It's a Numbers Game: The Numbers Behind The Shifting Political Landscape

listen on whatever streaming platform you're on. I took part in a debate on Tuesday for the group Young Voices. I debated Michael Tracy on the Trump administration's first four months and if the America First Agenda was a net positive for Americans economic prosperity, security, and civil liberties. Was an Oxford style debate, so I couldn't like tell jokes

in a little bit. It's very serious. But the audience voted before and after whose minds had changed most people and I won, which was exciting because the room was like mostly libertarians and liberals, so arguing in favor of tariffs and mass deportation not the easiest thing to do, but I won, so I was excited, And if you want to watch debate, it's somewhere onlines on social media somewhere. I think it's on x and you can go to Young Voices or my Twitter account and you can watch

the full debate. It's a little boring. Michael Tracy talked about Israel, but you know whatever, I kept it. It kept it to the numbers because that's what I'm interested in. So there are two big number data things that were out this week that I want to talk to listeners about. It's a solo episode, but I think there's a lot of data heavy stuff that really it would be hard to find a guest who was as interested in as

I was. So the first is this map that came out from the New York Times over the week, The New York Times tracked every county in the country and how it moved towards Republicans while Trump was the nominee in the last three elections compared to twenty twelve, and how counties moved in the last three elections towards Democrats since

Trump became the nominee. So their triple red or triple blue counties, That's how I'm describing them, right Triple Red being they moved towards Trump more and every single election. Triple Blue is obviously moved away from Trump and towards Democrats and every election. Okay, all told, there were one thousand, four hundred and thirty three counties that moved to the right in every one of the last three elections. Now, remember there are only three thousand, one hundred and forty

three counties total in the country. So Trump increased his support in every election in forty five percent of all the counties in the country. Democrats, on the other hand, only had a continual gain in fifty seven counties. Now, obviously we know that all counties aren't made equal rights. Some are more populated, some are wealthier, whiter, blacker, more Hispanic, more working class, whatever. But that is wild. That is a huge, huge difference in general trajection from one party

the other. Average Triple blue county, right, the average county that moved away from Trump and last three elections, the average blue county had an average population of one hundred and forty two thousand people. The average Triple red county was just shy of thirty thousand. So Trump gained much more in rural and exurban Americans parts of America, while Democrats gained primarily in suburbs, not cities. Suburbs. It's very important difference. What is interesting about the triple red counties

are where they exist in urban areas. They're all triple red. They're all triple they all went towards Trump three consecutive elections. No major urban areas went more blue since twenty twelve, not one. That's a very big thing because in some of the most some of the largest areas of this country, the counties that have the largest cities. Shit, Okay, what's interesting is that these triple red counties where gained in these urban areas. They have some of our biggest cities.

So Miami Dade County, home of obviously Miami, Bark County, Nevada, the home of Las Vegas, Honolulu County obviously the home of Honolulu, Cuyahoga County, the home of Cleveland. Philadelphia County, which is the home of obviously Philadelphia, and several of the boroughs of New York City, including my own Queens Brooklyn, and the Bronx all were triple read. They'd all moved more Republican election over election. So what does this tell

US the rural and exurban counties that moved consecutively. That is, the white working class getting closer and closer towards Saddam Hussein level of support for Donald Trump. Right we're approaching the seventy eighty in some parts of West Texas, for example, ninety percent support for Donald Trump among white working class voters. But in the cities primarily now there's some rural areas that are already around the Mississippi Delta and the Texas

border with Mexico. The majority Hispanic or majority Black book for the most part, where the growth came from from minorities was in these city centers, these urban areas, these big urban areas and like New York City that are growing leaps and bounds towards Republicans. The New York Times put this data out, and I think listeners should hear

this part. All told, one hundred and thirty five counties voted more Democrat in twenty twenty four than they did in twenty twelve by an average of eight point eight percent. Two thousand, six hundred and seventy eight counties became more Republican by an average of thirteen point three percent. That's six times as many counties that moved towards the GOP that moved towards the Democratic Party, and by a substantially

