massey lost in Kentucky, I was thinkin' back to Trump's inauguration, the morning of the Trump inauguration which amazingly was only last year, last January, January 20th. And I was in Washington for that and Trump invited me to church on the morning before he was sworn in and so of course I went. And it was at St. John's, the Episcopal Church in Lafayette Square where pretty much every president has gone on the warning of the inauguration. So I showed up. Happens to be my denomination, the Episcopal Church. So I know the church pretty well. I know people who work there. So I was pretty excited about going and saying a prayer for this presidency. So I'm standing outside at maybe 6.45 in the morning and it is freezing. And if you've been to Washington in the winter, it's mostly pretty temperate, but the cold days are very cold. And there's something about the cold in a city that is biting, even if you like cold, it's tough. And this was probably 12 degrees and windy. And I remember that very well because we were standing in line, in a security line, waiting to go through the magnetometer and the Secret Service was there, there was whole rigamarole and dogs and they were taking forever. It's not their fault, but the protocols are complex. And it was awful staying there. They were kind of stamping our feet and grousing. Not many people, it was a pretty small church service, but the people were standing in line and were like, let's get going and get into church. And as we're standing there feeling freezing, waiting to be searched by federal law enforcement, A woman brushed by me on the left side, kind of walking fast, older woman, not very tall. And I recognized her and it was Miriam Adelson. And she blew past me and everybody else in line. It went right to the front, right to magnetometer announced who she was and walked on in. And I thought to myself, Miriam, Adelson, who I know vaguely, not really, but I knew that she was the biggest or one of the biggest donors to the Trump campaign. An Israeli born in Israel, widow of Sheldon Adelson, the biggest Republican donor, the casino magnet, but more than anything, a fervent neocon.

Her main issue is American support for Israel. She says this, it's not a secret, and she spends accordingly. And she brushes past me, I remember thinking this, and everybody else, and just walks right in like she owns the place. And I remember think, hmm. I hope this isn't an omen. I hope it's not a sign of things to come. It feels a little bit like a metaphor. I hope that's not real. So I kind of sublimated it, tried not to think about it. Finally got into church, sat alone in a pew with Charlie Kirk, had a great time. We were both almost jubilant really that Trump had been elected. We didn't think he would, but he did. And we were thrilled, not just because we liked Trump, which we did, because he's hilarious and fun to talk to and interesting and but because he ran on ideas that we agreed with really strongly. And first among them was the idea, self-evident really, that the U.S. Government ought to serve, in fact it exists to serve the interests of American citizens. And it really has no other role in the world. Doesn't mean it has to strike a bellicose posture toward anyone else. Hurting other people isn't necessary, but helping your own people is the only reason you exist if you're the U S government or one of its many employees. And the American president should proceed from that commitment. I am here to serve my people as a father does with his children, an officer with his men, et cetera. That's leadership.

Service to the people you lead and a love for those people. And both of us were convinced at the time that Donald Trump was that man, that he was truly America first. And then because he was, this would be great moment for our country, a much needed relief from a worldview that put America at the bottom of its concerns, but that would also change the Republican party, which was meaningful because the Republican party along with Trump had just taken total control of the country. Both. Houses in Congress, House and Senate, the White House, majority of the Supreme Court appointed by Republicans. The Republicans were in charge and we hoped and at the moment we believed that the Republican Party would change along with Trump its new leader and that it would change in one specific way. It would come to put the concerns of Americans first. Period. That's it. We can argue about how best to serve them, but serving them has to be the goal. And so we imagine, Charlie Kirk and I, we may have talked about this in the pew, that we would see the Republican party suddenly populated by a lot of people like, well, like Thomas Massey. I can't remember if we actually talked about Thomas Massee, but we had before, and Charlie Kirk had talked a lot about Thomas Massie, and Charlie Cook loved Thomas Massy, not just as a person because he was honest and decent, but because Thomas Massay's orientation was purely about. What's best for the country. And again, he said it many times, including in this representative interview of Thomas Massey.

Here's Charlie Kirk.

Soundbite [00:05:03] He loves liberty. He's honest and he's tough. And he's gonna really go after the intel agencies. It's Thomas Massey, who's just terrific from Kentucky. Congressman Massey welcome to the program. This might sound like a strange question, but I know it's on everybody's mind. You're going to be on the committee that will oversee the most powerful institutions on the planet, the FBI, the CIA, maybe the IRS. Are you concerned for your own safety and or what they might try to blackmail you? Oh, absolutely. You'd be, by the way, you're not qualified to be on this committee if you don't realize that there will be an effort to discredit me.

Tucker [00:05:46] It's poignant and honestly kind of fascinating in retrospect to hear Charlie Kirk express alarm at the behavior of the intel agencies who are afraid they're gonna kill you or blackmail you, he says to Thomas Massey. Charlie Kirk was thinking about that even then. It was only eight months after the inauguration, less than, that Charlie Kirk, of course, was murdered, assassinated in public in a very, very strange shooting. And at around the same time, Donald Trump pivoted from the promises that we at the time believed to become something completely different. It would have been unimaginable for us sitting in those pews at St. John's across from the White House on the morning of the inauguration to picture Donald Trump covering up the Epstein files, encouraging more secrecy, encouraging surveillance, more spying on Americans, to be encouraging data centers across the country to abet that surveillance. And above all, it would have been stunning for us. In fact, we wouldn't have been able to comprehend it that morning in January of last year that Donald Trump would be cheerleading a regime change war in the Middle East against Iran of all Middle Eastern nations, the biggest and most powerful. Because both of us understood the point of Donald Trump and the reason that we supported him was because he would never do anything like that. That morning, the morning of the inauguration, both Charlie Kirk and I believed that Donald Trump had meant what he said in speech after speech, in public, in conversations with us, endless conversations with both of us on this exact topic. And so if you're trying now to remember the Donald Trump that we thought was real on the morning, of the Inauguration, here's a reminder. This is a speech that Trump gave in 2020.

Soundbite [00:07:32] Biden shipped away our jobs, threw open our borders, and sent our youth to fight in these crazy endless wars. And it's one of the reasons the military, I'm not saying the military is in love with me, the soldiers are. The top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they wanna do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy. Let's bring our soldiers back home. Some people don't like to come home. Some people like to continue to spend money One cold-hearted globalist betrayal after another, that's what it was.

Tucker [00:08:11] One cold-hearted globalist betrayal after another. That's what it was. And he was right. That's exactly what it. One cold hearted globalist betrayal after another betrayals of the United States and its future, the future of our children, including the children that your children may not have because of those betrayals. Charlie Kirk was very upset about this. He was articulate in explaining why he was upset about it. And he sincerely believed that Trump would change it. Trump and people like Thomas Massey. It's hard to imagine what he would think about the remarks that Donald Trump, the same man that he voted for and campaigned for and what to pray for in the church the morning of the inauguration. What he would have thought of the Donald Trump on display yesterday when he said this, watch.

Soundbite [00:08:56] I'm right now at 99% in Israel. I could run for prime minister, so maybe after I do this, I'll go to Israel, run for prime minister. I had a poll this morning, I'm 99%, so that's good.

Tucker [00:09:09] The President of the United States bragging about his popularity in a foreign country. I'm 99% in Israel. Unmentioned is the fact that he's 35% in the United States. 35% support from Americans, the people he pledged to represent, to fight for, whose side he promised to take in every conflict, foreign and domestic. And yet there he is bragging about how popular he is in a foreign country. The same country that got us into the war that is causing, to some extent, his unpopularity in this country. Speaking of cold-hearted globalist betrayals. Now you can say, well, that's just Trump searching for affirmation wherever he can. Unpopular at home, he retreats into the fantasy of his popularity in another country. Well, yes, true. But it's not a one-time exhibition of this. That president has spent the last year, toward the approval of other nations That president has spent the last year fighting for people who are not his voters and in many cases not even Americans and Allowing his own country to languish The last year has not made America great again. The last Year has diminished American power at a rate some of us thought was unimaginable We couldn't have foreseen Less than a year and a half ago, sitting in St. John's, the damage that this administration led by that president, for whom we campaigned and liked personally, could do to this country. How did this happen?

