Thanks for listening to The Rest Is Politics, sign up to The Rest Is Politics plus to enjoy ad-free listening and receive a weekly newsletter. Join our members' chat room again early access to live show tickets. Just go to TheRestisPolitics.com. That's TheRestisPolitics.com. Hello, welcome to the last of our three Rest Is Politics live streams from New York. This morning, the scale of Donald Trump's victory is even clearer. Not only is he one the
electoral college, he's won the popular vote too. Conventional wisdoms have been shot to pieces. Women were supposed to be taken Kamala Harris over the line yet more than half of all white women backed Trump. Sick jokes about Puerto Rico were supposed to swing Latinos behind Harris, Trump won them over by ten points. Wherever you care to look, if there was a swing, the chances are it swung to Trump. Now there are very big questions that I'll be discussing with Dominic Sambruck
from TheRestis History. Marina Hyde from TheRestis Entertainment and Anthony Scaramucci, once a Trump-comsman now presenter of our US sister podcast, if you ask where Rory is, he's on another plane back to London for what we call a previous engagement. What does it mean? For Ukraine, NATO, the climate crisis, women's rights and the future of politics around the world. So let's begin with our reflections. Marina, how are we feeling?
Well, I slept 90 minutes. Well done. But here's something that we didn't have to say five years ago in America. It is important to accept the results of the elections. I don't have to be happy that a convicted felon who stoked an insurrection against the peaceful democratic Trumps for a part is, and a guy who's been accused of sexual assault by 26 women, I have to be happy that the president put high accept it. Okay, and Dominic, as you
predicted it, you also said that you weren't going to appear today. Thank you very, very much for doing so. I'm glad that I managed to psychologically manipulate you into at the bottom of my turn up. That way, why? How are you feeling this morning? What's your reflection overnight? I've sort of, I feel even worse this morning than I did yesterday. But what's your take on it? I think it changes the way we think about Trump,
and arguably about Trumpism and America. So it makes us realize that 2016 was not an operation. There are all those people who said at the time, this is not America. I mean, that's a classic line in the Guardian, the New York Times, whatever. This is America. Now, the margins are not enormous. A different candidate, a better candidate, can win for the Democrats. But they will not win until they reckon with the problems they have
are winning voters in the Rust Belt, in the Sun Belt, suburban voters. And actually, a lot of the people they thought they thought were theirs. So women, Latinos, Black voters, there was a shift to Trump among almost every single demographic. And that's really where you, if you're in America. I think also, Anthony, that I think underlines as well. I've offered this really, really special politicians don't come along very often. And I think Bill Clinton was a very special politician.
I think Barack Obama was a very special politician. And his own way, I think Joe Biden was a very special politician. Stay too long. Whether we like it or not, you cannot, you can't dispute about Donald Trump. Is it actually, I think, unique phenomenon? And I think one of the things we've got to, we haven't really handled it well. The progressives are not handled. This sort of populist polarizing post-Truth politics well. I want to say something, there's the chance to
reflect on this. I want to get the reaction of all of you. There was a great meme that the Harris team was promoting. It was a man at a voting booth as a young daughter. Dad, how are you voting? I'm voting for you. I'm voting for you. But you know what happened last night? It was a mother at the voting booth. And the son was saying, Mom, how are you voting? And she was saying, I'm voting
for you. 46% of the women in this country turned out for Donald Trump. And I'm wondering if we are having an existential crisis in the country in the sense that we've left out a very large group of people. We cancel people immediately. We have this whole DEI thing. And men 18 to 36 are more likely to commit suicide by 33% relative to other demographic groups and age groups. And I'm just wondering if the culture, if the Democrats have gotten the culture wrong and have been toned deaf to this
dilemma, and it showed up in the polling booth last night. I was about to say when you look at the demographics. So young voters. So young voters in Michigan are 52% of 18 to 29 year olds, 51% of 30 to 44 year olds in Michigan, backed Trump. There was a shift among voters of all demographics. And I think the tendency that the Democrats have is to divide people up into specific groups and to say, we'll get women, well, to sort of parcel people up and to assume
that they have a lock on particular groups. And they've got angry old white men. Right. And that's exactly. And yeah, look, the angry old people in Michigan voted more for Harrison for Trump, the young people. But the other thing is interesting. And this underlines how we can't just see people as being a Republican, a Democrat. So abortion, massive issue in the campaign arena. But progressive abortion rights amendments were on the ballot and they passed in
seven states. Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Maryland, New York, they failed in three, South Dakota, Nebraska, California. So people have been able to say, I'm going to vote for Kamala Harris, but I'm going to vote against more liberalization on abortion. I'm going to vote for Donald Trump, but I'm also going to vote for greater abortion rights. And I think this idea that we sort of, so when the Democrats told us the whole time, abortion's going to take it over the line. I mean,
politics is a world. It's really interesting. Someone told me to give me a great saying the other day in military context. They said that the British treat war is sport, the Americans treat war as war. And in this analogy, like the Democrats are the British and the Republicans are the Americans on this issue of abortion over the past sort of decade. I've read and listened to such a little stuff about how patiently and strategically Republicans and anti-abortionists have worked.