wider margin. The erosion of the working class support among black, white, and Latino voters alike has unnerved every ideological wing of the Democratic Party. This is why if you listen to a lot of lefty podcasts, I know most of my audients probably doesn't I do. I have a sick obsession

to hear what liberals are talking about. There's a lot of conversation outside, like out besides the bulwark, which is just constantly like Trump has owned this week, but the rest of the conversation around smart liberals is where are we going as a party? What are we doing? This frantic search for an identity and a leader is because these numbers are I think that when now that the election is far out and people can do solid data reporting based upon the voter file, it's far worse than

people even imagined. Because it's a trend. It's not a one off. It's not like, oh, twenty twenty four happened, but twenty twenty and twenty sixteen didn't know. These things are continuing, They're moving in this direction, and yes, Trump will be on the ticket in twenty twenty eight, but

it's a sign of where we are going. Trump not only one major gains in Hispanic areas, as everyone knows, and Decision Desk, this website, Decision Desk, they put out a report that actually Trump won a majority of Hispanics in sixteen states, but more counties with a black voter majority shifted towards Republicans in each of the last fifty three sorry, in each of the last three elections than the total number of counties nationwide that trended towards Democrats.

Fifty eight counties that are black majority trended towards Republicans, fifty seven counties that are black majority trended towards Democrats. That is a number that is somebody who's been filling politics in two thousand and eight. I probably never would have believed that was a substantial thing that was going on. But it's happening a lot in rural black counties in this country. And I will tell you guys a story. It seems kind of like doesn't make any sense, but

it does. During Stacy Abrams' first run for governor in twenty eighteen, I was like, my first time really in Georgia for any long period of time, and I passed somebody who a rural, you know, Georgian. It was not a big area. I was in South Georgia and he had a Brian Kemp sign and I said to him, why are you voting for Brian Kemp? And he said, no, fat lesbian from Atlanta is going to take away my gun.

I know, obviously that's really funny and shocking, but I could not believe his identification as a voter, which for so often for black voters in the country, was based on race, for him, in this very brief conversation I had, was based on ideology and specifically gun rights. A lot of rural blacks in this country are gun owners, and they are culturally much more like a Republican than they are like a Democrat, even though a majority still votes

for the Democratic Party. But it's clearly breaking. This is in the last election, Republicans gained ground in one hundred and ninety three of the country's two hundred most predominantly black counties. Think about that, ninety three of the two hundred most predominantly black counties. This is the base. This is the heartbeat of the Democratic Party. They are not a party without majority black support, and not even majority. They are not at party a functioning party without eighty

five to ninety percent majority Black support. If that ever slips to seventy percent, call it a night they cannot win. Or if blacks just don't turn out like they didn't in the last election because they're not energized by a candidate, because they don't perceive them as being authentic for whatever reason. Of the sixty seven counties in America with a majority Hispanic population, guess how many voted more Republican in twenty twenty four than twenty twelve. Sixty six sixty six of

sixty seven counties. Even more, according to nd Times, even more arresting is the average swing towards a GOP in those sixty six Hispanic majority counties was twenty three percentage points, a political earthquake with which both parties are still coming to terms d three points. With black with black majority counties, it was two three. Listen, we'll take it whatever. Three.

If that happened, If that kind of switch happened for working class white voters towards the Democratic parties at the Republican Party, it would be a nineteen sixty four style landslide election for the Democrats. Of the triple Red counties, ninety five percent had immediate income below thousand dollars a year. They were earning less than eighty thousand dollars a year, which is the immediate income for the whole country. Seventy five percent of the triple blue counties head to meet

income higher than an African national average. Haitian and wealth are the political dividers of the future. It is not so much race, which it has been in our country since I don't know in in ten, nineteen, twelve hundred years, one hundred years of race being the deciding factor in how you support somebody will now be replaced by education and income, and it means a world of difference in

the country. You'll start seeing places like Kansas and Nebraska get bluer and bluer and bluer, and you will start seeing places like California and New York and New Jersey get redder and redder. And I don't think people are understand that that movement is happening. Education is increasingly becoming a more likely predictor of voting habits than race, about a college degree, more than your skin tone and your

skin color. So the big question I want to present to my audience is this, what can this continue, especially in a Trump free in a post Trump world, the Trump free Republican Party. I mean, obviously they'll all like him, but he won't be on the ticket. That's the big question. In my opinion, it can, but it's not definite, not in the way the Republican Party is made up in DC right now. I spend a lot of time in the Capitol. I spend a lot of time members of Congress.