Well, historians are going to have to figure that out. What was the change? Was Donald Trump a sleeper cell the entire time, working on behalf of Benjamin Netanyahu while pretending to be an America First patriot? Maybe. Hard to imagine that. This is someone who tends to externalize everything, who tends say what he's thinking, probably doesn't have the self-control to be a long-term sleeper agent. And so if that's true, if Trump really did change completely, not just by six degrees, but by 180 degrees, what caused the change? What was the moment where Donald Trump decided I really don't care what the people voted for me think? In fact, I don't think I like them very much. And what I really care about is what a foreign prime minister and some weird casino magnet think of me. Who knows? What caused that change? But the change is demonstrable. When did you first notice? I'll tell you when I first noticed, it was last summer.

And the spark wasn't the war with Iran. Well, out of nowhere, the president, who had effectively told his voters that he would declassify the Epstein files, along with the files pertaining to all kinds of controversial and much discussed events around which conspiracy theories have grown, notably the JFK assassination, but not just that, all of them, there's too much secrecy in the federal government. That's what the president the now president said again and again. Why is there secrecy? Because secrecy hides corruption. You can't be corrupt in the open, of course. You need to be shielded by secrecy. By the way, this is a president who was indicted and threatened with the rest of his life in prison for violating secrecy laws. Secrecy laws which were not written to protect American national security, of course not, and they haven't. They didn't prevent Jonathan Pollard stealing our key military secrets and giving them to the Israeli government, which promptly gave them to Soviets that didn't help at all. No, those laws were written to prevent you, the people who pay for the federal government, from learning what the federal government is actually doing. Secrecy abets corruption. It's obvious. None of this can thrive in sunlight. It dies, famously. And so... The pledge, the promise, the core promise behind America First and Drain the Swamp and every other slogan, all of which I loved, I'll just say it, and love to this day, the pledge behind all of those was to let people know what their own government is doing, both because they have a right to know and because once they do know, the corruption will stop. It's about corruption. It's about a justice system that does not treat every person as a citizen, much less a child of God, but treats them as members of castes. And members of some castes have to obey the law and members of other castes don't. There's not equal treatment under the law, therefore there is no justice. Therefore, the most basic promise of America, which is that you will be judged by what you do, is invalid, and so is democracy itself. How can you vote for things if you don't know what they are? Well, you can't. You have no control in a world where the most important facts are hidden from you. And that obvious observation, which spoke not just to Republicans, but to a lot of non-Republicans famously, people who made up the Trump 2024 coalition, that promise was the promise. The government will work for you and you alone, and you will know that because you're gonna know what the government is doing.

Because, of course! Foreign lobbying of your government or lobbying by big farm or lobbying, by anybody of your government is by definition corruption because it gives more weight to the preferences of a small group of people than to the majority. It's a betrayal to corruption of democracy. It is corruption. And there is probably no figure in modern history who embodies corruption more perfectly than Jeffrey Epstein, not because he was the worst person who ever if he wasn't. He was just an employee in a much larger structure. He wasn't making independent decisions. Come on now. But he got away with it. Jeffrey Epstein somehow won Powerball in the state of Oklahoma and collected almost $30 million. Jeffrey Epsteine won Power Ball. Okay now. How'd that happen? Wasn't from Oklahoma. No one's ever explained how he won. The feds looked into it. No explanation. He just somehow collected almost $30,000,000 from Powerball. Okay now, so what's the lesson there? The lesson, and the reason it's funny, is because the system is rigged. And everyone knows it's rigged, and Epstein proves that it'srigged. And at some point it was rigged apparently against Epstein. How do we know that? Well, because on July 6th, 2019, he was arrested at Teterboro Private Airport outside New York City on a flight from Paris, and he was charged with basically the same crimes he'd been charged with back in 2006 by the state of Florida. Now, you would think that that would be... Not allowed. Double jeopardy while the feds made the case. Well, those were state charges. These are federal charges, but he had a federal non-prosecution agreement. It's not a defense of Jeffrey Epstein, of course. It's merely noting the obvious, which is what the Justice Department did to Jeffrey Epsteine in 2019 was very weird. And no one has ever explained why they did that. But what we do know is that a month and three days after he was arrested at T-Way Airport, he was dead and he was murdered. So what does that add up to? Well, I don't know. Draw your own conclusions. Here you have a guy who's entangled with multiple intel agencies from a bunch of different countries, notably the United States and Israel, but also British intelligence, probably the French, the usual panoply. And he's running around the world as an arms dealer and a connector, and he's got some relationship to 9-11. What is that? And he wins Powerball. He's operating at the highest levels. He's not running anything, but he's operating in those levels, And he knows a lot. A lot a lot. And one day he is summoned back from Paris and arrested and a month later he is murdered. So it stands to reason that anyone involved in any of that probably had direct involvement in his murder. No one ever asked these questions. That's not considered interesting because it's not related to sex. But it may be a little bit closer to the heart of why this is such a touchy subject for this administration.

Because keep in mind, Donald Trump was president in 2019. And it was his attorney general, Attorney General Barr, the son, strangely, of the man who had given Jeffrey Epstein his first job teaching at the Dalton School and then helped get him a job at Bear Stearns and then launched him into whatever world he occupied until he was murdered. Under the authority of Attorney General Barr. Kind of weird. Well, so weird that at very least it demands an explanation which we've never received. In any case, probably not gonna receive one anytime soon because the president who could explain it was remarkably touchy about the subject. Very, very touchy. And whenever it came up, and this was a shock to a lot of his supporters, He didn't just brush it off and say, oh yeah, we'll get to that after we fix the economy and lowered gas prices and made it possible for your son to get a job. No. His response was, well, hysterical.

Shut up! Anyone who asks about Epstein is not my supporter and I don't want your support. He said that in a truth social post at the time last summer. Look it up. And so for those of us who campaigned for Trump and voted for him and liked him, the first thought was, what is this? Isn't the whole point of your administration to drain the swamp? Isn't this why you got elected? So you could end this two-tiered system where some people get to molest kids and win Powerball in Oklahoma and everything's fine until they're murdered somehow, but no one could ever figure out how. And the rest of us who get arrested for having three beers and driving to 7-Eleven. Get arrested because you make a mistake on your tax form. Not all of us have a Department of Justice ordered respite from federal audits. Some of us are subject to federal audits. And know that we'll get them if we step out of line. So it would be nice. And again, this was the promise of the campaign and of the administration and the reason that some of us filed into church, though behind Miriam Adelson, on that cold morning a year and a half ago. Why would Donald Trump shut down any, not just investigation into, but any conversation about the guy who embodies the corruption he was elected to end? That thought has never left my mind and probably the mind of a lot of other people. Was Trump involved in some weird sex thing? Probably not, actually. That might be better than the actual answer.

And the actual answers may be that Donald Trump is covering up for exactly the people he was elected to expose. So that was the moment. Well, apparently Thomas Massey didn't get the memo, but that is totally off limits. Talk about whatever you want. You can make fun of Kamala Harris's teeth, but you don't talk about Epstein, because the whole point of the Republican party is to make sure that we don't talk about Ebstine. Isn't that right? Isn't he what he became a Republican? Thomas Massey didn't get the memo and he started saying in his kind of autistic forthright way, what about Epstine? I want to know about Epsteine. And rather than just brush him off or blow him off or ignore him, Donald Trump fixated on him and began to hate Thomas Masse. And in a move that may reveal what the Epstein story is really about, he made common cause with some of his biggest donors. Those would include Paul Singer. Paul Singer, a liberal who is somehow one of the biggest donors in the Republican Party and John Paulson and of course, Miriam Adelson. And they colluded in effect to destroy Thomas Massey. Now, Thomas Massey, in addition to calling for more disclosure of the Epstein documents, which, by the way, belong to the citizens of the United States, they aren't the personal property of any federal bureaucrat. They belong to people of the country. Who also, by they way, own the federal detention center in which Epstein was murdered and are therefore owed an explanation of who murdered him and why, and why isn't that person been arrested? In any case, Thomas Massey demanded this. But Thomas Massey also had another distinction, another asterisk by his name. Out of 217 Republicans in the Congress, Thomas Masse is the only one who's never taken money from the Israeli lobby. He's the only. And Thomas Massee has never been opposed to Israel in any sense. You can search the archive for Thomas Massea attacking Israel or Jews or anything on the topic. Doesn't seem that interested. Thomas MasSE's position. Is a principled one and a consistent one going back decades.