And they don't work on like fire. And I'm contrasting this within general how the Democrats work, by the way, which is such a sort of scattergun and like something will come along approach. And they do things in five, 10, 30 year plans. And they have clear outcomes and they work. They relentlessly focus on them. So they've got obviously one big target like you overturned Robus's Wade, which they succeeded in doing because of how they had put people in positions.
And they spent ages getting years getting these people into position. And so now you have to say what's their stretch target. And we'll have to see about that. But also the demographics, the long-term demographics are shifting. So they're trying to think, well, how do we get voters? And they have these long-term plans to bring voters to them. And you see, you know, one in three minority ethnic voters in this country voted for Trump. And that wouldn't
have happened before. So they are bringing people over. But they are so strategic. They had the right, they had, by the way, they had got the wrong result. They had the right people in places to say, no, we won't certify. They had got everything, they have all their ducks in a row. And the the Democrats are just not good at this. They're so bad at planning. They don't plan ahead. And they wait for things to come up and they are in these permanent convulsions. They are a mess.
Yeah, but and yet we were talking about you were saying in Pennsylvania, brilliant, the ground operation was and I was more money. Well, that's the ground operation when you get to the election campaign. No, but what is not five years out? Well, I'm a built in to know, as you say, that it's all is really hard in our country, UK and your country, the US. It is harder to win from the left than it is from the right. Okay. And he was all and he always said, they have
got the better songs. They have got the better organization. They usually have the media on their side. There's even more so now that you've got people like Musking Charge. And that is why the point you were making last night, Dominic, if you are on the left and the center left, you've got a fight harder. You've got to be more strategic or less strategic. I don't think they are. Well, but I mean, they had the organization, but what they didn't have is the right candidate.
Let's just be honest about it. Okay. They put, she's a nice person. She's articulate, but they put her in a ridiculously difficult situation. Yeah, but that's the long term. It was literally like a mission impossible, right? Okay. July 21st, go, you were the vice president that we ignored in the administration. We ditched you. We dropped bombs on you in the press. But now you're going to be the beacon of democratic hope in the society because the person that was 81 couldn't, couldn't
handle you. You know, he was, he was going to be 81 and they really knew that for not like literally 81 years, but they knew that he was a bunching, but that's the power of the president. That's the organization. Yeah, but Dominic, what do you make about this thing about winning from the right, winning from the left? In fact, even whether these left-right term terminologies is still as relevant as it is. Because both parties are coalitions, of course, all big parties are.