I've been there for more years than I care to remember. And for the most part, they're still naked ideologues. They're holding onto a Republican Party in many senses that they grew up with from decades past. They are not living in today's world. You know, Yes, they support President Trump, they like a lot of agenda. They own a MAGA hat. They put their make America Great bumper sticker over there,

George Bush, Mitt Romney, John McCain bumber sticker. But if you were to wake them up at three o'clock in the morning and water bore them until they announce what they actually believed in. It will look a lot more like Mitt Romney than Donald Trump. And maybe they've gotten more aggressive on issues like illegal immigration, But on trade,

do you think any of them support tariffs? Really? What about a millionaire's tax like President Trump suggested but didn't get, or earn closing of the earn interest loophole which he didn't get. How about paid maternity leave, which he's talked about for five years, has never got it, never gotten close to it. What about cutting some spending to the Pentagon, which is refusing to meet an audit and is rippled with misappropriated funds. How about cutting any money to them

or holding them accountable? Probably not? What about the Raise Act, which would have reduced legal immigration by fifty percent? What about any reduction to legal immigration which a majority of Republican voters want. Maybe you'd get two dozen of the two hundred plus members. Maybe two dozen if you're like, I'll tell you one story. I was in and off the record congressional event. This is in twenty twenty on and Biden's in the White House. Maybe it was in

twenty twenty two. The Ukraine War had just started, Zelensky had just come to Congress to go and speak to, you know, the Congress basically asking for endless support for the war in Ukraine. And I, you know, I understand the feeling that you should be on the side of the Ukrainian people, especially in this time, and you know, wanting to help out a country that was being invaded. Totally understand that. I totally get that the level at which these congressmen were hungry to support a war was

strange to me. They had no idea at which the place Americans were and how war we were, where we were, how much Americans, especially when whole Republican voters were tired of being the world's policemen, tired of being the world's piggy bank, felt that we were being taken advantage of.

Didn't understand it at all whatsoever. One congressman, I will never forget this, stood up in front of the entire group of other congressmen and said that he wanted to put a bust of Zelenski in the capitol of Rotunda, our capital which has nothing to do with Ukraine, next to a statue of Winston Churchill, who was our ally to defeat the Nazis, because he said he's the most Churchillian figure in the world right now, completely and utterly out of touch. There aren't enough people in DC that

reflect the voters. And I'm not talking about like someone's race and how they look, or gender or religion or whatnot. I'm talking about life experience too. Many of these people come from money, have never spent a true day as an adult as a member of the working class. They don't have staff who have there. Try to get a staffing job without a college degree. I mean I've met maybe four people ever was a staff or without without

a college degree. They live in places that are walled off from the working class experience, and the consulting class who advises them nine times out of ten has distain for the voter. They've total disdain for the Republican voter.

They don't understand their feelings on issues at all. And don't even get me sorry them about the lobbyists and about you know, the Chamber of Commerce and these other organizations in DC who pedal endless immigration and promoting war and NonStop tax cuts and just things that can be good at times, but it is their only ideology, is

their only worldview. They are only pushing towards one thing. Anyway, we have a long way to go as a party, I think, to reflect what the voters want, which means until we do them, voters will become more extreme in their demands because they feel like they're not being met. That's my opinion on that. But the data is very interesting and very very important. There's one other data story that came out this week, very important most people in

the media. Actually, I haven't seen anyone in the media acknowledge it yet, but it's about who we are as a country, what we believe, and I'm going to cover it so that way you could hear about it first. Stay tuned right for these messages. The General Social Survey, which has been around since nineteen seventy two, was created by the University of Chicago and the National Opinion Research Center. The GSS is a big amount of data that comes out every other year, so it comes out twenty twenty two,