The United States has a lot of problems and maybe first among them is a debt problem. United States is bankrupt, beyond bankrupt. United States so deeply in debt that its creditors are worried and we cannot afford to send any more foreign aid to anyone that would include Egypt and it would very much include the largest recipient of foreign aid by far. Which is Israel, which is not strategically important to the United States in any sense. We receive nothing of value from Israel, nothing. And when you compare whatever tech we receive, the spyware on our phones, against the cost in dead Americans and in American dollars and in the total isolation now of the United states, which is in part the result of our alliance with Israel, it's not a good deal for us. And so Thomas Massey has stood alone all of these years? He's made zero headway in stopping aid to Israel, or in even changing minds about Israel, but he has persisted in his lonely, principled campaign against foreign aid. And so because of that, Trump colluded with three of his donors, including his biggest, Mary Madelson, to destroy Thomas Massie and to end his career in Congress by beating him in the Republican primary in the fourth district of Kentucky, a place we can bet Mary Madeleine has never been to and could not find on a map and in which she has no real interests. And that makes you wonder, well, why would she and her fellow neocon billionaires spend tens of millions of dollars to kick Thomas Massey out of the Congress? And of course, because Israel. That's it. Thomas Massey criticized not Israel, but America's relationship with Israel, and that can't be allowed. What's interesting is that it wasn't just Trump, and it wasn't just his donors, Mary Magdelson and Paul Singer and Paulson and the rest. It was the entire American news media, left and right. Here's CBS News interviewing Thomas Massey about his race and really one of the remarkable clips of the past month. Watch this.

Soundbite [00:24:53] There have been more than $32 million spent on a primary in this congressional district, which is now the most expensive house primary ever in the United States. You'd have to ask Miriam Adelson on May 20th if it was worth it because, you know, they tried to buy my vote for 14 years and it was never for sale. Now they're trying to buy a seat here in Kentucky. You know that kind of criticism doesn't sit well with fellow Republicans, at least in the House Republican Conference, that there are others who have accused you of all sorts of things regarding Israel, regarding the state of Israel, regarding Israeli government, regarding Jewish Americans. Are you anti-Semitic? They're trying to tell you that it's anti-Semitic for me to expose the fact that the Republican-Jewish coalition has spent millions of dollars in this race. That a dual citizen, Miriam Adelson, who even Trump says is more loyal to Israel than the United States, has spent billions of dollars in this raise, those are mere facts. And it's really- You can't say yes or no, are you anti-semitic or not? Oh, hell no, I'm hell no anti-semitic. But here's the danger that AIPAC runs. They've been too cute by half. They've tried to get Mike Johnson, and he's willingly done this, conflate in resolutions on the House floor that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism. Or even worse yet, that if you don't support Benjamin Netanyahu's war in Gaza, then you're anti-semitic. That's absolutely false, and it does Jewish Americans a big disfavor to equate the two.

Tucker [00:26:29] You gotta wonder what that kid from CBS News is being paid and does he ask himself, is it worth it? So he, of course, asked the question to Massey, which is not a question, it's slander posing as a question. Are you an anti-Semite? There's no evidence Massey's an anti Semite. He's never said anything, not one thing anti Semitic ever because he's not an anti Semi. Are you anti Semy? To which Massey says no, actually the Republican Jewish coalition is spending millions to beat me because I don't believe in sending more money to Israel, too. Fund their genocide against the Palestinians. I shouldn't say that, but that's what this is about. Should the United States government pay for a genocide? No, would be the answer for most people. But the reporter doesn't even listen to it. Are you an anti-Semite? Yes or no? So, it almost was Massey. He said, well, yeah, yeah. Well, I'm an anti Semite. But, I mean, what? Are you anti Semites? So, the reporter gets to say it twice. Anti Semite, anti Semitic. When Massey's critique of Our foreign aid package to Israel has nothing to do with Judaism, Jewish ethnic identity, it has no connection whatsoever to blood libel or well poisoning or any of the historical examples that are often dredged up to compare people like Thomas Massey to, you're a Nazi. He's in no sense a Nazi, in fact he's an anti-authoritarian, unlike the reporter from CBS News who's bludgeoning him over the head with slander. So you may say to yourself, well, of course, that's CBS News. You may not even be aware that that was bought by a Huge contributor to the IDF, the Israel Defense Forces. And part of the rationale, maybe the main rationale for having CBS News at all at this point is to ask questions like that. If you didn't know those facts, you might think, well, that's just the mainstream media, the lame stream media using the same tactics they always have, slander, innuendo, attacks posing as questions, not bothering to listen to the answer, totally interested in the reality of anything, pushing an agenda. And you'd be right. But what's so revealing is that it wasn't just liberal mainstream CBS news. It was what's often incorrectly described as the far right, the far right, far right. Meaning, I don't know, anyone who's against mass migration, who raises his voice or something. But that would include Mark Levin, someone who spent a lot of his life denouncing the lame stream media. And yet if you listen to Mark Levin's critique of the Massey race, it's identical to the CBS News critique of the race, which is Massey has no valid points. It's impossible to imagine Massey could be opposing aid to Israel, except out of personal hatred, animus out of antisemitism. It's impossible to imagine any Americans could support something so crazy as not sending billions to Israel. So the only people supporting Massey must be radical jihadists. Here's Mark Levin.

Soundbite [00:29:40] I'm looking at the support from Massie! It's the most radical jihadis in our country. It is Democrats. It is Tlaib. I mean, think of it's Rand Paul. The reprobates, the misgrants, and I underscore the malcontents, are moving behind Massey Thank you. And they're raising tons of money. And Massie is supported by all the elements that support Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Iran. Why is that? He's supported by. American haters and Jew haters and many of the Christian haters in this country. Why is that?

Tucker [00:30:31] They support Islamic Jihad, whatever that is. It's actually not so ludicrous and it's funny. It's precisely what the CBS News guy just said to him. Well, clearly you're a Jew hater. You're an anti-Semite. And Massey is the perfect foil for this because he sincerely isn't. He doesn't even fully understand what the guy's talking about. No, I just don't think we should send money to a foreign country. They're mad at Massey. Why? One. Republican out of 217 who hasn't taken money from the Israeli lobby, why are they so mad at him? Why was it so important for the Israeli Lobby to spend tens of millions of dollars to crush this guy who wasn't? Stopping really the status quo in any way. He did help get some of the Epstein files, some of the Epsteen files released and God bless him for that. He tried his hardest, but one man against 216 other members of his party is not going to get very far by definition. So when he's leave him alone, why force the issue? Why is he so mad at this guy? Why is Trump so mad?

Why is Mary Madelsen so mad and of course the answer is because Thomas Massey was willing to say out loud that there is an Israel lobby. There is a foreign country. Whose supporters in the United States, in positions of prominence, are making campaign contributions purely on the basis of what's good for a foreign country. Their loyalty is not to the United states, it's to a foreign county. Well, that's just true, it's just a fact, but you can't say that. Why can't you say it? Well, because it's true, that why. If it was a lie, if you were claiming the earth was flat, they'd ignore you. But precisely because it is true, it's the truest thing. In fact, it is the definitive fact in American politics, you're not allowed to say it. And he did. Now, why do we say that's true? Isn't that an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory? Well. I don't know. Let's go to the Israeli press, which for all its many faults is a little bit more honest. It's a little less constipated in its use of language. They can kind of say things out loud because who's watching? Haaretz, the traditionally liberal paper in Israel, publishes an English language edition. And here was its headline yesterday. Look at this. There it is. The most consequential Republican primary for Israel is happening in Kentucky. Now, why would the...

