Polls Shift Toward Trump, and How Dems Abandoned Their Voters, with Nicole Shanahan, Charles C.W. Cooke, and Jim Geraghty | Ep. 897
01:41:10 Share

When you hear a good idea, it's natural to do a double take. That's what you might do when you hear Discover will automatically double the cash back you've earned on your credit card at the end of your first year with Cash Back Match. Wait, what? Yep, double the cash back is something so good you might do a triple take. It pays to discover. See terms at discover.com slash credit card.

We all have plans in life, maybe to take a cross-country road trip or simply get through this workout without any back pain. Whether our plans are big, small, spontaneous, or years in the making, good health helps us accomplish them. At Banner Health, we're here to provide more than health care. Whatever you're planning, wherever you're going, we're here to help you get there. Banner Health. Exhale.

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Megyn Kelly, welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. So new polls out this week are highlighting major red flags for the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris. This, what's happening with Gallup in particular,

It's really telling. It's where we're going to start in one second. All of this comes as Harris is sitting down for a hard hitting interview this afternoon. OK, maybe it will be. Maybe we'll be super surprised. And MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle.

who literally on Friday was telling Bill Maher that Harris should not do any interviews because Trump is such an existential threat to America. Maybe she'll be tough. I mean, I wonder how she landed this interview. What was it about her messaging that appealed to campaign Harris? We'll watch and hopefully we'll be eating these words tomorrow.

Later today, Nicole Shanahan, the former VP nominee for RFKJ, will be here on this show for the first time. What a journey she has had to now supporting the MAGA movement. But first, joining me now, two of our pals from National Review, Charles C.W. Cook, who's a senior writer and host of the Charles C.W. Cook podcast, and Jim Garrity, a senior political correspondent for National Review and co-host of Three Martini Lunch. It's a great podcast.

Cyber attacks are on the rise, with corporate megastores falling victim to data breaches that could expose your private information. Now these same megastores are lobbying D.C. politicians to pass the Durbin-Marshall credit card bill. According to our sponsor, Electronic Payments Coalition, this bill could leave you even more vulnerable to credit card cyber attacks, while megastores pocket billions in additional profits.

Learn more at guardyourcard.com and then consider telling Congress to guard your card. The Electronic Payments Coalition says Americans lose when politicians choose. Again, that's guardyourcard.com. Guys, welcome back. Thank you. Great to be here. Okay, so the Gallup thing is very interesting, guys. Gallup...

Their track record is very good on predicting the national popular vote by tracking party identification and leaners, right? Like how many identify Republican, how many identify Dem, and then whichever party gets the leaners, it adds to their score. And so just going through the numbers in 2008,

They said the country had, it was plus eight on Democratic registrations. Obama won by 7.2. This is put out in a tweet by Eric Doughty, but verified by our staff. 2012 said D plus four. Obama won 3.9. 2016, it said D plus three. And Clinton did win the national vote 2.1. So very close. 2020, D plus five.

Biden won 4.5. And you know what it says in 2024 for the first time in some 20 years are are plus three. Amazing. Just as just to see that Republicans have the edge on the national voter ID right now. And if you go by track record, that would put Trump in a position of not only winning the national vote, but in the case of a Republican who wins the national vote, almost certainly winning the electoral college. Jim, what do you make of that?

If that comes to pass, and I guess I put this in the category of news that is so good for Republicans.

I, my, my skeptical instinct kicks in. I'm almost afraid to believe it can't possibly be true. Chuck that up to me being a jets fan and just seeing when good things happen, something terrible is about to happen the next, the very next moment. But, um, so there's, there's actually two schools of thought about how people identify in terms of their partisan lean. One is if you ask people, which party are you part of? They think of what they're registered with and they will say, I'm a registered Democrat. I'm a registered Republican.

Which might be surprising because there are a bunch of people, particularly in the South, less so now than, say, maybe a decade ago, but who are registered Democrats, but who are pretty darn cultural conservative on gun issues, on abortion, things like that. The other one is that people are much more fickle. And if there's a news cycle where the Democrats are looking terrible, then they're more likely to identify as Republicans and vice versa.

I think even if it's even, you're looking at that would probably be a Trump victory. If it's Trump by three, as this Gallup point thinks, well, not only is Trump maybe going to go seven for seven in those big swing states that matter. No offense to anybody in these other states, but clearly this election is coming down to Arizona and Nevada, the other Sunbelt states, North Carolina and Georgia, and then the big three in the world.

the blue wall, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. But if it's really Republicans by three on election day, when you count up all the votes, well, then you got to worry about New Hampshire. Then you got to worry about my home state of Virginia. I also noticed this bizarre thing in which in Minnesota, Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, is the governor of Minnesota. And the last three polls have Democrats ahead by five percentage points. Now, that's fine. Everybody kind of expects Minnesota to be a blue state. But

Biden and Harris carried the state by four and a half points. So adding Tim Walz to the ticket added a half percentage point to the Democratic total. Good call. Hey, at least there was nobody else who could have helped Harris in Pennsylvania or something like that. Right. Whomever could it have been? The thing about the Gallup number, Charlie, is it's starting to look like it's backed by polling. And of course, you know,

A month ago, the polling was very different. A month from now, when we're a lot closer to the election, it could be very different as well. So big asterisk on the discussion. But one month out from where were we in late August, we were post Democratic National Convention. Kamala Harris was still on cloud nine. She had been anointed. She was wonderful. She had no flaws. She had Michelle. She had Barack. She had Bill. She had Hillary. She had Oprah. She had them all.

Um, now where is she? Well, the latest Quinnipiac poll with of likely voters shows in a two way race, they're tied nationally at 48 in an expanded race, including Stein, these other minor care, uh, candidates that's, uh, it's a one point Trump lead either way, razor thin. I mean, very, very tight, which is good for Trump. I mean, any national numbers showing Trump, uh,

even in it, you know, tight, nevermind up by one has very good implications for the electoral college. That's Quinnipiac CNN, likely voters in a four way race showing Harris up over Trump by one, by one point. And so all of this trends kind of neatly with those Gallup numbers I started with. What do you make of it?

I think that we spend so much time, myself included, talking about Trump. And when I talk about Trump, it's relatively critical that we sometimes forget that the Democratic Party is very weird. And also that the Democratic Party is in power. It's in charge of the White House.

and it's in charge of the Senate. It also exercises a lot of cultural power in other institutions, in academia, in the media, in Hollywood, and increasingly in corporations. And people often react to that. And in a sense, since 2015, 2016,

the Trump show has distracted from what's going on with the Democrats. So it isn't greatly surprising to me to see either a close race at the presidential level or to see those numbers from Gallup. And if you look at the current Democratic coalition, it doesn't make much sense. It might make more sense if you add in that Donald Trump is the nominee,

Absent that, it doesn't make much sense. What is the Democratic Party at the moment? It's this very strange coalition of

public sector unions and minorities, although less than it used to be, and upper middle class white people and social liberals and people who have PhDs. And their interests and political alliances don't necessarily match. And you're beginning to see this, for example, with the Democrats running away pretty hard from raising taxes on 98.1% of the

population, which is interesting given they also want to spend a lot of money.

So I just I'm never shocked when I see this and when I see the Republicans doing well, despite their problems, because I think the Democratic Party is a massive mess. And I think that when Trump is gone, whether it's because he loses or wins this time around, those contradictions are going to come to the fore, especially if Trump wins, because then you're going to have essentially a four year primary. And that four year primary is going to have us at heart. What should our positions be?

on everything, on foreign policy, on Israel, on taxes, on spending, on transgender stuff, on abortion. Perhaps abortion is a good issue for the Democrats, but there's also a contradiction there, especially with black voters. So it doesn't shock me to see this sort of close election or close number. You know what? You mentioned your home state of Virginia, the Commonwealth, Jim, and there was a poll out

Just the other day, University of Mary Washington polling on Virginia showing it a two point race. Kamala 48, Trump 46. Now I realize there'll be other polls that show it a much bigger lead for her there. But that's getting back into the Joe Biden territory numbers where they did the coup to get him out of the race altogether. Yeah.

I was going to say beginning of the year, before there was any serious talk, before the debate between Trump and Biden, Biden was either barely ahead or they were running neck and neck. By the way, keep in mind,

Virginia, by and large, is a blue state or purplish blue. We have Governor Glenn Young, who is a Republican, but otherwise very tough for Republicans to win statewide. And I believe the last Republican presidential candidate to carry the state of Virginia was George W. Bush back in like 2000 or 2004. So since the Obama days, I used to joke when I lived in my old neighborhood, which I nicknamed Yuppie Acres.

The Obama yard signs came pre-installed with the house. It was just an assumption that, you know, I live in news. This is news. Are you telling me the reason they refer to your home area as authenticity woods right now on the editor's podcast is because you used to be in yuppie. What was it?