twenty twenty, twenty twenty four. The twenty twenty four data just came out, and it really looks into who we are as Americans and what we value, what we believe in on a number of things, like I mean, they ask hundreds and hundreds of questions spend over a year analyzing and pouring over the data. And you have heard about the GSS because when another news story breaks out, they reference it. So when there's the racial reckoning, they'll be like, this is how Americans feel about race relations

over time, and they'll use GSS data. But when it comes out, you know, when it comes out. Matter of fact, when it comes out like the day Cup, no one reports it. They only report it to tie into other narratives. So I want to talk about some of things. Because it's hundreds of pages long. I can't possibly go through all of it. You probably wouldn't be interested in all of it, but I think that there's a number of things that are vital in it. So let's talk first

about social trust. We as a nation used to be a very high trusting country, and there are other high trust in countries. Japan is a high trust society. Scandinavia is a high trust society the Scandinavian countries. When you have a high level of social trust, you're not only likely to believe people who are different than you who look different than you more, you're likely to believe people who look the same as you more. You're more likely to want to volunteer of your own free will and

volunteer civically. In World War II, for example, we were a very high trust society. People were okay with giving up things for the better mean of winning the war and being part of a movement. That's what happens in a hydra society. We have definitely obviously, I mean, you shouldn't be shocked. We've lost our steps. They asked which institutions Americans had great confidence in. I'm looking at the

data right now. The only institutions where Americans have are more likely to say they have a high level of confidence than a low level of confidence. There's only three. Medicine twenty six percent, so they have a high level of confidence, twenty percent so they have a low level of confidence. The scientific community, which they've been to hit, they've been hit a lot post COVID, but thirty six percent so they have a high level of social trust,

thirteen percent that they have a low level. And the military forty two percent, so they have a high level of social trust. Thirteen percent that they have a low level social trust. That's it, just three. These are the institutions that are greatly underwater. Banking mat your companies organize religion, education. I think this is the first time ever education has

been underwater. The executive branch organized labor, Congress, television. So I think that means including the media, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court hit forty percent, primarily because it has to be Democrats. There's no other way. Democrats must have absolutely fled for the hills after the abortion decision. That's why I'm going to equate that with this more. But those, all those institutions are very much underwater, where people have no trust for them, then a lot of trust.

When asked do you think people are genuinely helpful or are mostly looking out for themselves, forty seven percent of Americans said people are mostly looking out for themselves. Thirty nine percent said that people are genuinely helpful. Forty six percent said most believe that most people will take advantage of you. Forty two percent believe people are trying to be fair. What does that mean on a country level?

What does it mean as a country that almost a majority do not have faith and trust in their fellow citizen, in their neighbor. What are they likely to do? What are they not likely to do? I'll give you an example when Japan, this is a couple of years ago, Japan was hit with some kind of natural disaster. They needed everyone in the country to turn out their lights.

I think you have like six o'clock to conserve energy, and like ninety four percent of people complied, ninety five it was well over ninety percent people And there were no law. No one in the military was like walking around with a gun saying shut off your lights. They did this voluntarily because they were a high trust society. Almost half of Americans don't think think that their neighbor or their fellow American would take advantage of them, and

that they're only looking out for themselves. Would they be willing to sacrifice when the country needs them, like on their own, not because you know there's not because there's someone walking around like was the COVID and that you had to you know, right where you've been, what you're doing at the airport, but on their own. And most people sit there and say, no, why is that. Well,

there's a number of reasons. Obviously, there's been a lot of scandals over the last several decades over why you can't trust any institutions, why people are flawed, politicians who've taken advantage bankers and wealthy people, and businessmen who frauded investors. All of that's true, but there's also another reason, which is immigration. There's been many, many social science studies on this.