Republican primary in the 4th district of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, a place doubtless most Israelis had ever visited or can locate, why would that be so important for Israel? Well, because lots of things they tell you are not true are entirely true. First among them is Israel could not exist without the United States in its present form. Its ambitions would be at best vastly curtailed. Because everything outside its borders that Israel does is done with American tax dollars and with the backstop of the lives of American servicemen. So without that, the Greater Israel Project is done. Israel can exist in its 48 borders maybe, it probably can't hold on to its 67 borders. Which is to say, Gaza, West Bank, it's going to be a slog. Because the United States makes that possible. Israel's expansion is paid for and guaranteed by the United States taxpayer And anyone who says that out loud, that is absolutely true. There's nothing more true in global politics than that, but anyone who says it reveals the game and must be destroyed. And that's why even in Israel, they know that beating Thomas Massey is priority number one. But on its face, that sounds like an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. A Republican primary? In a minor Republican state? Not even a state of commonwealth, whatever that is, is being orchestrated from Israel with Israel's interests in mind, not America's interests. What are you, a Nazi? Not in Israel you're not if you say that because it's true and they said it. So Massey says, well, it's AIPAC, the Republican Jewish Coalition. They're the ones opposing me. It's not a groundswell of support from within. The district, for my opponent, Ed whatever his name is, Galrin or Galri, no one even knows how to pronounce his name. He's not a, I mean, is he a real person? I don't know. His only real meaningful campaign pledge is to bring back the draft. The draft? How many people are in support of a draft? How many of people of draft age are in supportive of a draft? None. Why would you want a draft, do the Joint Chiefs want a draugh?

Would it make the military better if we had a draough? Why would we have a draought? When entire wars are fought with drones, do we need a draft? Ed Galran or Galrein or whatever this composite figure is calling himself, wants a draft. Can you think of a more totalitarian and less popular position for any person running for office to take than I want a draft, vote for me and I will take your child and send him to go die for Israel. Is that actually a campaign pledge? He made that pledge. So Massey's point is this guy who refused to have a single debate with the incumbent, not one, who has no obvious support in the district, this guy only has a chance because APAC, from whom I've never taken a dollar, the only Republican who's never taken money from APAC. APAC is on his side. That's Thomas Massey position, to which CBS News and Mark Levin and all the other dumb people in MAGA WORLD. That's anti-Semitic, really now. Let's see what AIPAC has to say about it. Minutes after Massey was declared the loser AIPAK, AIPACK, the dreaded AIPCK, whose name we're not allowed to say, AIpack sent out this tweet in public on Twitter. Here's what they said. We're quoting, pro-Israel Americans are proud to help defeat anti-Israeli candidates. Being pro-Israel is good policy. And good politics, exclamation point. In other words, the second mass he loses, APAC announces, we did it. We did it, we bumped this guy off. He criticized us. We're literally an unregistered foreign lobby who exists not to help the United States or its citizens, but a foreign country that couldn't exist without our aid anyway, whose aims are so far from ours that they are hurting us gravely. Whose population may love Trump, but in a lot of ways hate Christian Americans. That's why they're spitting on nones.

That country doesn't like this member of Congress. Therefore, we're gonna take him out. And by the way, we did. Oh. So in other words, APAC is saying out loud something that if you said out loud might get you fired from your job. Or investigated by the Trump DOJ, which by the away has just announced a multi-city anti-antisemitism tour, led by Leo Terrell, the chief of anti-Semitism enforcement or something, a Fox News contributor with, I think, 11 IRS liens against him over more than 10 years, a guy who's sort of wonder, like, how'd you get into federal service if you have a problem paying federal taxes? We'll leave that between him and the IRS. Maybe he'll get his own exemption from IRS audits. We'll see. But that guy is leading a tour of the United States. To try and do something with the imprimatur of the Department of Justice, which is to say people with guns about the most pressing problem in this nation, which is criticism of Israel. Because yes, criticism of israel is now officially defined as anti-Semitism. So when they tell you you're committing anti-semitism, what they're saying is you're critical of a foreign nation, and that's now a crime. And rather than explain to you why it's so important and so good for you in the grandchildren you hope to have, to support Israel, like, you should get on board. This is a great deal. Israel's awesome.

Here's how they help us. Here's why you should be all in on Israel. Here's the thousands of children they've murdered in Gaza deserve to be killed because they were future terrorists. Now make your case, if you have a case, make it. Tell us what you think. Instead of doing that, the Trump administration is taking the position that noticing is hate. Just noticing it. That's hate. It's anti-Semitism. It's a crime. That's the official message from the Department of Justice, which is using your tax dollars to intimidate you into shutting up about something that AIPAC is bragging about publicly. It's hard to know what this is. I mean, clearly it's not a sincere effort to reduce anti-Semitism. If you're gonna gin up anti-semitism, you're going to make people feel bitter. If you wanted people to blame their problems on Jews, whoever they are, this is exactly what you would do. Of course. So it's an effort to reduce antisemitism and you wouldn't have Leo Terrell, the Fox News contributor, with... 11 IRS leans against him. That's your public servant, really? You wouldn't have that guy leading a multi-city tour to screech at you about how you're a bad person for not liking Israel. And by the way, possibly a criminal for not liking Israel, you wouldn't attack the only truly sacred right this country protects, which is the freedom of speech on behalf of a foreign country if you were trying to eliminate anti-Semitism. Of course not. This is something else. This is a humiliation exercise. This is designed to let you know that there is now a caste system in place under which skepticism of one group is a lot more serious than skepticism of another group. Another word for this that was very common on Fox News and in fact, it emerged many times from Donald Trump's mouth was identity politics. That's identity politics! We should instead have politics based on citizenship. If you're a citizen, you are equal to me under the law.

There are no distinctions beyond that. God may make distinctions beyond that, but we're not God, we're a government. And in our government, the people own the country, they are shareholders in this enterprise, and you treat them all the same until proven otherwise. That's our justice system. You can criticize anyone you want equally. Every American citizen is allowed to use the same words regardless of what his parents look like because we don't have castes, because that's why BLM was wrong. All of a sudden you had to worship black people like gods rather than just treating them like friends or neighbors or citizens or just people because that's what they are. That's what every person is. It's just a person. Good on a good day, bad on a bad day. Smarter, taller, richer, poorer, shorter, fatter, you know, different in some ways, but fundamentally all the same and equal under the law. Because this country is governed the same way heaven is governed by universal principles. If something is wrong, it is wrong for everyone. If something's okay, it's okay for everyone, we don't make those distinctions. Because when we do, it called corruption. That's what corruption is, different rules for me than for you. But all of a sudden, you have, led by this administration, the one that Charlie Kirk and I were so hopeful about in church that morning in January of last year, You have the most aggressive and the most threatening outbreak of identity politics maybe in this country's history. You have The Justice Department endorsing the idea that criticism of foreign nation is potentially a crime. And you have certain states banning it, like Florida under Ron DeSantis.

No, that's a hate crime. You can't criticize that country or our relationship with it. At the very same time, the people encouraging you to go along with this and threatening you if you don't are bragging that everything- you're not allowed to say is in fact true. That's all this is. It's a way to make it really clear. Jeffrey Epstein gets to win Powerball somehow. His murderers walk free. We're not even going to investigate it. But you watch yourself, watch yourself now. That's exactly what's going on. But maybe the most obvious example of what's going on happened last night. And it wasn't just the fact that Ed Galreen or whatever the guy's name is, who even knows who cares? As he won, somebody, and this was cruel, brought a video camera to his quote, victory party. Now, remember, this is a guy who just beat a seven term incumbent. And check the numbers on this. It's not that easy to beat an incumbent, a seven-term incumbent who is wildly popular, even by the standards of Republican states. Thomas Massey wasn't just popular, he was wildly popular in his district and the election results over the past seven terms prove that, look them up. So this guy had whatever his name is, just wins. And his one campaign promise is to draft your son and send him to Iran, but he wins anyway. How did he win? Well, obviously people were just so thrilled by the idea of a draft that they just lifted Ed Galrun under their shoulders and carried him across the finish line. And then they all streamed in to the victory hall for beers and high fives and maybe some brats. Do you imagine that must have happened?