Yuppie acres. Yes. I can tell you that was Alexandria and that's, you know, I keep in mind before Alexandria, I lived in the district of Columbia. So people would say, how do you like it? Like, Whoa, we have way better socialists out here. Um, they're much better about plowing the snow, uh, and stuff like that. So let me tell you when you've lived in DC, Northern Virginia, that seems like a conservative paradise. Now I'm in Fairfax County, which used to be, you know, I narrowed it down to a county with a million people. Um,

Authenticity Woods is a corner of Northern Virginia where I would describe it as all the Democrat voters. You can tell they have a Kamala Harris yard sign in their house in front of their house.

And the Donald Trump side, the Donald Trump voters have nothing on their front lawn because they don't want anyone to know. But they're out there. I think it was about two to one. And a candidate like Young can can split it. But the point where I was going with this is that Biden was on pace to lose Virginia, particularly after the debate. The bottom fell out. There were a whole bunch of Democrats who just clearly they may not have been ready to jump on the Trump bandwagon, but they just saw.

Biden has a reanimated corpse that was shuffling around like a zombie and basically we're like, I can't vote for that. With Harris, she's back in the lead, but it's closer. It is not the slam dunk that it looked like it was going to be in the Obama days. And, you know, I think, like I said, there's the big seven, New Hampshire, this state, and maybe one or two others are kind of the next rung on the ladder of

that Democrats need to worry about. I don't think, one thing that's got me nervous is the Republican get out the vote effort. The Trump campaign has outsourced it to a bunch of groups, including Charlie Kirk's group. Kind of haven't done this before. And Elon Musk's super PAC.

You know, could work, could be great. Still, I think it's not hard to find Republicans who are like, eh, these guys have not done this before. So that's that one little X factor that still could play out between now and Election Day. Yeah, we're actually having a deep dive show on the get out the vote effort on both sides next week. So you guys should tune in because we'll tell you everything you need to know. I'm counting it. That's what I'm doing.

what the Republicans are doing. I mean, I was just in Pennsylvania yesterday. You cannot, you cannot turn on the television. You cannot turn on any radio. You better not leave your house. I mean, like you will be assaulted by ads, promos, you know, people trying to get you to vote for their candidate. Um,

You know, Charlie, on your answer, we're talking about how Democrats, they are weird. I mean, their positions that there's a lot of weirdness over on that side, but I really think the number drop, you know, for her, because she was, she came onto the scene. She got all the fawning media coverage. She had the DNC. She wasn't forced to say any policy positions and so on. And her numbers went up a lot from where Biden was and then past Trump in a lot of these swing states.

I think the difference is she has not a lot, but she started talking. She's talking. And that's all Trump needs to win. Truly, like the more she talks, whether it's to these today, she doesn't do an interview with like these local or these NBA stars. And she's going to sit with Stephanie rule. She sat with Dan at bash. Just talk. Forget the debate because there she gave her memorized lines. But bit by bit,

the facade is pierced and people are realizing what you've been writing about now for five years. I think she's in a catch-22. I agree with what you just said, but I think they also don't like her when she says nothing. So the challenge for Harris is to say things eloquently and convincingly and persuade people to her side, but she can't do it. I think this is a race against the clock. She might win.

She will, if she wins, be unpopular very quickly because people will cotton on. It's just a question of whether or not the election comes before or after that. I was in Pennsylvania on Sunday as well. I was in Pittsburgh and watching Sunday Night Football in a bar, as you say, you just can't move for presidential election ads. They seem to me to be about three to one in Harris's favor.

But what was most notable about it was the ads for Harris say nothing, almost literally nothing. They're the same ads for Harris that we get occasionally here in Florida. They are incredibly vague. They just say things like Harris was a prosecutor. Harris will lower prices. That's it. That's a one second assertion. Harris is...

good for the country. And then they move on. Whereas the Trump ads are specific. The Trump ads talk about fracking, they talk about immigration, and they talk about transgender surgeries on minors. Now, it seems to me

that if you're watching TV in Pennsylvania all the time, and these ads are on all the time, you get, whether you like him or not, a lot more out of the Trump ads than you do from the Harris ads. And there has been some research I've seen that suggests that people liked Harris when she first came along because she was new, she wasn't Joe Biden.

And the vagueness helped because it didn't immediately define her in their minds as somebody who was toxic. But that being normal people, normal voters, they wanted to learn more about Harris and they haven't.

And the problem she's got, Megan, I think, is then we get to your rubric, which is, well, she has to talk. She has to say something. And she's awful at it. There's just no sugarcoating this. First off, she has a horrible voice. I'm sorry if that is superficial, but she does. She's going to talk for four or eight years if she's president.

I don't think she helps herself physically when she speaks. Second, what she says is nonsense. It is absolute nonsense. That local media interview we saw recently where she spoke for two minutes about how she was going to lower prices and said precisely nothing. I mean, it was like AI generated trash. And three, she is in a bind because she said all of these ridiculous things in 2019 and

And she is trying to run away from them. But she also doesn't want to very publicly disavow them because she doesn't want to look like a flip flopper and she doesn't want to upset the base. So what does she do? She gets the people on her team to issue a statement to some journalists that says, well, she no longer believes that. But the clips are still out there. I saw them in Pennsylvania. Trump and Dave McCormick are using them in those ads. So there's all of this footage of her saying, of course, I'm going to bang fracking. Of course, this, of course, that. And

And then there's nothing actually to counteract it with. And when she is asked to present a counter argument or to say what she's going to do in the future, she won't do it. And I think she can't do it because I don't think she's actually thought through much about her political positions. And I think that's crazy. It's just a matter of whether or not people notice this in large enough numbers before the election or after. But there's going to come a point whether she's president or not, where her approval rating hits 25%.

Charlie, did you watch the Oprah interview or portions of it? Yeah, I did.

How did you enjoy that? It was crazy. Well, you know, my favorite part about it, Megan, was not that Harris sat there and talked in her strange sort of fortune cookie through Google Translate manner, but that Oprah, who is no stranger to speaking in platitudes herself, reacted at various points as if she was John Steinbeck. I mean, she's sitting there saying, mm, mm, mm, yes, mm. Yes.

It was nonsense. What you need is a journalist who's going to sit there and say, what does that mean? Yeah, but what does that mean? OK, but what does that mean? But no one does it. And Stephanie Ruhle is not going to do it, which is why she's been chosen for this interview. Yes. All right. I'll get to Stephanie in one second. So before we go to her on the subject of the people sitting in Pennsylvania and some of these other swing states, Jim, they may not like Trump.

That's why they're still undecided. That's why they're possible swing voters. They don't like him. And the polls do show he's not well liked beyond the core base, like 37% or so of the Republican Party. They'll vote for him. The Republicans are going to vote for him for the most part. But he's not loved as the MAGA base loves him. But they liked his presidency.

by a majority. And that's that CNN poll I just referenced, which has it in a four way race. Harris, 48, Trump, 47 shows that they like Trump's presidency. 51 percent of those polled likely voters say his presidency was a success. Forty nine percent say it was a failure. So it's tight. But he's got majority support on whether his presidency was a success for the United States. Joe Biden

Uh, 37% say his presidency has been a success. 63% say a failure. She's part of that administration. And that led Harry Enten over on CNN to be making the following distinction in a hit. Uh, we just saw, watch this.

Look at this. Think his presidency was a success. Donald Trump, 51 percent, the majority think his presidency was a success despite his personal popularity being meh. Look at this for Joe Biden, way down at 37 percent. I think that this is a real drag on Kamala Harris, despite her own personal popularity, while Donald Trump with thinking his presidency is a success. I think the net

favorability ratings don't actually get into the fact that there are a lot of folks who like the job he did as president but don't necessarily like him personally. So here we go. George W. Bush, obviously a Republican didn't succeed him. Lyndon Johnson, there was no Democrat who succeeded him. Harry Truman, no Democrat who succeeded him. Now we're looking at Joe Biden. Couldn't a Democrat succeed him despite his net approval rating being as low as it is? History isn't so kind. But again, we're really just looking at a sample size of three. But the

Bottom line is, I think we can say Joe Biden is a drag on Kamala Harris. What do you make of that, Jim? Because I feel like our friend Andy McCarthy needs to see that because he's always talking about how high Trump's unfavorables are. And they are, but better numbers when they look at his presidency.

Well, Joe Biden is such a drag on the Harris ticket and is such a liability for the Democrats that he will be spending mid-October in Germany and in the country of Angola in Western Africa.

No, this is important. There are important issues for Joe Biden to be discussing with the Angolans. And that's why he will be spending three days in that country that no U.S. president has ever visited before. Three weeks before Election Day. That's absolutely where you want your president. But look, if they could put him in a closet, they would put him there. But they couldn't do that. So they sent him on this long foreign trip in the middle of the month.