There's a book called Bowling Alone by Robert Puttnam. It's dated now, it's from the I think two thousand, two thousand and one. But they asked the question of what happens when you have mass immigration inflicted in a society, social trust declines. It's one of the fastest ways to

have declining social trust. And I don't think that it should go without saying that that is what we have seen in this country over the last two decades, primarily when you feel alienated from your fellow American, from your neighbor, you are alienated from the idea of giving towards that person of your own volition. Other interesting things from the gs AS survey. I'm going to run down some bullet points almost I think they're fascinating. Thing you should I

think it could be worth hearing it. Forty one percent of Americans are currently married, twenty six percent are a widowed or divorce thirty two percent have never been married. That thirty two percent number is I think the highest that has ever been reported. It will likely go high, which, as from a political standpoint, not wonderful when the base of the Democratic Party are unmarried women who've never been married. And also there's a happiness thing. Married people tend to

be happier than not married people. It is the opposite of what you hear from every sitcom of the husband who rolls to the al bundi who rolls his eyes married with children in the show I grew up watching my Grandfather, which was much of the chagrin of my mother. But that thing is actually not the true. Most people who are married tend to be happier than people who are not married, especially as they get into their fifties

and sixties. Ten percent of Americans are homemakers, which I found shocking because it is you never hear really about people being homemakers before, but one intent are homemakers. And also one in ten people work more than sixty hours a week. And really a political take with that, I found that very very interesting. Americans are as likely to have three children or more as they are likely to

have one. The outgrowth of childlessness, which I have to touch on for a second, because again, to argue with my friend and culture all the time, she doesn't think it's a big deal, but it is. It is a big deal. One in five conservatives have no kids. Okay, fine, that's about the same as nineteen eighty four. The number of conservative leaning people who don't have kids has been

flat for about forty years. The number of moderates who don't have children went from thirteen percent to twenty two percent. So that's a big uptick in moderates, right who. I don't know if they can't afford it or what the case is, but they or they just choose not to have kids. But that's a nine percent of tick. The number of liberals who don't have children went from twenty

two percent in nineteen eighty four to forty percent. Almost half the population of self proclaimed liberals do not have kids. Part can. I talked to Tim Poole about this. He's like, great, Nober means you know, no liberal kids means no liberal future. Yeah, but it means a lot of people who don't have a clear investment in the future as far as they see themselves, they see their future in the next generation. It means something. It just does your life does change

when you have a kid. It does mean that a lot of people experience loneliness. Not everyone who does have a kid is lonely, but there are is a connection between loneliness and no family, no children. It also means a lot of baby boomers today, who you know, they worked hard and they expected this future where they would be grandparents, are experiencing loneliness now because they don't their liberal children. And they're liberal for who knows what reason,

never had never had children. It's an end of that entire bloodline, uh, that entire family. And it means and I've ends like this, who are you know there? I would say they're middle world. They're not even liberal, they're kind of left leaning. But they're all in their mid and till eight thirties. They don't have children, and they have smaller families than on my own. And I say to them, they live so heavily in the moment, I

have this conversational concert. They live completely in the moment, And I say to them, you're not looking twenty years down the line when your parents aren't here anymore, or twenty five years, not going to as long as humanly possible, when you don't when a holiday is literally being alone, Like that's a very hard thing for a lot of people.

And we see depression and we see suicides, and we see addiction spike during those time periods that loneliness is getting higher, and it's specifically among a lot of college educated women who are being pressured to one think that they have to work to show that they are worthy, that their work is what they kind to find themselves in. And also because they're in school until their mid thirties and by the time that the opportunity to have children comes up, time has kind of passed them by and

no one warned them. There's also a connection between mental health problems in this study and political stuff. Voters under thirty people who are extremely liberal, fifty six percent said that they were diagnosed with a mental health problem. Think about that, people who are very liberal under the age of thirty a majority, So they were diagnosed with a mental health problem. According to the GSS study. If is

that there's two questions. Is it that liberalism attracts mentally ill people, which there are times that I could get on board with that message, or is it that very liberal people are trying to diagnose themselves with problems. They're over trying to find a reason that their life isn't well, or that they're not perfect, or whatever the case may be. I'm not sure, but there is a sliding scale. Fifty six percent of extreme liberals under THEASA thirty have a

mental health problem. Thirty seven percent of people who are just regularly liberal have a mental health problem. Thirty percent of moderates have say they have a diagnosed mental health problem, only fifteen percent of conservatives and only ten percent of very conservative people. And this, by the way, this sliding

scale people under thirty is not true. People over thirty, over thirty, extreme conservatives, conservatives, moderates all have the same amount sixteen to seventeen percent, liberals twenty four, extreme liberals twenty eight. Okay, slide uptick with extreme liberals and liberals, but not significance. You know, ten points at the most, but it's usually like six, not a lot. Not a big growth among young people, and I would guess specifically young women who are liberal. It is a social contagion.