People woke up one morning and realized their congressman, who we thought was honest and principled and decent, a family man whose four children love him, who built his own home, the embodiment of the America you thought you lived in, that's independent and has self-respect and reverence for God and nature, that's what you thought of him? And you realized, no, no no no, he's like a liberal who's actually being supported by the jihadis, who's like some kind of sex criminal, because that's who they told you, We need Ed Golleroon! The draft guy, and we're thrilled he got it. Well, let's take a look, let' take a peek at what election HQ last night at Ed's victory party actually looked like. Covered a lot of victory parties in my life, a lot, more than 10, and some loss parties, too. That's the weirdest thing I've ever seen. There's no one there. What percentage of the people in that room know Ed Galroon or are related to him? Are his neighbors were paid to be there? We don't know the answer. There's nobody there. So how did this guy win? Well, he won on mail-in ballots. And we'll sort of leave it to online sleuths to- determine whether that's legitimate or not. Who knows? Cause if you're willing to pour tens of millions of dollars into a Republican primary in the 4th district of Kentucky, you're probably willing to do whatever it takes. And maybe they did, we don't know that. Not alleging it. But we do know that's not what democracy looks like.

Democracy is the process by which people express their will. By which they say, this is how we want our country to be run because it's our country. Doesn't belong to Mary Madelson. Or Paul Singer, or Israel, or Big Pharma for that matter, or any other small group of rich people. It's not the plaything of billionaires. That doesn't belong to the oligarchs, it belongs to us. And here's what we want. And you can't ignore us because we're the owners here. And this is shareholders meeting and we're voting. And when people win in a race like this, there's evidence of it. And that evidence takes very familiar forms, enthusiasm, joy, and just sheer numbers. Like people show up, they can't believe it. We beat the evil Thomas Massey with his jihadi backers. This is a blow against Islamic jihad, whatever that is, Islamic jihad, which along with Hamas is one of the big problems in the fourth district of Kentucky. They've been very, very concerned about Islamic Jihad and Hamas and Hezbollah for a long time in Covington. But anyway, there was no such display. And so it makes you wonder, this election itself, was it another part of the humiliation ritual? Was it a way of saying to the rest of us, people sort of believed in democracy? It's all fake. We can get a guy whose last name we can't pronounce elected on a platform everybody in America hates because we can, because we're billionaires and you're not. And of course, our priorities are not aligned with yours. In fact, we hate your priorities and we hate you. We're gonna do this to you anyway. Even in Kentucky, we can do it. It's possible that's the message they were sending. Pretty certain, actually. So on one level, this is the saddest moment in a long time. It's not just the death of Thomas Massey's immediate political career, which may be resurrected. One never knows. It's obviously the death of MAGA, whatever that was. But it's also, of course the end of the Republican party. As we thought we knew it, the Republican Party of right now bears absolutely no resemblance to the Republican party we thought, we had just elected less than a year and a half ago. None at all. Its parties are completely different. Its slogans are completely different. It is not the same thing. And maybe there's a working majority somewhere of people who support the new priorities of the Republican party, but the question would be, where is that? Haaretz readers clearly do, they think that was the most important race in America. Amazing that they were following it. But in this country? And it's not bad because the one thing we know is that nothing will be the same after this. This is too much. They went too far. This is a victory, but it's likely a pure victory actually. Because we now know, because it's been confirmed, how the system actually works. And no, it's a democratic system. It bears no resemblance to a democratic system at all. A small number of people who are more concerned about a foreign country than our country decide who gets elected. No, that's not a hateful conspiracy theory. That's a demonstrable fact that they admit. So it's on the basis of that that we can proceed. And by that, I mean the truth, that the truth. What people whispered about those crazies on the internet has now been proven for everyone to see. Nothing will ever be the same again. And you gotta think it's gonna be a little better because there will be actual reform. We have gone too far. And so whatever comes next, whether it's in the Republican Party or outside it, is likely to be much more honest and direct and less ashamed, much more willing to tell the truth as uncomfortable as it may make some people. Because the truth is always worth telling, always. And a politics based on anything but the truth has always poisoned us. So yes, this is a low point. Is it the end point? Not at all. It's the beginning, maybe of something great. Rich Barris has been following this for a long time, not as a candidate, but as a pollster, as someone who is constantly measuring what people want and think. He's on the Republican side.

We think he's really insightful. There are not many pollsters we trust or ever want to talk to, but he's at the top of the list and he joins us now. Richie there. I'm here. Thanks for having me, Tucker. Thanks. Thanks so much for doing this. So that's my assessment of what we just saw. I think it's obvious that Massey would not have lost without the Republican Jewish Coalition and a few neocon billionaires weighing in on behalf of a foreign country. Do you think that's a fair read?

Rich Baris [00:51:05] Oh, 100%. I mean, just so the folks at home understand, we've never seen anything like you may have heard that this was the most expensive primary in history, but to give people at home an idea, primaries on the Republican side. In a district like this, you might spend a half, you may spend $500,000, maybe it goes to $2 million, Tucker. We have never seen anything like this. This isn't even an expensive media market, Kentucky for, you have Louisville, but this is not like a New York or California or even some of the Florida media markets. This was an insane amount of money and what does that buy you? Look, in the clip you just played, there was a guy that I noticed when I saw that clip. And he's waving around a white sign with a Sharpie marker written lower prices. He probably has no idea that one of the few appearances that his candidate made, he was asked about gas prices and the Iran war and he flatly said the Iran War was worth spiking gas prices. So look, that's what $35 million buys you. They drove up turnout, guys, this wasn't about APAC, it wasn't a referendum on APAC.

Just to give people an idea what I mean by that, APAC will never run ads. They didn't do it in the Chicago suburbs where they targeted a Democrat, it was anti-war and anti-foreign aid. You will never hear the ad and then at the end of the ad, it says, this message was paid for by the American right, APAC. They're very good at running these through other party groups and making the election about something else. And they made this election about loyalty to Trump. Is he loyal enough to Trump? Is he loyalty enough to the party? And some of the questions around some of the immigration votes and what do you do in a Republican primary with that? You drive up turnout with boomers. And that is the lesson here, Tucker. Thomas Massey was clobbering Ed Galrin with millennials 3 to 1. 3 to one, not 2 to 1, not 1 and a half to 1 younger people need to vote. And Republicans need to get it through their heads right now. You use the word I've been using. This was a Pyrrhic victory. Congratulations, you spent $35 million you needed in November to get rid of the last conservative in the US House of Representatives. To replace him with a neocon that the American people rejected 20 years ago and didn't elect Republicans again until Donald Trump's brand of America first came around. This is a Pyrrhic victory that they'll suffer for later.

Tucker [00:53:24] They've gotta know that!

Rich Baris [00:53:25] They do.

Tucker [00:53:26] Okay, do, okay, so do they, I mean, this is the end of the Republican Party, not just that I support it, I would never ever, it's, it would seem moral to support this, in my opinion, but anti-free speech, pro-killing, I means it's grotesque in every way, but it's also the end the Republican party that we had in the beginning of something new and deeply unpopular. They've got to know that.

Rich Baris [00:53:50] They do. And I'm just going to tell a story. I won't blow them up, but I'm being a pollster. Unfortunately, I get bombarded by donors and people who want to pick my brain because they think they're privileged and they're entitled to that phone call. But last night and having several conversations, three of them flatly told me when I was making the argument that, Okay, good job. You did it 35 million dollars to win by nine points Now compare that to when Donald Trump targeted Liz Cheney, folks, who was really a rhino, who was a neocon, who really supported never ending war. Liz Errington barely needed that amount of money and she thrashed Liz Chaney by more than 30 points. It was the biggest election defeat for any sitting incumbent in history, and it didn't require 35 million votes. So you beat him, you sent him home, he's gonna take 5% of his vote with him. Libertarians are gonna be mad. They're gonna do what they did to Republicans in 18, which is run candidates, independents and libertarians, pulling one and a half here, two and a two and half there, costing Republican seats because there will be races that close. That third party vote share actually cost them that race. And for what? And the answer basically was, we don't care about November. Stop worrying about November, that's something we can worry about later. The pendulum swings down the road. This is what I got out of it. And you said it and you addressed it in your monolog. They really do feel that Thomas Massey or anyone who opposes foreign aid, who doesn't support unfettered, give their unfetter support to Israel and their ventures in the Middle East. They cannot separate that from anti-Semitism. They think that that's their anti-semites in secret and they're couching, couching you know that anti-semitism in some phony philosophy that they can't you know vote for foreign spending and over the course of 45 minutes it dawned on me. They believe this. They really do believe it. At first, for a long time, I thought it was just junk, and it was this typical almost left-wing kind of use of how you expand the definition to impose a label on somebody like the left does with racism and xenophobia. Um, which causes a backlash because when you do that, you actually wind up creating more of what you're trying to put down, right? If you're constantly calling somebody anti-Semitic for having a difference in opinion over foreign policy, you're, you are almost assuredly going to create more anti-semitism, um, which by the way, Mark Levin called me an anti-semite for pointing out. And it's insane, but they, and I thought that, maybe they were just being careless and reckless by doing this and it really did dawn on me last night that they believe .