Yeah, look, everything Anton said there is clear. But I know Democrats think, ah, Trump's last year was a disaster, we lost so many jobs, etc. Everybody in America is like, well, that was the pandemic. It wasn't Trump's fault, it started

Could have started anywhere, Wuhan Institute of Virology. And it was a result of that. It was something, it's outside force. It's not anything Trump could have done. By the time it got to the US, it was too late. We don't hold that year against him. They think of the first three years, they look at the wage growth, they look at how wages were growing faster than inflation, and they have pretty good feelings about that. The Harris campaign, I don't doubt they are running the campaign that they want to run, and they're running the campaign that they think they ought to run.

But you look at the results, I don't think that's the right campaign. I think objectively, the Democrats had a good and successful convention. Protests were very low. Everybody raved about the speeches, et cetera. Very little bump in her polling numbers, particularly in these swing states. I think objectively, she won the debate. I think Trump really had a lousy night.

But you look at the debate bump, little or no, and certainly very little in the swing states. I think a majority in these swing states looks at Harris and says, look, first of all, notice how often, whether it's in the Oprah interview or in the Wisconsin NPR interview, tonight she's doing Stephanie Rule, who is for people who find Rachel Maddow too heavy handed in favor of Trump. That's what her program's for. That everyone, she gets some version of a question of what are you going to do?

And Megan, we've heard her answer a bunch of times now. I grew up in a middle class tax, a middle class household.

She gets asked, what are you going to do? Yes. She says it like we don't care about our lawns. Everyone cares about their lawn. Anyone who has a lawn cares about their lawn. What is she's like that as if that makes her relatable, you know, like what? Like rich people don't care about their lawn. I don't even know what she's trying to say. It is a Bill Clinton. I'll feel your pain answer. It is an empathy answer. But the problem is people didn't ask, do you care about me? They asked, what are you going to do?

And her very first question on the economics, you know, early on in this campaign was price controls. Now, over at The Washington Post, my colleague Catherine Rample is by no stretch of the imagination a conservative. But her reaction was, if you're going to be called a communist by your Republican opponent, maybe don't propose price controls as your first economic idea. Maybe just kind of, you know, you know, you can find down, dyed in the wool Democratic economists.

We have to look at the idea of the federal government trying to set prices for groceries and say, no, no, you don't want to go down this road. It never works out. It creates shortages. All you're doing is limiting supply. You're not increasing demand. So she has this bad, I'm going to go to 30,000 feet. I'm going to talk about emotions when people really want to hear, what are you going to do about policies? And the really tough question is, what are you going to do differently than Biden? Because you've been his vice president for the past three years. Right.

That's exactly right. I have more. I don't know. Did you guys see that clip on Fox where Sandra Smith was interviewing a campaign surrogate for Kamala Harris on the issue of price gouging?

We're waiting. Okay. There's a lot of aspects to it in regards to looking at it online. So let's talk about lowering the grocery cost because that's something that's brought up. The viewers can look at this online. She talks about certain things in regards to advancing the first federal –

ban on price gouging on food and groceries, to set clear rules to the road to make it clear that big corporations can't unfairly exploit consumers as well. Is that happening? It's not at this moment. No, this is her plan that's laid out for the first hundred days when she becomes president of the United States of America. Is that currently happening?

In regards to that, I don't know exactly if that's currently happening or not because I'm not privy to that type of information. But there are people are costing a lot of money in regards to groceries. Okay. And that potentially is- It seems like you're having a hard time articulating your plan. I'm not. Honestly, that's not true. I'm constantly being interrupted by you, which as a woman, I think is-

I'm when I'm trying to speak every time I try and speak, you've given you a lot of speak over me. It was pretty remarkable because Sandra Smith was just asking, like, who's doing that? Who's which which grocery stores are gouging? Couldn't answer. Who's doing that?

Couldn't answer. And it was really remarkable, right? Because everyone who's studied this since Kamala Harris injected it as a problem that she's ready and uniquely fit to solve has been looking at the same thing saying they have a one to two percent margin on their products.

they're not making any money on their products. Like what, why are you focused on that as the solution to prices at the grocery store? If they go any lower, the grocery stores are going to go out of business and then they'll have no place to shop. So it was remarkable just to watch somebody really pressed. It wasn't Kamala Harris. It'd be wonderful if somebody would really do that to Kamala Harris. And that does lead me to Stephanie rule because she has a background in, um,

Business news. So perhaps tonight will be the night she will get out there and ask those questions like who's doing that or perhaps not. This is how she interviewed Joe Biden not long ago when he was still the nominee.

You have a very strong economic recovery story to tell. As I said, you have a very strong economic recovery story. Have you given up on Congress doing anything? I know you believe in the American dream and you talk about fighting for the soul of America. Okay, I'm not feeling that good. Starting to reevaluate my suggestion that we might be surprised tonight. Here she was in the clip we mentioned in the intro on Bill Maher

This past Friday, which has led many to ask whether this is how she got the Kamala sit down to begin with. Here it is.

My fear is that she doesn't really have a very good command of what she wants to do as president. It's not too much to ask Kamala, say, are you for a Palestinian state if Hamas is going to run that state? Kamala Harris is not running for perfect. She's running against Trump. We have two choices. And so there are some things you might not know her answer to.

And in 2024, unlike 2016 for a lot of the American people, we know exactly what Trump will do, who he is, and the kind of threat he is to democracy. The problem that a lot of people have with Kamala is we don't know her answer to anything, okay? But you know his answer to everything. And I don't think it's a lot to ask her to sit down for a real interview as it comes to a tough case in which she describes her problems

her feelings of growing up in Oakland with nice laws. Then I would just say to that, when you move to Nirvana, give me your real estate broker's number and I'll be your next door neighbor. We don't live there. What a joke of a comment for an actual journalist, someone who purports to be an actual journalist, that we'd have to be living in Nirvana.

for her to give a real interview where we get to ask and receive answers on her policy positions. Charlie, that's 100% why she was chosen to sit down with her next. They said, we got a live one. It's a false premise, and it's a premise I hear all the time. I'm sure you do, Megan. I'm sure you do, Jim. That if you don't like Trump or if you're not going to vote for Trump,

Or if you're a Democrat and you always vote for the Democrat, you should therefore not be interested at all in anything to do with the Democratic candidate because you think the other person is worse. That is a ridiculous premise for anyone to adopt. Were Stephanie Rule some random voter, I would think that that was a ridiculous premise for her to adopt. The idea...

that you cannot evaluate somebody who wishes to be president of the United States with all of the power, domestic and foreign, that that entails.

is grotesque in a free republic. But for a journalist to say it blows my mind. Bret Stephens was not sitting there whitewashing or even praising Donald Trump in any sense. He wasn't arguing that Stephanie Ruhle or Bill Maher or the audience should vote for Donald Trump. He wasn't talking about Donald Trump. He was saying independently of Donald Trump and his virtues or flaws,

Here are some problems with Harris as a candidate for president in a free country. Don't you think they're an issue? And she can't process it. She can't grasp it. Her position is, don't talk about that because that intrudes upon the anti-Trump message. Now, look, when you get into the voting booth, you do have to think like that in one sense because you're choosing one person and not the other. You can't say 70% for this person, 30% for the other. You can't shade one.

the circle. But as a writer, as an interviewer, as a thinker, as a citizen, you should treat every candidate the same.

Whether you like them or not, you should ask, do they reach the threshold at which they have proven themselves adequate to be president of the United States? And I think the answer with Harris is no. And I think Brett Stevens is absolutely right. The reason for that is we don't know anything about her. We don't know what her answers will be. We don't know how she wants to use...

power. I cannot grasp how people got themselves into this position. The correct way of looking at this is to say, I have chosen to vote for or prefer candidate X over candidate Y, and now I'm going to give candidate X hell.

And just to follow up on that, I saw you tweeted on this earlier. You've got some reporters, even outside of the right wing ecosphere, like this Alex Thompson at Axios, who as near as I can tell about once or twice a week, uh,

fires off questions to the Kamala Harris campaign saying, here is her old position. Old as in like a couple of years ago. Does she still stand by it? Just the latest where she ran for DA in 2003. And since then, she's been an outspoken opponent of the death penalty. We asked if she's still opposed and would push for legislation or an executive order to ban it. The campaign didn't respond. Then it came to sex workers. And

Harris's campaign is declining to say whether she still supports decriminalizing sex work, a position she took in 2019. Asked if she was available for a brief interview on the topic, the campaign didn't respond. Then it was a question of amnesty to dreamers. We asked if she still supported that, which she said she did in 2019. Her campaign declined to say.