The Republicans had won the popular vote one in 2004, but they hadn't won it in 2008, 2012, 2016 or 2020. So it's not that it is that America is inherently a Republican or indeed a right-wing country, but I think the Democrats to some degree, and especially liberal Democrats, are blinded by their own evangelism and by their own sense of virtue. So they believe what they
want to believe. They talked, there's a danger, of course, in a very fragmented culture, which wasn't so much last night when we, you were talking about this Marina about the collapse of the kind of the political, common ground where people meet to have conversations. So people have retreated into their silos, the dangers of the echo chamber, particularly in the United States, where you are often physically more disciplined. So I think the Democrats, there was a line I used last night,
which I use again, I think they talk a lot about mega-voters, but they don't talk to them. That's what people try to meet on that ground. They despise them, though, they despise them. So we get this horrible, the Hillary call them deplorable. My friend Mark Cuban and I'm almost embarrassed to bring him up because he's such a great guy. He said, well, women are voted for Trump they're stupid. You can't do that. But that's a terrible mistake, but I know during, this is where
the writer of better at weaponizing this. During the Brexit debate, we constantly get told that you think they're all racist. No, I don't. You think they're all stupid. No, I don't. I really don't. But that is what the writer much better at. They're disciplined at basically trying to delegitimize attacks upon them, to trigger them. But many people talking about it do come off the vibe is condescending. Large group of the population that has an emotional trigger bomb in their personality
and Trump knows the code on that bomb and boom, he can trigger them. And you can see them talking on social media, which in the old days, you wouldn't have been able to see it so much. But now people are able to say, look at what this person's done and make viral these kind of moments of great condescension or being patronizing. It's so easy. Everybody sees it. Whereas before, it would have been
in a country. Unless you were there, you didn't hear it. Before I go, no, I spoke at an event over here. Speaking of that, the woman that logged me in, white woman, mid fifties, she knew exactly who I was. I'm sorry that the thing was that tell me, did you vote for him? Oh, yes, I did vote for him. Why did you vote for him? I voted for him because the left is a mess. And they, I don't like the culture that they're shoving down the face of my children. And I don't think she could handle
the American military. That's what she said to me. I mean, look, it's a sample, but you have to understand that they didn't form the right narrative. And by the way, in fairness to her, I give her an A plus on that campaign. She had 105 days. Yeah. What was she going to do in 105 days? He's been running for nine years. There's also a bread and butter aspect to this though. If you look at the exit bowls, the number one issue is the economy. And the inflation of the peak to a couple of years,
that obviously left a scar in the mountains of a lot of ordinary voters. Now, there are a lot of people, frankly, more affluent people who say, do you know what the economy is not doing too badly? I think Biden did a pretty good job with the economy. But if you're not very well off, those price rises, math and enormous math. And when you look at data, 50, 100 years of election, high prices
are a killer for an incumbent path. And she didn't really acknowledge it or create a clear message or say, or suggest it was a staging post and that it had got it come down and was going to come down further. Yeah. But you look at the economic data in these swing states in Trump's period and Biden's period, Biden kind of wins. He does on the data. What is brilliant at? Which has
got to acknowledge this. What is brilliant at that? Is even if people actually on a kind of objective level have opportunity, have things in their lives, he can make them feel even when they do that, they don't. But Alice, you must know this better than anybody. Politics is so much about narrative. Yeah. You create a story. That's what it's brilliant at. And Trump is very good at it. Yeah. And everyone sort of retten off as this orange monster, which of course there's
something where he is, but he's also a brilliant political storyteller. I suppose this one to trigger alert Nigel Farage. And because I think it is important, I mean, I really do think I'm sort of slightly obsessed with this Peter Heim and project that is engaged in about how progress
is deal with this sort of politics. And I said to Nigel Farage, but I'm really, I'm cut all the normal stuff that we do to sort of tell each other we're both terrible human beings, but what he said, I don't, I genuinely don't understand how somebody who's all the things that we've said he is can win the sex, the lies that are dead today. He said, look, all this stuff, people as they want a strong leader, if their lives, if they're angry about their lives, they want
somebody who kind of acknowledges that and addresses it. And they don't want to be patronized by a bunch of, you know, what warriors that is kind of how he summed it up. It's a walk warrior for me. I at the end of the day, I don't think these people understand the nanny state woatness where a 10-year-old kid is coming back from school. And the mother's being called that the 10-year-old said something that was inappropriate from a pronoun perspective. And now the kid is
being rebuked at the school. And the mother's smoke is coming out of the mother's ears. Yeah, but they also, I mean, listen, how many people actually, when I talk about weaponising issues, how many people actually have had these sex trade operations? The way he told us about it, he's like, oh, world was in the top. No, not at all. I think there are no non- Conversations. You know, we're holding, you're the cartoon, the meme of the person who's
thinking, you know, I don't want to blow on my daughter's swim team. Maybe it hasn't happened, but they don't want it. And they're thinking of that. And they're thinking that I'm being told to accept something that I'm not sure about. And this is what lots of those women who were voted for Trump were thinking. Yeah. And I think it's, we talked yesterday about the Parallels in 1968 in that election. And one of the things, that was the Vietnam War election.
But the one thing that voters hated more than the Vietnam War was people who protested against the Vietnam War, the long hair, the Ho Chi Minh slogan, the Viet Cong flags, all of that kind of stuff. Of course, that's only a tiny minority, but people see it. And so the woke stuff, I agree. Of course, it is a small group, we must shit. And it's a tangible thing. But everybody's, and social, it's everyone on social media. I mean, they're weaponized. He says, it's successful.