Tucker [00:56:27] They believe it. Is there any, I mean, if you think about what they're defending, so they're defending two things, one, the proposition that it's okay to be more loyal to a foreign country than your own country, and two, the behavior of that foreign country, which is not only out of bounds and unacceptable, but I mean, what Israel has done in the last two and a half years to people within areas it controls, murdering women and children by the tens of thousands, I That will never be forgotten in history. Is there any sense that you get that they're like ashamed of any of this? Is there, any sense of they're doing something wrong or is it entirely like displacement, like anyone who criticizes or notices it? They're the real criminals.

Rich Baris [00:57:09] Yeah, that's a good question. I think the answer is no. And the reason is, over the last year, I'm a public pollster, and my job is to conduct the research and not convey my own opinion, but try to get people to understand what voters are thinking and why they are thinking the way they are. And over the past year, just polling has been met with incredible blowback, and recently I reviewed this internal report. It's an Israeli government report. And basically admits they have a massive problem in the West, particularly among younger people in America. Israel's image has suffered badly. How are they going to confront this and how are they gonna overcome this and still keep their special relationship with the United States and alliances or at least friendly relations with other Western countries? Going through all of these bullets, they couldn't decouple what we were talking about either. Even in the, this is a government report.

They couldn't de-couple it. But also not one single prescription had anything to do with curbing Israel's behavior. And that concerned me because I mean, yeah, it all came down to censorship Tucker, right? Censorship, some form of coercion. We're going to do this. We going to lean on these people. We're gonna use our friendships and relationships here to address that group of people. None of it was dealing with curbing their own behavior and that is from, you know, for just public polls and point of view, that's their problem. One of the things that jumped out at me last year was it was different. It was something we've never measured before. Young Americans, and when I say young, I mean under 45, even those who identified as America first viewed what was happening in Gaza as a genocide. And we have never seen that before, right? I mean, typically the line that we all hear, like the Fox News lines, the human shields, the normal stuff, that worked for a very long time on people. I think younger people are less, they're less myth believing society. I don't think they are. Than boomers, for instance, and they're going to have to confront that reality. They just can't steamroll it because the more they try to steamroll over these people and their belief that they're entitled to their opinion, the more backlash they're gonna get. And they acknowledge they have this issue with the left, but here's what I think that they they're missing on from what is coming from the right now. I think people don't fully appreciate, especially millennial men who supported Donald Trump, Generation Z men who to Donald Trump. They don't appreciate that these voters, many of them never voted, they have no vote history or very little vote history, came out for Donald Trump in 24 because they believe that he and JD Vance were really their last chance. Their last chance at getting to write the ship in the country and to have a future that people who lived before them had, right? Their inheritance was being squandered, the economy is just garbage, it cost much to live, there's no point to go to school. Nobody is appreciating that they have this point of view and now they look, for better for worse, fair or not. They look at Israel with a little bit of contempt now because they feel like they derailed their presidency. They kind of hijacked it and whether you agree with that or not is kind of irrelevant. That's how they feel and if you don't address it, it's just going to blow up in your face because 10 years from now, the first boomers turned 80 this year, Tucker. Ten years from now, if Republicans can't put together a coalition like the one that supports Thomas Massey, you're not going to win a general election.

Tucker [01:00:33] So, I mean, that's so it, what you're saying, and I'm not denigrating in any way, I think it's really smart, but it's also basically the conclusion that anyone who's paying any attention or all would come to you. You don't have to be a pollster or a fluent in math. I mean no, I think, it's kind of self-evident what you just said. And I'm grateful that you said it. So anyone who is pushing the party into a series of positions that the public hates is by definition, trying to destroy the party, no?

Rich Baris [01:01:03] Yeah, this is the AB choice I was trying to convey to people before the Iran War, for instance. Which is, you have to decide, and if you're from the right, if you are of the right you'll understand this better, obviously. If you thought going into 2024, Democrats were the existential threat to the country. Lawfare, they were locking up a former president. He literally had to win in order to ensure he wouldn't spend potentially the rest of life in jail. I mean, we crossed the Rubicon Tugger before 2024. And if you truly believe that, then you would, nothing, nothing would come before that. The Iran war could crack the coalition up, could break up the Republican party, and it just isn't worth it, right? Because if you go back to democratic control, we're all in danger. We're literally in danger! So if you believe that line of argument, which I believe was a valid argument, I think that's why Donald, a big part of why Donald Trump was elected. Ciao! Pretty easily, right, compared to 16. If you believe that, then there's really no way to square how you would put that at risk for the interests of a foreign nation. There's no way that to put that together. You're either prioritizing the viability, the coalition health to make sure that you stay in power, or you're prioritizing something else. And if you're doing that, yeah, we have to conclude that you're just trying to break the party and honestly in the conversation I was talking about last night The truth is, and I think a lot of people at home don't know this, the truth is a lot of these people donate to Democrats anyway. Their issue is not whether or not Republicans control the House or the White House. They really don't care, guys.

As long as they have a majority, bipartisan majority, that preserves the foreign policy, you know, water spicket, you now, and preserves this special relationship, then they're good. That's their aim. They don't really care about the viability of the Republican Party. Stop because because they don't care about the country

Tucker [01:03:04] Of course. I mean, by definition, if your top issue is Israel, you should have no authority in the United States because you're by definition disloyal to the United states. I don't, it just seems like a definitional fact. So let me ask, I've watched politicians work through their campaign messages and there's a keen attention to polling and to popularity of the message. What should our message be? How many people will agree with this? You've obviously spent your life with this so you know. Better than I, how many people would you guess in the United States are for in order covering up the Epstein files, the draft and unlimited support for what Israel is doing in Gaza?

Rich Baris [01:03:51] You know, the best way to answer that is to tell you that we have pulled different messages that have come out of, you know, we know some of them have presidential aspirations. And we know what the messages are going to be going into the midterms. And one of them was articulated very well on the Democratic side by Jon Ossoff. And we just, you, know, simply ask people, look, we're going to read you a statement from somebody. We're not going to tell who it is, but we want you to tell us whether you agree or disagree with this. The Republican, the typical Republican line, one came from Trump, one came from Rubio, got about 53% agreement across the board. The Democratic one was from John Ossoff, and it got over 80% agreement, including a little bit more, 42% of Republicans, which directly said, Trump promised to expose the Epstein class, instead he covered for them. It was a speech that circulated a lot on social media. Nobody. And I think this goes to the generational divide that we're dealing with in this country. And the answer to a lot of people who are upset over what happened last night is that young people have to vote. You're leaving, especially on the Republican side, you're essentially leaving the direction that your party is gonna go. You are leaving it up to a group of people that is a minority in their own generational cohort. And what What do you mean by that?

Is that, yeah, Republican boomers are what we call over here the Fox Boomer Con. We're not trying to insult anybody, it's just that it obviously makes up so clearly who these people are. The Fox Boomercon is not even a majority of boomers themselves, and boomers really we can split up into two groups. And the older boomer element particularly is the one that votes so heavily in Republican primaries. The Goal Ring campaign, which was really the Trump people, did a great job getting them out and expanding the electorate with those people. The problem is, younger people, until they have families, they don't really ratchet up their primary vote history. And it is a simple answer to people who are feeling, as I heard from countless people last night, vote. You should have just voted. You have the power. The Boomers are kind of on their way out. I'm trying to be mean here. I'm just saying they've had their electoral dominance for years now. I mentioned before, the first of them turned 80. Republicans better realize Millennials will soon be the dominant voting group sooner than people expect. But as of right now, Gen X and Millennials alone could have a real impact on the direction of who gets nominated in these parties. And unfortunately, they just don't vote, Tucker.