Here's another one. Axios as Harris's campaign, whether she was available for a five to 10 minute interview to discuss her position on immigration, a campaign spokesperson declined. Then it was last week.

where she was asked about, or two weeks ago after the debate, where Trump said she wants to use taxpayer money to pay for sex change operations for illegals and for prisoners. And the campaign would only say that's not a position she's espoused in this campaign, not disavowing the one in 2019. It's incredible. It's incredible. I'll actually bring this one to you, Jim, how she's getting away with that. Well, actually, I mean, like,

Yeah, she's getting away with it from the media. I think the fact that she is still neck and neck is an indication that she's not getting away with it with the broader electorate.

the Kamala Harris of 2019, and by the way, we refer to her 2020 campaign, but she never actually made it to the year 2020. So I guess technically it's her 2019 campaign. Those positions did not get her the nomination, did not even get her to the primary process, ran out of money. And so the question is, she won't say, oh, I'm a totally different person from who I was back then. I have totally different positions from what I had back then, but I'm not gonna say it on camera.

And I'm not gonna sit down and do a real interview. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind on any of these issues. And she could go out and say, I had that and since then I've become vice president. I've got complete briefings on all of these issues. And I see the issue differently now because of X, Y, and Z. And if X, Y, and Z are persuasive enough- All 12 of them, it would be tough. Yeah, it'd be a lot. And notice how many of these involve prosecution of criminals.

You think that'd be a topic she'd be pretty familiar with? You think that would be her bread and butter? But if she says, you know what, before I wanted decriminalization of sex work, and now I've looked at evidence indicating that when you do decriminalize it like they did over in Europe,

It actually increases the amount of sex trafficking involved because you increase demand. The creepy mob sex traffickers move in and they set up shop and they end up having more abuse of young women and things like that. If she said that, this is my this is why I changed my mind. I think people would say, OK, all right, that makes sense. She's not doing any of this. And so I think what's holding her back.

is that people see this and they say, hmm, she's hiding something. She's probably a lot more progressive. She's probably a lot further to the left that she wants us to believe or to recognize. There's a creating this sense of the public, or at least a decisive slice of it, particularly in these seven swing states, just doesn't trust her because the question has come up, apparently later this week, she might go to the border.

If she doesn't go to the border, it's like she's asking, hoping the public will just forget about the issue of illegal immigration and the insecure border between now and Election Day. Well, they're not going to forget. So you might as well talk about it. You might as well have something to say about it. And if you're going to do it, you should at least go to the border and pretend that you care and pretend that you look like you actually worried about this stuff instead of just kind of hiding and sticking it and giggling and wanting to talk about, you know, coconut tree memes.

You know, Charlie, this she just did this again. First of all, I just want to point out she was asked about her flip flop on fracking by Dana Bash in that interview. She was allowed to lie and say she had made her position clear in 2020 versus the one in 2019 in which she said she wants to ban fracking.

I made that clear on the vice presidential debate stage in 2020 that I'm not in favor. It was a lie. She said on the debate stage, you guys know at this point that that was Joe Biden's position after Joe Biden had won the nomination. She has never spoken to hers, hers. And then in an act of journalistic malpractice, when ABC got her for the debate, they failed to exploit that

sleight of hand and let her get away with it again. That would have been an affirmative debate question I would have asked her. You said it's not true. What you said on the debate stage was about Joe Biden. I'm putting it to you right now. Did you switch your position? When and why? No. Once again, she told the same lie. She was allowed to get away with it. It's so incredibly frustrating. But

She did give an interview to hold on a second. Who was it? It's Wisconsin Public Radio. And it aired on Tuesday. And in this interview, she said that she supports ending the Senate filibuster, which protects minority rights in the Senate.

in an effort to restore Roe versus Wade. I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe and get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to put back in law, the protections for reproductive freedom. Now, this is what's amazing. Tom Cotton pointed this out. In 2017, when she was a senator-

She signed a letter pledging to support the filibuster to ensure the Senate continues to serve as the world's greatest deliberative body. And Cotton went on to say her word is meaningless. She'll say anything to get elected. So I think this tells us an enormous amount about who she is, this shift on the filibuster. She entered the Senate in 2017.

And at that point, the Democrats had no control at all in Congress or the White House. And as such, the prerogatives, the aims of the Democratic Party was to stop Republicans changing federal law. That's totally reasonable. That's why we have political parties.

And the letter that you referenced was therefore enthusiastically signed by 31 of the 47, I think, Democrats in the Senate at the time.

It was also signed, Megan, by 28 Republicans and endorsed by Mitch McConnell and spearheaded by Susan Collins. So there you've got 30 Republicans who are acting against their self-interest and also defying Donald Trump, who wanted to abolish the filibuster at the time. Harris signs on to this. Why? Because it helps her. Because it helps her party. Because it helps her thwart Republicans.

Now, a couple of those Democrats moved into the majority in 2020 and kept the position that they had held before, Kyrsten Sinema and Manchin. Most of the remaining Democrats did not. Kamala Harris moved from the Senate to the Naval Observatory and became vice president. And she changed her view completely. Why?

Well, because the Democrats now had control of the Senate. She was a tying boat and she was in a different branch of government. But it's worse than that. She didn't just completely change her view because she had moved and her party now had power, which is bad enough in and of itself. You're supposed to believe in institutions for their own sake. She moved into a position in which she was calling for partial power.

filibuster repeal or filibuster reform or a carve out on the two things that she and Joe Biden were the most upset about at the time, voting rights, so-called, and abortion. In other words, Harris's position in 2022 was that the filibuster should be ignored for the couple of things that she wanted to get done, but kept for everything else.

So she wanted the protection of the filibuster in case Republicans tried to change things that she likes, but she didn't want it to block the Democrats when they were trying to push through the agenda that she and Joe Biden had worked for. That, of course, is a party of the rule of law. We can see right there. Now she's running for president. She thinks she's going to be president. And she doesn't want any blocks at all on what she can accomplish. And so now she's for getting rid of the filibuster completely.

This is a great example of Kamala Harris's fundamental dishonesty, hypocrisy, vacuousness, and thirst for power. There is nothing there. She might not be answering questions. She might be dodging where she can, but this she can't.

remove herself from because she's on the record. We've seen her go from the filibuster must be cherished to save the Senate as an institution. It's imperative for America's future to we should carve out just those things that I happen to want in my new role to well, now that I might be president, get rid of it.

What does that tell you about her? It tells me that she doesn't actually believe in institutions at all. She doesn't believe in rules at all. She has no conception of a neutral order in which she is but a small part. She wants what she wants, and she will say what she says in order to get it. And that is why it matters so much that she won't answer questions. That's why Bret Stephens was right in that clip that you played, because it doesn't matter what you think of Trump or whether you're voting for Harris or Trump.

We should know what it is that the people we are sending to Washington and giving enormous power want to do. And the one concrete example we have shows her changing her mind on the fly to get exactly what she wants and impose it on the rest of the country. It's just unacceptable.

Mm-hmm. Not to mention the folly of making this a federal issue. That was the beauty of Dobbs, Jim, is it did give the issue back to the states. We return, revert to our 50-state experiment as the founders intended us to be on something as personal as this. If you don't like the laws in Mississippi, you can move to New York, you can move to California, you can move to Vermont. And

And that is why what Kristen Sinema said resonated with me, which has been my position all along on this. She responded saying to state the supremely obvious, eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe versus Wade also enables a future Congress to ban all abortion nationwide. What an absolutely terrible, short-sighted idea. And it also led Joe Manchin to say shame on her.

saying he definitely will not endorse her now. I mean, I think you actually have a very good argument that this may not be regulated by Congress as a national ban or a national permission slip under our current enumeration of separation of powers, that they don't have the power

to issue a nationwide ban or support resurrection of the Roe regime. I think that's the position that Republicans should take. And I think Democrats should say that because half a loaf is better than no loaf for either party on this issue. But she's decided to run out there and say she'll do it. And what's scary, Jim, is like,

The Democrats actually, notwithstanding the way we began the show, they actually could win the White House. They could keep control in the Senate and potentially even improve their margins there, though it's not likely. And they could win the House. So you know how they're always saying, believe Trump on his promises? We should believe her on what she's saying here. Yeah, and one aspect that I feel was

really honestly almost absurd is the idea that they're going to carve out an exception to the filibuster, but just on abortion. And the Senate Democrats are going to say to every other powerful progressive interest group in their party,

Well, we did that for them. NARAL gets what it wants, but sorry, Black Lives Matter, you don't get what you want. Sorry, human rights campaign, you don't get what you want. Sorry, Sierra Club environmentalists. I know you really want a green no deal, but we just can't get rid of the filibuster for that. The moment you get rid of the filibuster- Oh, wait, can I just say, sorry to interrupt you, but I do want to tell you,

She said in 2019, she would support ending the filibuster to pass environmental legislation known as the Green New Deal. She wants to get rid of it for that too. Exactly. So once you get rid of the filibuster for any piece of legislation, it becomes, it's like eating potato chips. It's very hard to do just one. You will end up getting rid of the filibuster for more and more pieces of legislation. And then the filibuster will be effectively gone forever. The other thing is, is that I've looked a lot at the Senate races. I wrote about them this week.