It's wild, in my opinion, and it's not good. It's not a healthy place to be and it will probably mean of a democratic party in the future. That reflects those kinds of voters where you're like, wow, everyone seems like they're diagnosed with the mental health issue. Anyway, Okay, I want to go to two more things and then we'll get to the Q and A. Because the study is really long, I could go through everything. Other interesting thing that I found on other tidbit was this when

it comes to idea of free speech. Now, this is something that we as Americans hold is the greatest ideal. It's something we can generally get a board, get on board despite our politics, right the belief of free speech. That's what we're told. There is a big difference between free speech depending on what you are criticizing. So they ask people, if someone spoke out against all religion, should

they be allowed to speak? Seventy nine percent said yes, twenty one percent said no. If someone was in an admitnute and a vowed communist, should they be allowed to speak? Sixty six percent said yes, thirty four percent said no. If someone said that they believe one race was inferior to another, should they be about to speak? Forty nine percent said yes, fifty one percent said no. That is dramatic.

Now I do not believe any race is specifically inferior than another race, and I wouldn't get on board with that message, but I do believe that that person has the right to speak, and sometimes it's good that they speak so that way everything is aired out, you can tell who the real racist is, Like I think a communist should be allowed to speak. That is jarring though

that we have. This is something that Chrystal Colwell wrote about in his brilliant book, that we had a second Constitution during the Civil rights era, that there is a belief that conversations and discussions over race really triumph over all, and that is something that's very I mean, thank god we have a Supreme Court that's always usually my think, almost always held up the right to speak. But that's nerve racking that the public does feel like some conversations

deserve you to take your rights away. That would support things like hate speech laws, which is against our First Amendment. They also asked if somebody had an opinion that if someone was spoken against all religions, should they be allow to teach. Sixty three percent said yes for teaching, but if they have the same opinion over race, only forty nine percent, so that they should be allowed to hold

a teaching job. Once again. You shouldn't be allowed to speak, shouldn't be allowed to work if you hold unpolite positions. Now it's fifty to fifty. I'm sure it's actually better. I wasn't able to find the data from twenty twenty. I don't know they asked this question. I'm sure it's better than knowing the racial reckoning. But it says a lot that our rights are conditional to what we say to a lot of people. Okay, last few things that

I think are super fascinating. One in four people living in the country have at least one immigrant parent, and only sixty four percent have all four grandparents born in the US. I'm one of the sixty four percent. I thought it'd be higher, honestly, but I guess mass immigration will do that to you. Thirty six percent of people who did not vote in the twenty six sixteen election because they were either too young or they didn't vote, thirty six percent of those people would voted for Trump,

twenty nine percent for Clinton. That shows you the projection of where new voters are are still leaning to the right. That's good. The next question and I'll go over Thirty five percent of people say that they attend church once a month or more, thirty three percent attends a few times a year, thirty one percent never attend church. Eighty three percent of Americans believe in life after death, seventeen percent do not. I'm in the eighty three percent camp.

Sixty eight percent prey at least once a week, twenty percent never do. Fifty four percent of Americans support prayer in school, despite what the media will tell you, majority of Americans support prayer in school, Forty six percent do not. Twenty percent of Americans believe you should have the right to discriminate when selling a home. You should be able to sell your home to whoever you want to depending on your own biases. Majority of Americans obviously do not.

About a quarter of Americans support affirmative action when it comes to hiring minorities seventy three percent a pose which also not a thing that the media would ever sit there in track. I'm sure if I sit on seen it and I'd be banned all over again, and then I'll go over the last thing. Thirty six percent of Americans own a firearm, be one percent believe it is better for a man to be the breadwinner and household and the woman to be a homemaker. Interesting stuff, interesting data.