Tucker [01:06:24] How do you think, well, actually, before I ask you about what's gonna happen in the future, the question of the draft, am I imagining this or are people suddenly talking about this? The neocons seem anxious to have a draft all of a sudden. The White House, through its spokesman, denied that they had ruled it out. Sorry for the double negative. Basically, the question was, are you gonna try to institute a draft? And the response was, we're not gonna answer that question, we are thinking about it. Am I Am I being paranoid? I mean, Galran just ran on a draft. What is the draft? Where's that coming from?

Rich Baris [01:07:00] Honestly, nothing could make you paranoid these days. Every time you think we've seen the last of it or we've see the worst of it, or we're at the end of the absurdity, we get something else. Every day it seems, and this is the voters too, this is voter sentiment. Every day they wake up with something new that they just cannot believe that would ever happen under Donald Trump. So I mean, I just wouldn't put, I would hate to tell you that I spoke to this person or that person. They told me, I don't worry about it. That's just, you know, bloviating or people speaking off the cuff. Uh, because I have, but then I've had these experiences in the last year with other issues. And then two months later, it becomes a serious issue. Amnesty is one of them, by the way. You never think of something like that happening, get it, even before Trump was elected or even in Trump's first term. It just seemed unthinkable. Like he wouldn't do it. Uh, and now here we are and it's a very serious push. I mean, I think the president's with somebody who's, if not Maria Salazar, Mike Lawler has to be one of the most pro-amnesty Republicans in the House of Representatives use it with them today.

Tucker [01:08:05] Well, the neo-cons love amnesty because the point is not simply to help Israel, but to destroy the United States. And Michael Aller is all in on destroying the United states. There's no question about that. Um, so what is the public's view of the war in Iran?

Rich Baris [01:08:20] This thing has always been unpopular. This is one of the more, you know, head scratching isn't even a strong enough term, but this is something that's left me dumbfounded. We have never seen a president try to start a war or start one without selling it to the public first. I mean, I know I'm 44. You know how long Herbert Walker Bush, I mean he lied to do it, but do you know how He took to sell the first Gulf War to the people in the United States. We heard about babies being thrown out of incubators. Of course, that was a total charade, but at least they put the charade on, even George Bush himself. After 9-11, Tucker, they didn't just go into Iraq. We were in Afghanistan. They had the buildup. They used it as a pretext, and George Bush really made his case. By the way, those conflicts became popular. This thing never became popular, and the president didn't even try to sell it. The closest we got, there's always a rally around the flag effect where the president's voters want to support what he's doing. So even if they don't really support it, they'll temporarily say, yeah, I'm with him on this. We couldn't get it any closer to oppose plus nine.

The thing started at. 21% support, 70% opposition, and it's almost right back to there now. The next time we pull it, which is soon, it's going to be in two days, I bet it's back to that level or maybe even worse because now we've seen gas prices and some of the other things that the American public really didn't want. Gas prices, casualties, we did ask them about this before the war kicked off. Would you be willing to tolerate the pain at the pump? Would you be willing to tolerate zero to five thousand, five thousand to ten thousand casualties? I mean, the answer was zero casualties and no pain at the pump. It just wasn't a priority and I think again for people who say Well, yeah, they had to stop him getting the you know, getting the nuclear program back off the ground I mean guys the the bottom line is people are tired of this because they're not seeing their own needs at home being met It's simple, you know maslow hierarchy of needs kind of thing. I mean people can't meet their basic needs Uh, let alone anywhere else up the pyramid if they can't meet their basic needs they're not going to care about the needs of other nations and they may say and may It might be, you know, you could play a game with a poll on how you were to question Tucker, but Americans will never prioritize their own needs over some of the needs of another country. I mean, you don't never put the needs in another country over their own. It's what I meant to say.

Tucker [01:10:48] He was sold, the president sold it not, I don't think in a straightforward way, by saying Israel wants us, we have to help Israel. He sold it by saying Iran can't have a nuclear weapon, and that's the most important thing. Do you remember any polling this winter in January or February that showed, excuse me, fear of Iran getting a nuclear weapon at the top of voter concerns? Were people really worried about that?

Rich Baris [01:11:12] No, we do rank distribution for most important issues weekly, which is different than just simply asking which is your most important voting issue. And the reason we do it like that is because we want people to rank them so we can see. Sometimes people have secondary and tertiary issues that they vote on. They're not just voting on one issue all the time. Uh, foreign policy hasn't crept above 7th place, Trump's entire term. We actually established the White House focus tracker, which since CBS News or Iran before they tried to copy and the Wall Street Journal tried to copy it once twice too. But we asked people whether or not they think the Trump administration is too focused on foreign policy, not enough on domestic, vice versa. Maybe they're too focused on domestic not enough foreign policy. And then whether or not they're striking the right balance. That tracker has been north of 60% on the side of too focused foreign policy not enough on domestic. For the better part of now two and a half months, but it has always been majority feeling that he is too distracted with foreign policy.

Tucker [01:12:13] So what does this mean for the next two big election cycles, the midterms and the general in two years?

Rich Baris [01:12:19] Yeah, as of right now, Republicans are going to get creamed. I mean, they're just saying, anyone saying otherwise is just gaslighting or glazing you out there. The New York Times poll that came out the other day, that mirrors our polling almost perfectly. A generic ballot is 11 points, folks, that's historic. That's worse than 2018. Republicans redistricted, which is good. They came out on top in the redistricting world, helped buffer against some of losses. But when you're talking about leads like 10, 11 points, you're talkin' about Trump districts that are 10, Trump plus 10, Trump plus 11. We're way outside of whether or not you could win or hold battleground districts. You have to make sure that you don't lose any that are within the swing, and that always happens. There are always districts that nobody sees coming, and then so-and-so gets unseated. That always happens, this looks like a bloodbath right now, Tucker. It does, and the sad part about it is it was fixable. If you look at our generic ballot trend, you'll see it. Republicans had a lead since I believe it was mid 2021. They had a league on the generic ballot and didn't lose it until until July of 2025. What happened in July of 2025? Epstein. And then followed by bombing the three nuclear sites in Iran. I've been calling that almost like a two piece, a one-two combo, right to the chin of MAGA. That's what put MAGA down. It really isn't any deeper, more difficult than that. People elected Donald Trump to focus on their domestic needs, to focus those broken and those betrayals that he said in his own inauguration, to remedy that, to fix that, to make it right, to be their retribution, to use his own words. They weren't talking about foreign policy retributions. They were talking about squaring things at home. And the reason the Epstein issue hurt so bad, I think a minor correction in his strategy wouldn't even have damaged him that much. I think people would have given him a lot of grace, but People who don't understand why it hurt him, don't understand that Epstein was a symbol. He was a proxy of that ruling class that Trump ran against. And it's not just a ruling class that rigs the system and gains it for their own gain. It's a class that rig it, gains it for their gain at their expense. So they wanted these people punished and held to account. And this was basically one of the worst things he could have done.

And from that on to... Pivoting to foreign policy was more than base could take Tucker.

Tucker [01:14:52] And it revealed his side of Trump. I mean, he was so touchy about Epstein and I do suspect it has to do with the way Epstein died during Trump's first term, everyone has forgotten. But he revealed when pushed, famously during that cabinet meeting and someone asked him a question about Epsteine and he attacked his own voters on it. Like if you're interested in Epstein, you're a bad person. You're part of a Democrat hoax or something like that. And I think... People who really liked Trump were stung by that. Why is he attacking me? I just want to end corruption in Washington. Like, what was that?