- The best case scenario, yeah, sure. So you add up all of the current Republican seats that are not up for election this year. You add up all the ones that are really deep red, open seat in places like Utah and Indiana, these are not swing states, and Jim Justice, who is almost certainly going to win the Senate race in West Virginia. That gets Republicans to 50 states. If everything else goes wrong, including Montana, tester hangs on, then you're looking at a 50/50 Senate.

Tester goes down in Montana, then Republicans have 51 seats and thankfully this filibuster discussion appears to be moot at least for two years. In a 50/50 Senate, what Harris is envisioning is that 50 Senate Democrats say we wanna get rid of the filibuster and Tim Walz comes in and breaks the tie. Now traditionally, the filibuster is there to protect the rights of the Senate minority. In this case, the Senate minority would be 50 Republican senators.

So getting rid of the filibuster is a terrible idea. Getting rid of the filibuster in a 50-50 Senate is an absurdly terrible idea. And yet this is what Kamala Harris wants to do.

That's what I just find. Yeah, sure. On the horse race numbers on the Senate side, because the conventional analysis is that the Republicans, of course, will win West Virginia, where Joe Manchin is retiring. West Virginia went overwhelmingly for Trump. And so that'll be a GOP pickup. And then they're looking at Montana as their next best, the closest thing to a shoe in. They think Tester will go down and that the Republicans will win in Montana and that will give them actual control of the Senate 51. But.

I don't know. Like there's been some scary polling out of Florida on the Senate numbers. There's been some scary polling in other states. Like I'm starting to wonder whether the red states that have been counted as like for sure they're going to hold on here. Is this too much to count on?

I will leave the question of Florida to Charlie because he's there. Look, you remember the hype around Beto O'Rourke six years ago. And he had more money than anybody else had ever had and more gushing press coverage than anybody else had ever had. And Ted Cruz won by three percentage points. Not a lot. It's a lot closer than we're used to seeing in Texas.

But there's this one, they keep hearing that in Wyoming, Deb Fischer is in trouble, I'm sorry, Nebraska. I don't think, I noticed the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee hasn't put money into any of these races yet. And they have to make some very tough choices. So when they start dumping money into Texas, by the way, Texas and Florida are expensive states to run. They got a lot of media markets, very high advertising rates. So if you wanna move the numbers in Florida, you gotta be putting in a couple million minimums

Um, so I, when they start putting lots of money into those two states, then I'll believe them. Nebraska is a much cheaper state. They still haven't put any money there. So I'm kind of skeptical. The Democrats are like, Oh, this guy, uh, who nobody's ever heard of is about to pull off the upset of the century. Look, I totally get, you know, Republicans blowing a Senate race that they should not blow. There's plenty of history of that. So I get that. But, um,

Um, we haven't even gotten to talk about like Bernie Moreno in Ohio, who now is looking closer to Sherrod Brown, uh, close, uh, McCormick is looking closer to Casey. There are a bunch of other news for Republicans. That's all good news for Republicans. Right. So, and if Trump has any coattails, you know, if he goes in, if he manages some wave like that Gallup poll shows, that's good for all those States. It could go the other way. My gosh, it's

I mean, it's getting down to it. It's getting really close to the day. It's hard to believe, September 25th. It's actually my son's 15th birthday. So happy birthday, Yates. Guys, thank you both so much. Great to see you. Thank you. Always enjoy it, Megan. Thanks for having us.

You know how it is, like when it's your kid's birthday, you think not only about the fact that they're getting so much older, but you think back on the, in this case, 15 years you've had with them and they were such little babies and where you were 15 years ago. And it goes by in an instant. And yet I'm so grateful that they still live with me. Yay. I get to hold onto them for a few more years at least and hopefully beyond because I'm infantilizing them and not trying to foster any independence so that they stay with me.

Anywho, when we come back, Nicole Shanahan, looking forward to speaking with her for the first time. A lot of RFKJ news to get to, including and separate apart from her own life story, which is fascinating. Do you owe back taxes? Are your tax returns still unfiled? Did you forget to file for an extension?

The October 15th deadline is fast approaching and time is running out. If you have not gathered all your documents or made any estimated payments, you could soon be targeted by the IRS. After October 15th, the IRS can garnish your wages, freeze your bank accounts, or even seize your property. That's the bad news. The good news is there's help available. Tax Network USA, a nationwide tax firm, has helped taxpayers save more than $1 billion in tax debt.

They have filed over 10,000 tax returns and assisted thousands in reducing their tax burdens. And they can help you too.

Don't wait. Visit TNUSA.com slash Megan or call 1-800-958-1000 for a free consultation. They will guide you through a few simple questions to determine how much you can save. Take action now. Before it's too late, visit TNUSA.com slash Megan or call 1-800-958-1000.

We all have plans in life, maybe to take a cross-country road trip or simply get through this workout without any back pain. Whether our plans are big, small, spontaneous, or years in the making, good health helps us accomplish them. At Banner Health, we're here to provide more than health care. Whatever you're planning, wherever you're going, we're here to help you get there. Banner Health. Exhale.

Joining me now for the first time, Nicole Shanahan, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s running mate and host of the Back to the People podcast. She's had a fascinating life and political evolution, and we are so excited to have her here. Nicole, thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for having me, Megan. It's a pleasure to be here with you today.

I can't get over what an interesting background you have and your political evolution in particular is fascinating. Like a lot of people who are going to pull the lever for Donald Trump in November, you've spent most...

of your life as a Democrat, supporting Democrats, even with donations and fundraisers. So tell us a little bit about your migration over to Team Red. Yeah. And I just want to clarify, I consider myself an independent, like 51% of Americans today. And that number is growing. People are re-registering, they're giving up their party affiliation, they're leaving the duopoly. And

And I very much consider myself part of that trend. And the power within that trend is to be able to pick a candidate based on the issues they represent, as well as where we'd like to see the direction of the country going. So it's not a your team versus my team. It's who's really thinking about Americans.

putting a real understanding of the American family at the forefront, individual liberty at the forefront, and preserving what makes this country so great.

And so my political evolution, really, from Democrat to independent, it's come from many directions. But I will say the overarching summary is that something is very, very wrong right now in this country. And there is a group of people, corporatists, cronyists, you can call

Call them what you want to call them, transhumanists, anti-women. They seem to be collecting around the Democratic Party. And it's something I started noticing as early as eight years ago and so many inconsistencies around.

that I was seeing, but even from areas of climate change, which they hold themselves up as caring so much about, the inconsistencies in how they handle social justice work. They seem to focus on these pro-crime initiatives without really fixing the economy and lifting communities up. So these are areas that I care so deeply about and very invested in.

I still am. I still believe that we have to take care of our environment, care about carbon and the climate situation. And there's ways to do it without adding toxins to our environment. So there's all these common sense.

Ways to address these issues that the Democrats have completely abandoned for something else, and that something else is deeply ideological. It is anti-human in many ways. It's anti-nature.

And it's, it's something I can no longer support. Um, in good faith. This reminds me so much of when I met Michael Schellenberger on this show four years ago, when we were just getting started, we didn't even have video at that time. And he, like you was on the left. He was a Democrat. He worked for Greenpeace. He was part of the whole Solyndra initiative at the Obama white house, trying to get all this green energy out there. And as someone who's

who was drawn to that work out of his love for mother earth. He slowly, but surely had the veil brought down on how these efforts that were being pushed through by the government were doing more harm than good. You know, the, the windmills and the solar panels and the toxins and the amount of land that they have to claim and vegetation and bird life and other animal life that has to be wiped out and

And really just came to it very naturally and organically. And that is what makes somebody a true proselytizer on certain issues, right? Because you tried it the other way. You kind of believed you were a believer only to realize you were wrong.

Well, I actually have been working in climate change and evaded a lot of the energy projects because I have a background in economics and the private market will solve for energy issues through innovation. That's my background. I'm an intellectual property attorney. I've studied

the evolution of human innovation. I created an AI to study every patent humans have ever created. And I understand the cost basis economics of, of,

certain innovational projects. So energy is something that the government doesn't actually have to be involved in because the private market will oftentimes innovate to solve these issues. Obviously, there's coordination and the grid and regulatory issues. But in a perfect private market environment, you don't need the kind of government spend that the Democrats have been throwing so much money at.

And so where I spent my time in climate work is looking at farming and soil because it's the only category in climate change mitigation that is a true win-win. If you do it right, you eliminate toxins from the environment. You create food security. You create small businesses.

And it is an area, however, that is going to require some government assistance to get away from large corporate farming and large corporate centralization. We have to rewrite how we think about the farm bill. We can't keep supporting big ag and agrochemical companies. And a small injection. I mean, look, our current farm bill is

going to be over a trillion dollars at this point. It's going to be the largest farm bill in history. And if they just spent one percent of that on regenerative agriculture, it would do more for climate issues than any of the Inflation Reduction Act or the Green New Deal would do.