I thought you guys would like it. I enjoy that kind of stuff. Once again. It's one hundreds of pages long. You could download it for free the General Social Survey. I highly recommend. It's just fascinating. Let's get to let's land this plane. Let's get to the question answer. If you have a question for me, you can email me Ryan at Numbers Game podcast dot com. Ryan at Plural Numbers Game podcast dot com. You're listening to It's a Numbers Game with Ryan Grodowski. We'll be right back after

this message. This email comes from Russell Klugg. Russell says, Hello, Ryan, burn through all your episodes on a recent new show. Congrats. Interest in your work sparked from an older conversation you had with Emily Jazinski last year on Breaking Points. Yeah, I know I was on that show. I haven't had me on a long time now, where you responded humorously that to a Karen led online Democratic fundraiser for Harris or something, wanting someone to say, ma'am, this is a

Wendy's to the lead. Karen, Oh, yeah, that was true. This is when they were like, it's a bunch of like white women for Harris, and they were like giving context of what you should say and when and not to hurt anyone's feelings. And oh my god, how exhausting. Two questions. And if you had numbers on them. Do Democrats have a smug elitist problem? Are they perceived by the average person or majority of the population is arrogant or out of touch? If so, does this perception change

based on respondence being in out group Democrat Republicans? Do Republicans and independence know how democrats think see the world versus Democrats cannot understand how Republicans and independency the world. Okay, so let me answer the second question. First, there is a general misperception on many things when it comes to both the opposite party, when it comes to what people

think Republicans versus what people think Democrats believe. Right, there is a general belief also that the country as a whole is different than what it is. Right, This is not just this is just based on your personal bias. So there was there was this one study and I can't remember everybody do with the data. So we asked Americans how many people do you think in this country are live in New York City? Thirty percent said? They said thirty percent that they lived in New York City.

It's three percent. They asked, how many people you think are transgender? They said twenty one percent, it was one percent. How many people have a household income of over a million? They thought it was twenty percent. It's less than one percent. They asked, how people do you think are gay? They said thirty percent. It's like three percent or openly gay. There's another six percent or bisexual whatever. The numbers were wildly off, and that is as true for Republicans as

it is for Democrats. There's been a number of studies and about how misperception within the parties exists. But it's not just within the parties. It's within the greater context of the of the of the country. Like they the average person is not always finally in tune with the actual percentages of the country and how and what they actually believe. Do they have a smug or elitist problem? It depends who right, It depends who in the party. Bernie Sanders does not have a smug or elitist problem.

Bernie Sanders can go on a comedy podcast and talk about the history of the Dodgers and have a normal conversation. Kamala Harris had a smug or elitist problem, I would say AOC could have a No, I don't think it's this. I wouldn't say it's a smug Reliaus. She has a different problem, but it's not a smug or elatest problem. She definitely comes off more regular. Pete Footage just does

not have a smug or elitist problem. He's a different problem when it comes to winning a national election in the sense that black voters in the Democratic Party, I don't believe we're gonna lect a gay guy. Gavin Newsom has a smug an elitist problem. So I don't think as a party as a whole, they can answer that question when it comes to certain cannons. Yes, but it's not every candidate in the Democratic Party. And you could see the ones who don't have it, the ones who

come off more you know, regular, regular Joe. They they are the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination. I think when you come, I think I think the better question is not really the elected officials as much as it is representatives of the Democratic Party, George Clooney obviously a leadiest problem, Steven Spielberg, obviously a tailor swift, Oprah Winfrey. These are all celebrities or they're left wing influencers who either look like they are they have a missing chromozoon

or an extra one. There's something like wrong with these people. They are very, very very far to the left. So I think that when you look at the representation of who who is out there talking with the Democratic Party so often, yes, the act elected officials who have to get votes, it's a mixed back anyway. I hope that answers your question. If I find any more information on this, I'm actually gonna bring us up next week on the podcast to talk about this. I think it's an interesting subject.

But I will look for that for on Monday. So tune in, please like in, subscribe to this podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts. I will see you on Monday with a special guest. Talk to you then,