Rich Baris [01:15:28] When that happened, I instantly thought back to Rush Limbaugh, and he repeated it in one of his last, it might have been his very last broadcasts where he explained that no matter what the media does to Donald Trump, no matter what the FBI does to Trump, it doesn't matter. It cannot be an external force. They will never break the bond that Donald Trump has with his voters and the more they attack him, the stronger the bomb will get. The only way you can break the bomb is if Donald Trump himself breaks the bond. And when he sent that out, Tucker, I just, I felt it, I've been tracking the Trump coalition since the day he gave his CPAC speech and said, I'm serious about running. I can't I can't let another Bush or another Clinton get in the White House cuz we're doomed. He said at a CPAC event which didn't, he wasn't as popular as he was now. At that moment I knew the guy was for real and we put him in our tracker for the Republican primary and never forget it. But from that point on we've been studying that coalition since then that hurt them. It did. It disappointed a lot of them. And I know a lot of his most ardent supporters still. They'll argue against this. I mean, this is my job. I do this every single day. All I do every day is talk to voters. MAGA has not only split, the question of whether it is split is a done question. It has fractured and it has transformed. It's split, shrunk and transformed. And we put this up the other day. I mean it couldn't have illustrated it better. Going into November 2024. Voters who were above the age of 65 actually identified more as a traditional Republican and not a MAGA Republican. If you were below 65 and you were Republican, the majority identified as either America First or MAGA. We usually put them together and then we'll force people to 45 years old, you were 66%. Identifying as MAGA, that is now around 40%. If you were 18 to 29, it was like 56 and now it's 36.

If you're 65 again, never got to majority. It's a majority now and a traditional Republican is about 45. So what happened? It got older. It got old. And the younger voters who really had so much riding on this thing, they're out. They're out! I didn't know older people were so bloodthirsty. Did you? You know what I think it comes down to, especially with, when you study the boomer generation, a lot of people split them into two, and the reason is because the Jones boomers, you know, it's just, there's boomer one, boomer two, the Jones avoided the draft, and not by their, by choice, it was just their birth year. I think the other generation that was forced to deal with the war, they were not- They were not brought up in an environment like us. You got your news from the mainstream media. There was no way to double check it. There was not online social media, podcasts, you know, maybe there was radio here, of course, but it wasn't like it is now. They are still very institutional. I think that's the word. That's probably the fairest word. They were the ones during Trump's first term, ironically, guys, they were the were more likely to believe the collusion hoax because in their minds, they're thinking, well, Fox wouldn't be running this if there wasn't some truth to this. Fox wouldn'd lie to us like this. The rest of the country remembers 9-11. The rest the country, millennials, my generation is a great example. We remember being told there were WMDs, right?

We remember COVID, by the way, that hurt us greatly. I mean, there was health risks for the older generations, but there weren't economic risks. So we're much more sensitive to whether or not institutions are lying to us or not. And I think they're just more trusting. And unfortunately, that leads to more susceptibility for like war propaganda, which is one of the hardest forms of propaganda to resist. They are much more susceptible to it.

Tucker [01:19:32] Where does this leave people who voted for Trump in 2024? The huge number of people who never voted, who really bought the promise that he would put the country first and their concerns above those of Israel or anyone else, Epstein's friends. Like, they can't, they can really vote for the Democratic Party, which hates white people as like a foundational belief. I mean, they say they do, so I believe them. No, but they can't vote for the Republican Party, which obviously shares none of their views at all. Is there room for a new party?

Rich Baris [01:20:07] I increasingly we're gonna have to start talking about that because the people who did the people who have voted before but they were maybe low propensity they voted once or twice remember 10x right for instance i mean the entire point of that was to get people in michigan and the rest belt who don't really vote out to vote those people will just stay home they'll go back to having low propensity vote history and they just won't vote the people were first time voters especially if they're younger and they have their lives ahead of them I mean, the word to describe how they feel right now is basically apoplectic. It's not really anger, it's more disappointment. And that typically does lead to people staying home, but many of them will participate. In the midterms, I just don't think they will. But they have to figure out what they're going to do in the next general election. I think it's too early now, but I think at this point in our history, we have other examples to go back to and rely on.

The last time there was a betrayal of this magnitude, it was read my lips, no new taxes. And instead, he raised taxes and started what? A war, right? And that led to the fracturing of his coalition into the Ross Perot coalition, which put the Republican party in the wilderness in the dark ages, the political dark ages for eight years. And it was only until George W. Bush came in 2000, beat John McCain, who was your textbook rhino, foreign policy hawk. He beat John McCain for that primary running on what? Not on post 9-11 policy. He ran on, we can't be the policemen of the world. He rebranded conservatism, compassionate conservatisim. That's what it took. So typically, historically, when we do see something like this, it's very, very damaging to that party in power.

Tucker [01:21:51] It just seems like there's such alignment on foreign policy and economics between the Republican and Democratic parties. And I mean, you haven't seen, you said the war's so unpopular, but you haven't seen any mass protests against it. Mass protests are typically funded by left-wing nonprofits, and they're not funding anti-war protests right now. So that's kind of proof to me that this war was, you know, every bit as favored by Chuck Schumer as it was. By Donald Trump. So like, that's not an option, right?

Rich Baris [01:22:25] Yeah, I think in the short term, everyone should probably prepare themselves for, you know, the whatever you want to call it, the uniparty, the, you know, the war, bipartisan war party, we should prepare for them to win in the short term. If younger voters aren't going to vote, especially in primaries and midterms, we'll be left with, you know, two to four years of that being almost inevitable. But this is what I would tell people who are feeling, you know, grim out there. It's only a matter of time. This is something that the the israel first crown just wants to deny and pretend is isn't reality The age signal is way too strong. It is only a matter of time Um, and just yeah, I mean that that's that that our current reality Is what it is

Tucker [01:23:10] So last question, thank you for your really smart analysis. You've been watching Trump since his famous or not so famous CPAC speech and watching him carefully and polling against everything he says. You saw the change in Trump. Is it a real, I mean, do you perceive this as a massive change in worldview for him? And if you do, what do you think accounts for it? Why did this happen?

Rich Baris [01:23:34] You know, I think it almost doesn't matter what his view is, you know, what he's personally thinking, the perception among voters, it's, it, it it's a 180. It's completely different. They see Donald Trump in now, May of 2026, far differently than they saw him in November of 2024, and that's tragic for the Republican party and their, their, uh, you, their aspirations and the people, there's a deep bench. You know, there's JD Vance, there are others, you know, what's going to happen to them? What's the smartest move for them to make in the future? He in 2024 made Republican, being a Republican, cool again. And you know you won so many more younger votes than Mitt Romney or a Mitt Romany like candidate could ever win. I would leave you with this too, you now when we're talking about this generational divide, which is the most important conversation I think to have, Trump actually did one point worse in 24. With 65 plus than he did with it with them in 2020. Yet he won rather easily even though he lost in 2020, how did he do that? Right? And it's really the answer is really simple. He changed how people view the Republican Party and that he was the oppressed and he was The one you know, it's amazing how we did it. You know, he's like an older billionaire from Queens and yet he got Hispanic, especially young Hispanic men to see eye to eye with him to think you know what I can identify with this guy they're persecuting him they're coming after him and a lot of these communities they know the power of the state and the abuse of the power the state they know it better than the rest of us in many cases and they identified with him over it that's all gone I mean I hate to just be so blunt about it but the shine's off on that side Tucker it's been off and at this point it would take a radical pivot to even attempt to get it back

Tucker [01:25:24] Is there anyone who's polling well in American politics?

Rich Baris [01:25:30] Uh, no, not really. Not really. I think in 28. Yeah. I mean, that's almost a good thing because this has happened before and for better or for worse. It usually leads to dark horses on both sides of the aisle that basically rise from the ashes of their destroyed political parties and become the leaders of new movements and try to take the country in new directions. Sometimes it ends up fake like Barack Obama, right? And sometimes it ends up a good things. We'll see. But at least it provides an opportunity.

Tucker [01:25:59] Which bears so smart. I can't believe you get attacked. You seem as objective as a pollster can be. More even than Frank Luntz, I'll say that.

Rich Baris [01:26:08] That's a part of it. Yeah, I surprised myself, but I appreciate that. Thank you for doing this. Anytime, Tucker. All the best.

Tucker [01:26:18] We will be back next Wednesday.