Um, and why don't they, why don't they? Cause what we had, I watched the whole hearing just so the audience knows there was a great hearing on Monday. Casey means was there. RFKJ was there. Callie means Casey's brother was there. He's been amazing on this issue. Jillian Anderson, a bunch of people who are audience, sorry, Jillian Michaels, a bunch of people who are audience would know and have, have been on the show.

talking about some of these issues. Casey gets into regenerative agriculture and farming in her book, Good Energy, which everyone should buy and read. But you saw what the media did afterward. I mean, they

couldn't have cared less. And the one publication that really wrote it up, The Atlantic, which bothered to send somebody to it, was absolutely sneering and disgusting in its coverage of it, calling it the woo-woo caucus. Screw you, Elaine Godfrey, because some of us have kids whose very lives are going to depend on these reforms that they were discussing at this hearing.

But the reason the Atlantic has to crap on this messaging, Nicole, is they're owned by Steve Jobs's widow. And she's very close with Kamala Harris. And they decided to take a nonpartisan event that spoke about things like the soil and the problems and turn it into some sort of ad for Trump, which it wasn't. And then without considering any of the ideas dumped all over.

over it. Yeah. Lorene Powell jobs. I've, I've met her a few times. I know Emerson collective a bit. I've, I've crossed paths with them. They're here in Silicon Valley. My office used to be around the corner from their office in Palo Alto.

And I think that she is stuck in something. She's created something that she didn't intend to create. You have to recognize all the stuff we're seeing with immigration that came through her foundation, Emerson Collective. She's... I think at her root, wants to do the right thing. But she's working with bad actors. And I don't think...

I think she's aware of some of it, but I don't think she understands the full scope of it. And I say that because I ran into similar issues as well when I started working in the criminal justice reform space. I came in as a good actor. I wanted to reform the infrastructure of the justice system. I wanted to make sure there was balance in it. I wanted to make sure taxpayers weren't overspending on incarceration.

And something happened. Bad actors came in and other forces came in. I will say we do have foreign influences that are directing some of these funds in very bad ways.

And, you know, next thing I know, we have all these anarchists claiming to be criminal justice reformers. And they've somehow taken over our politicians who are supposed to be overseeing these funds and efforts. What do you mean? Because the biggest funder is George Soros, who's not an anarchist, but he's a deeply problematic man who's determined to fundamentally change this country for the worse.

I would say that some of the stuff he's done is very much in the mindset of anarchy, anti-government, or sorry. I thought you were saying foreign actors. Foreign actors, yes. So if you look at some of the...

things that are coming in through TikTok. TikTok is a really great example of how young people are being influenced today. Some of the content creators are being paid by Chinese companies. And you're like, why are some of these influencers getting $200,000 a year to talk about American social issues? And look, I think that

We need to do a deep, deep dive into exactly how these funds work, what what they're doing to our country. But in the area of criminal justice reform, you know, there's evidence that BLM, for instance, received money from groups affiliated with Chinese entities and.

If you look at what BLM did to the criminal justice reform effort, which was going very well, we got the crime rate down. We got incarceration rates down. Communities were doing better. This was around 20, 2016. And then by 2020, it turned into just this hellscape. And the good faith actors who are trying to fix the criminal justice system are

who are making progress, no longer could make progress anymore. The DAs that were supposed to be doing this great reform work became unreachable. And I will say, having been on the front lines of that and seeing it and the dynamics and the grassroots groups and the messaging changing and becoming radicalized, it sounds more anarchist

then it does a good faith approach to making a fair justice system. Yeah. Well, listen, I take back that George Soros is not an anarchist because he's funded enough upset and rioting across the shores of America that you could make the case, just the foreign actor thing, through me.

But I mean, right now he's obviously behind all these soft on crime prosecutors. He doesn't want them to prosecute any crime. He's behind a lot of this, the pro-Palestinian protesting that we're seeing on college campuses. He hasn't seen writing or protesting in America. That's on a left wing cause that he doesn't want to get behind. And his son just had a meeting with Tim Walsh. His son is just like him and is now very close to the Harris Walsh campaign. So I hope you like George Soros if you're voting for Kamala Harris, because you're going to get a whole lot more

just like it. But you, I too am an independent, but I've told my audience I'm voting for Trump. You're able, notwithstanding coming from the left, to see the truth about the MAGA movement. And you put out

I think the best ad I've seen about MAGA since it was born. I've had many of my friends who consider themselves MAGA forward it to me so that we would talk about it. And it's absolutely beautiful. Here is part of it, the MAGA people, Sot33. Across the Atlantic in the North American country of the United States lies a fascinating and often misunderstood collective

From its northeastern cities to its midwestern towns to its expansive west, this courageous group of individuals are most notably known for their unwavering patriotism. Join us as we explore the fascinating world of the Maga people. Contrary to what we had been told, we found the Maga people to be warm, loving, and even rather cheeky at times.

As we spent time with the Ma'aga people, we learned that their mantra, Make America Great Again, is an optimistic belief that the United States will once again prosper by returning to its founding principles of a government by and for the people. It's quite brilliant, Nicole, like the sort of the, you know, the 1950s feel of like,

foreign space alien has come down to America and invented, investigated this odd group. And so absolutely lovely. So why, and there's, you're doing a series of these ads and they're all this quality and this effective. So why did you get behind that? Like, how did that come to you?

Yeah, it was very organic. We didn't hire a sophisticated team at all. We have one editor that we work with. Each of those films cost about $7,000 to produce.

That one and TDS were my original idea. And it's in part just comes from a place within my own being of trying to figure it out and explain my own bias. You have to understand I was fully deep in the Kool-Aid of the left wing media.

and believed everything they were telling me about MAGA being a domestic terrorist organization. And the programming was so deep, Megan, that I would see someone with that MAGA cap on and I would feel tension and fear inside. And this is very true for many of those who are still stuck in that mindset and stuck in that programming.

And we attempted a few approaches to the who are the MAGA people or what is MAGA. And none of them, a lot of them were like very serious. Some of them were, they didn't sway me. So I needed something that was going to engage someone from my background and was going to deliver a gentle message to

and was going to deliver it in a way that felt truthful. And so when we made this one, it was very much about these BBC and investigative anthropological studies of these other people, because that's what's happened in America is that we've been so divided that we're almost different clans.

We have to try to figure out how to understand each other in narratives that our consciousness has seen before. And so these BBC anthropologists

apology trips seemed like a really great way of helping us rediscover one another here in America. So good. It's so well done. You referenced TDS. I think our audience knows that stands for Trump Derangement Syndrome, which is a real thing. And that one's excellent too. Here's a bit of that in SOT31.

Are you or your loved ones suffering from illnesses such as TDS, also known as Trump Derangement Syndrome? Do you dismiss or deny the current issues facing our country, such as historic inflation, illegal immigration, corporate corruption, World War III escalations, and the chronic disease epidemic? Are you willing to elect someone who was the least popular vice president in modern history, and who offers no policy or vision for America, simply because your brain keeps telling you anyone but Trump?

If so, you might be struggling from TDS. Introducing Independence. Independence allows you the freedom to finally think independently once again. So good. So do these drop only on YouTube? And how can we get these in front of all of your California neighbors? Yeah.

So interestingly, TDS went super viral in the first 48 hours and has now been viewed close to 90 million times. And then the Who is the MAGA peoples didn't go quite as viral, but people used it to

send to their family members or friends or colleagues. And they said, look, I know you think MAGA is a domestic terrorist organization, but just take two minutes of your day and watch this video because this is my understanding of who MAGA is. And that's been really heartening for me to hear the feedback on because that really was the intention of these

short videos, just something that, you know, would really tickle people's humor and curiosity and create a forum for having open conversation with one another again, because it is so divided. We're working on one right now, which is really a love letter from my heart to moms and families out there and to grandparents. Yeah.

because boomers are really hard to reach in this country. Liberal boomers are some of the most stubborn when it comes to changing their opinion on Donald Trump. They're hooked to legacy media. I call it boomer news. Right. That's good. And, you know, this one, it's called the Dear Dad ad.

And it's a family story. It's my family story of my sister-in-law trying to communicate with her dad, who's a never Trumper there in Arizona. And her son, little boy, Jack, was severely vaccine injured and almost passed away. And this was a clear case of vaccine injury.

And, you know, so Dear Dad is just this gut-wrenching letter she wrote about

that we're going to try to get out there and help people understand that, you know, this is one election cycle, but we've got bigger battles to fight right now. We've got to uncover the depths of the corruption. And this is not vindictive. This is not a vindictive journey. We're not trying to, you know,

throw anyone in prison for the rest of their life, but we want freedom. We want our liberty back. We want honest health care. We want our children protected. We don't want to see any more of these one and a half year old, two and a half year old babies struggling to breathe on ventilators. Yeah. I mean, obviously the

affinity for RFK Jr. becomes obvious when you get to this part of your story. Um, and you know, he's been, it's for us, it's been great to watch him from being totally banned on all social media to being, you know, called at this congressional hearing as a true authority on children's health and to be an important endorsement for Donald Trump and really potentially an important member of the next administration. Um,

I wanted to ask you because your personal story is equally interesting to your professional and political evolution. You used to be married to one of the co-founders of Google, Sergey Brin, who is reportedly worth $130 billion. And the reason I think this is relevant to what we're discussing today is on Thursday night, we had this interview, that's in air quotes, by Oprah Winfrey of Kamala Harris.

Oprah Winfrey, she may not have as much money as Sergei, but she's got some $4 billion. And I was saying to the audience, she has become completely unrelatable. She has no idea what the problems of the working class are.

The old Oprah who we fell in love with in our living rooms back in the late 80s, early 90s is gone. She's evaporated. There is a new elite David Geffen yacht riding version of her trying to pretend to be that other person. And I read in one of the articles that you participated in that you

spent some time in that world that, you know, you didn't come from anything, but suddenly you're married to one of the richest people on earth. And you felt that you've, you talked about how you felt that disconnection, like the astronaut who gets his line tethered from the space ship. Can you expand on that?

Yeah. It's, uh, I think you're spot on about Oprah. Um, and you know, Megan, I've heard you talk about it too, going to these parties with celebrities and talking very superficially and how everyone's looking at you, but they're also looking behind you to see who their next social target is. Um, and so I spent eight years in that world and I, I had, I had been a self-made young woman, um,

I grew up poor in Oakland, spent time on government assistance. Parents didn't work, never had a home or a rental of their own. I lived in grandparents' homes. And I worked really hard. I believed in a merit-based society.

I found my way to Stanford University as a postdoctoral fellow in law and computer science, was building a very sophisticated early AI. It was a large language model on the patent corpus. And I met Sergey, and that was 2014. And you have to remember, in 2014, tech could do no wrong. It was still considered...

this breakthrough, fun, lighthearted exercise in human endeavor. And it was fun here in the Bay Area. It was, you know, people could experiment and it was very liberal and liberating. And I saw things change here in Silicon Valley. You know, I can talk about the wealth too. I mean, when you have

unlimited wealth, you think differently and you think bigger sometimes, but then you can also lose sight of what the world is really like for everyone else. And I will say that, you know, Silicon Valley changed a lot in 2016 after the election. Trump won, Hillary lost, tech was blamed for it.

And things changed really dramatically. The risk profile of being a tech elite changed. I saw families around us who went from small security teams to small armies, right?

And that's the reality amongst these top billionaire families is that their security teams rival, I mean, they're better than the Secret Service for sure right now. Well, we hope so. Yeah. But these are really sophisticated personal armies and the wealthy in this country today

uh, are more organized and more powerful than the United States government. In my opinion. Um, it's really scary. Armies. They've got their guns. They've got their self-protection. They've got their compounds. They've got their kids set for life. You know, that I think is why you said it was in an interview with people. What I learned in the marriage was it's nearly impossible to have mega wealth and be deeply grounded. And yet, uh,

These people are everywhere. You know, look at who zoomed into that so-called town hall, Meryl Streep, right? Chris Rock, Julia Roberts, Oprah Winfrey. Not one of them is going to have to live with the consequences of a Harris walls administration when it comes to criminal justice, when it comes to the way we eat, when it comes to the second amendment, when it comes to anything.

They're immune to it. They're completely immune to it because they can send their children to private schools where parental rights still exist. They can move their children from expert health care provider to expert health care provider. They can evade vaccine mandates. They can evade lockdowns.

I saw it. I lived it. I was able to evade some of the lockdowns because we were so immensely wealthy. We could rent entire airplanes out. We had private airplanes as well. But you could fly anywhere. You could go to Fiji. You could get a special license. And that really disgusted me. I think I got to a point in my experience living this double standard where...

I was surrounded by all of these public health experts that were locking everybody else down, but we were able to kind of just evade all of these lockdowns. It's wrong. It's morally and ethically wrong.

And I would love to see a world in which some of these elites open their eyes and just take into consideration what life is like for, you know, the mom who owns the small retail shop I was just talking to here in California who has high school aged girls in the public school system and coming home with English homework where they interview their parents on gender ideology.

And if you're conservative, right, or not even conservative, many of these Californian parents are liberals. They believe in liberty and freedom and being who you are. But now they're having to play these games with the school where they have to show that they're buying into the gender ideology just so that their kids can get by every day so that the families aren't singled out.

And so they're playing into these pronouns, even though they don't necessarily believe in the pronoun ideology, but they have to teach their kids that at school you have to be one way, but you're still allowed to have your own belief system.

And that being a woman or a girl or heterosexual is just as important, right? It is who you are and you shouldn't be ashamed of it. But, you know, being in a public school system right now is really, really hard. And the elite left have no idea what the rest of the country is going through.

You know, many of them, when I tell them that there are sandboxes and bathrooms for furries, they're like, what the hell are you talking about, Nicole? I'm like, no, this is real. This is actually happening.

The media didn't believe that Kamala Harris had said in her ACLU questionnaire in 2019, she wants taxpayers to fund sex change procedures, operations and medications for prisoners and illegal immigrants. And the media thought that was so outrageous. It had to be a lie. It was written in her own hand, right? They they're so out of touch with what's happening in this realm that the gender thing is just one.

they can't possibly believe it. By the way, Oprah Winfrey doesn't even have children. So she doesn't even have to worry about this being done to her offspring. She has none, which is particularly galling. It may be why she didn't ask one question about that, but she was very interested in abortion. Let's make sure we have the right to abort the babies, but we're not going to spend any time on what's being done to them once they're born. Yeah. Yeah. And I run into...

this chasm, this ideological chasm on the left where they become very myopic on these issues. And they sometimes can't see past the veneer, the things that are marked a human rights issue and then a veneer put over them. They'll abide by completely wholeheartedly and with blinders up.

And so unless you experience some of these things firsthand, you don't truly understand the impact and implications. And I saw a lot of this in my work in women's health and women's reproductive research because I wanted to to fund research.

foundational science into ovarian function and how to keep healthy women healthy longer. I also was very curious as to why so many women were having infertility issues. And then I wanted to figure out if there were ways that we could provide fertility services that were not thrusting women into egg freezing and IVF. There's got to be this intermediate ground we could be looking at.

And so I put I contributed 100 million dollars into this. And I will say finding scientists who want to do this work for women to allow women to have natural childbirth when they're ready in their 40s. You know, women in their 40s have been having healthy babies for a very long time. This is not an unusual, odd concept. Right.

But I kept running into these groups that used the word reproductive longevity and fertility to infer assisted reproductive technology, which is very interesting. Very interesting.

And I kept running into these transhumanists. I'm going to use the word transhumanist, but you can use whatever word you want. You can just, you know, artificial reproductive technology is a very common one.

But what's falling under that umbrella of assisted reproductive technology is truly science fiction. But it's here. It's real. It's considered science today. And, you know, you have individuals like Martine Rothblatt, who's a transsexual woman.

Um, uh, was a man is, is now identifying as a woman sits on the board of the Mayo clinic authored the first gender bill runs something called a, um,

Xeno transplantation farm, which I'm afraid. Yeah, it's definitely something that we should all be aware of is happening. But Xeno transplantation technology is a way of moving genetic material around and it can be animal genetic material can be genetic material from multiple humans.

And, you know, it's well on path to creating a new species, new species. I don't know if you can call them humans, but but, you know, the science is working right now. And I haven't seen any attention being put on this. It's it's you know, it's such a far cry from the kind of science that we

I care deeply about, which is, you know, women's health. But, you know, I think a lot of the funds that they're saying this is for women's reproductive health is being moved over to these more transhumanist reproductive efforts.

And is this the where they're growing babies outside of the womb, right from the like the baby never is in the mother. They're in some incubator from conception, that kind of thing. There's so many different ways to mix it. But that's one of the ways that that's the artificial womb, which is the FDA is looking at an application for it. They're claiming, no, no, we're not using it for, you know,

to men to have a child yet as of right now, we're specifically using it for premature babies. So there's now companies that are relying on premature babies in order to prove the efficacy of this technology. So we have these really perverse incentive systems. Like we need sick moms in order to progress some of the science. We need sick babies in order to progress artificial womb testing. Right on.

Um, it's, uh, this, just so the audience knows, this is exactly what they were saying over and over again at this hearing on Monday. And what Dr. Casey means said in her book and on this show and on Tucker show, which is the whole system, the whole system, the way we eat, the way we're fed, the way the grocery stores are stocked, the way the doctors approach medicine, the way they teach med students, it's all set up.

without the incentive to actually improve our lives. It's got the opposite incentive that, I mean, to be perfectly frank, a sick child is like a golden ticket.

for these industries because now he's with the doctor forever and a big pharma patient forever. And there's no interest in getting to what you're talking about. Why, what, what can we do to help the actual individual maintain fertility longer as opposed to having artificial means come in and help? What can we do to actually start cutting back on the, the colon cancers that Gen Z is getting at strange rates and,

it's not just about treating colon cancer, coming up with a faster cure. It's about what are they eating? What are we, what's in the environment? What there's no interest in figuring out the causes, which is a true tragedy. It's an epidemic and a tragedy, which is why I love what you are doing. I will take a break right there. It's as good a place as any to come back and

quick ads, and then back to Nicole Shanahan. So happy to have her here today. Every big election makes us think about the future. It is a great reminder to plan for your family's future too. A lot can happen over the next four years and life insurance provides peace of mind, ensuring your loved ones are protected.

Policy Genius helps you find the right life insurance policy at the best price, so you will have one less thing to worry about. With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $292 per year for $1 million of coverage. Some options offer same-day approval and avoid unnecessary medical exams. Policy Genius' technology lets you compare quotes from America's top insurance insurers in just a few clicks, helping you find the lowest price.

If you ever need help, their expert licensed support team is there to answer questions, handle paperwork, and advocate for you throughout the process. Be ready for the future with Policy Genius. Head on over to policygenius.com or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. Policygenius.com. Momentum keeps us moving, keeps us flowing toward progress. The advancements being made today will power our communities of tomorrow.

At SRP, we're not waiting for tomorrow. We're researching and investing in technologies that make our neighborhoods and everyday lives more sustainable. Developing solutions that help every generation. That's moving forward together.

We all have plans in life, maybe to take a cross-country road trip or simply get through this workout without any back pain. Whether our plans are big, small, spontaneous, or years in the making, good health helps us accomplish them. At Banner Health, we're here to provide more than health care. Whatever you're planning, wherever you're going, we're here to help you get there. Banner Health. Exhale. I'm

I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave

We'll be right back.

Go to SiriusXM.com/MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com/MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. You've probably been hearing a new phrase lately. Make America. Make America. Make America. Make America. Make America healthy again. Make America healthy again. But what does that mean?

Well, turns out a lot of things. It means embracing things like this, and this, and this, and this. It's a little less of this, and a little more of this, less of this, more of this, less of this, and this, even this. So yeah, turns out it's a lot of things that, well, seem pretty great.

Make America healthy again. For the listening audience, it was saying more things like fruits and vegetables and exercise and some sunlight and some action with your significant other and less processed foods and toxins and all sorts of other things that are bad for you. Pills, nonstop medication and so on.

That gets right to the heart of it, Nicole. It doesn't surprise me one bit to learn that you and RFKJ connected. This has been, you know, obviously one of his big things too. And I wonder if you think, obviously his candidacy did not wind up working out because he was stopped by the Democratic establishment. You guys were stopped. But do you think that this message, this Make America Healthy Again message,

is here to stay because I've been disheartened at how the media has just dumped on it or ignored it. I think it's definitely here to stay. And

I'm optimistic because I've watched the progression of MAGA. MAGA is truly a grassroots organization. It's not tied to Donald Trump. They pick Donald Trump as someone that they've identified as representing MAGA values. But they will pick someone, you know, after Donald Trump's hopefully next four-year term. And...

And I think Maha will be on a very similar trajectory. It will be a movement that will outlive any candidates. You know, Bobby Kennedy is a fantastic leader for spearheading it and creating this movement. I'm dedicated for my lifetime.

I'm sure that Callie and Casey Means are dedicated. We've got incredible partnerships across this country of individuals, of farmers, of scientists, of doctors, of media personalities who look at this as a non-negotiable need.

And as long as that's the case, you know, we can be ignored by the what is the dying mainstream media. I mean, look at their numbers. They're abysmal. And we're going to take Maha and it's I call it DTV direct to voter issue. We don't have to go through a party. We don't rely on any representative member of Congress to to be a spokesperson for this. This is something that originates from the individual. It originates from the home.

It's lived experience every single day. It's people coming together and talking about these incredible changes they've made in their own lives that have resulted in previously unreachable goals. People getting off of insulin injections, people curing their skin diseases, people

Women who were told by an IVF clinic that they didn't have enough functioning follicles, all of a sudden having a healthy baby naturally. So these are the underpinnings of Maha.

And I'm very excited it's here. I'm glad that people like you, Megan, are excited by it as well, because I do think that the independent media, and this is something that gives me great optimism for our future, is that the independent journalistic movement, right?

It's, it's also not going anywhere. It's just going to grow. That's right. It's just going to grow. And, and they're very open-minded shows like Joe Rogan and Tucker and so many others. I mean, Huberman, there's been tons of independent Peter Attia, uh, independent broadcasters who are spending a lot of time on this. So the word is getting out. I did think it was amazing watching the hearing the other day.

I was fortunate because I didn't get to watch it on Monday, but then I had a personal thing I had to take care of yesterday. So I had the time and I watched all four hours of it.

And I recommend if you go to YouTube, you guys, you can watch this whole thing and you'll learn a ton. But, um, Bonnie Harry was there, Bonnie Hari. And, um, she was amazing. So she got up there and you may have seen this clip on, uh, Twitter guys, but she was holding up the, the difference between, uh, Kellogg's cereal with, uh, you know, the colors in it in the United States versus the UK. They don't have the colors. They're not using the food dyes over there. If they dye food over there, they use carrot or they use

Over here, it's all chemicals that's getting into our kids' bloodstreams and bodies at an early age in a world of microplastics and toxins and pesticides. I mean, they're just overloaded.

And here was a great moment for her in SOP 40. In the U.S., there's 11 ingredients. In the U.K., there's three. And salt is optional. McDonald's French fries. An ingredient called dimethylpolysiloxane is an ingredient preserved with formaldehyde, a neurotoxin. This is Skittles. Notice the long list of ingredient differences. Ten artificial dyes in the U.S. version and titanium dioxide. This ingredient is banned in Europe because it can cause DNA damage. My name is Vani Hari.

And I only want one thing. I want Americans to be treated the same way as citizens in other countries by our own American companies. If you watch the whole thing, you really you wind up angry. And Cali leader said if a significant portion of the people who hear this would just stop buying Kellogg's because they're doing this to Froot Loops.

It would actually change the national conversation. These companies will not stop doing this to us unless, as you point out from the ground up, the consumers say, I'm not buying your shitty cereal. Not one more day will you shove your weird chemicals into me or my kid.

Yeah. And just, you know, but talk about how hard that is if you're from a lower income household and a lower income neighborhood in the United States where you can only get cereal with those ingredients because it's the only cereal that you can both afford and access at your local grocery store.

And then add the fact that many of these ingredients are highly addictive. So we have these true addicts in our homes and they're little people, they're eight-year-olds and they're running around your house, dysregulated, screaming and tantruming, looking for that fix. That is the situation in this country right now.

And it's abysmal. You know, even look at the autism rate. Autism rates are going down. Marin County, California, one of the wealthiest counties in the state, has autism rates going down. And we're trying to investigate why. Could it be food? Could it be they changed the vaccine schedule? But it is wealthy individuals that have figured it out and their community as a whole is benefiting. Yeah.

But that kind of research isn't getting out and it's certainly not getting out to low income communities.

So not only that, but we're funding certain meals for these low income kids at school and they're filled with highly processed foods, ultra processed foods, sugar. It's disgusting. We're we're we're doing this to low income kids everywhere with our government assistance on this on the store shelves and so on.

Please come back. We're out of time, Nicole, but would you please come back? Cause I want to continue this discussion. There's so much more I would love to get to with you.

Oh, thank you, Megan. It's been a real pleasure. And anytime I'm happy to come back, I, you know, I'm not going anywhere. I have my sights set on helping my state of California heal, get healthy as well, fix our economy. We're in tens of billions of dollars of debt under Gavin Newsom's tutelage. So yeah, I'm not going anywhere. Happy to come back anytime. Thrilled.

thrilled to hear that all the best okay tomorrow we'll have carrie lake and james o'keith on his new documentary wait for that see you then thanks for listening to the megan kelly show no bs no agenda and no fear momentum keeps us moving keeps us flowing toward progress the advancements being made today will power our communities of tomorrow at srp we're not waiting for tomorrow

We're researching and investing in technologies that make our neighborhoods and everyday lives more sustainable. Developing solutions that help every generation. That's moving forward together.

We all have plans in life, maybe to take a cross-country road trip or simply get through this workout without any back pain. Whether our plans are big, small, spontaneous, or years in the making, good health helps us accomplish them. At Banner Health, we're here to provide more than health care. Whatever you're planning, wherever you're going, we're here to help you get there. Banner Health. Exhale.