But Democrats, but the Democrats are not, they should see that. Correct. They should have no play into it. Absolutely. Marina, we, we, we pictures, particularly with our history, pictures are so, so important. I mean, I've been trying, I was trying to think overnight, what's the, what's the picture of this campaign? I think it's probably the assassination. Yes. And I was, okay, can I just say that it was
329 last night. And I was basically speaking tongues. But when Rory said that, I know he's not here, so this is slightly unfair. But when he said that 20% of people in the world would have just got straight back out, like punched the air, like probably covered in blood, reflexively, having just clearly survived the task. That was not correct. I don't even believe that people, anyone in the military, but Rory did call the election right. I didn't, I didn't, sorry. He's like a
punditry terminator though. Like he was getting back, you know, they're laid out and then they're getting back and they're rebuilding themselves and they're coming out, you're shooting more punditry. I, that's he's a punditry terminator. That is this show. So what, what, what, using the implications of the assassination attempt and his survival? Do you think, I mean, we're not of his love. As I said, yes, they, it's interesting because you'd think that something
so shocking and so, and that produced such an iconic image. We were going to talk about, but even while it was happening, you thought we weren't talking about this in three days. But that, if you want to think of one sort of iconic thing that people will have in their mind, they may have various images of Trump, but that is now surely going to be like in the mental image bank, you're going to, that's going to be normal. Listen, do you? I'll never forget it.
When, and this is a question really for Dominic, but my observation, when you look at a leader of Reagan, a Tony Blair, the people, they see something in the leader. What do they say? Right? Different characteristics. Resilience is something that American, see in Donald Trump. But I guess the question I have for Dominic and, and you Marina, the coarseness of the language, you know, there's an expression that the fish thinks from the head down. If the leader is coarse and the leader is
was arginistic or talking in racist like tones, it filters down to people. It opens up like a portal or a doorway of acceptance. Do you believe that? I do. I do. Just the last thing on the picture. I think what the picture expressed was a kind of vitality that Trump has. I mean, he's roughly the same age as Joe Biden, but Trump is so much more vital and kind of resilient than Biden
is. And I think the picture played to his strengths there. I completely agree with you, Anthony. I think for those of us who don't really care for Trump, his victory, his success legitimizes this kind of language. And I think, it casts forward 10 years or 15 years when you have a generation of politicians coming through who are currently in their 20s maybe, 30s, who see what works. They will see this,
they will say, this is what works. The polarization, the stride and see, the aggression, the nicknames, the demeaning your opponent, the sort of ostentatious lack of the decences that were so common in their kind of politics the post-war era. And it's so hard to put that way of talking back in the box. I'm not even sure you can. And it's also how people talk on social media. But just one more thing on that image, I would say that the one thing everyone did say when that happened was,
well, that was the election. That was the ballgame. And afterwards, we started seeing you kind of correct and think, oh, that wasn't hang on a second, hang on a second. But maybe in retrospect, if we go back and think, come on, how could someone who did something so unbelievably unique, not actually be a very, very special kind of electoral force that people just missed, do people underestimate it? But there's never one thing. There are thousands of things,
but that I think you're right will be the image. But just briefly going back to this, I think we should talk about Joe Biden in a minute, just briefly going back to this whole sort of work thing. I still find it incredible that, so that was a big issue in his speeches. It's been a big issue. I heard they spent 25 million in the last few days of the campaign on
adverse to young black men and the Tino's about the transgender issue. And yet we are here in a country where, as Kamala Harris said, your kids go to school and you don't know if they're going to come back, they might get shot. And yet she also said, when she was under attack on the gun control stuff, I've got a gun. So it's like, is that how they not manage to make that an issue that helps
them? So I just think that this, I said this yesterday, I think that Trump winning again is, the reason I think it's so seismic is I think it's something far more profound than just the fact that he's won again. It's something really profound, but what's something important is generally, but it's specifically here. What I want to say something very superficial, and I want you to react to it. Okay. Okay. Because this is how a lot of my friends think. I'm a Wall Street
business executive. Yes, I've had 24 years in presidential politics, but I do run money. The Wall Street business executive is looking at this thrilled. The Wall Street business executive says in their minds, okay, we've got the return of a strong leader. He's going to end the war. He's going to solve the Middle Eastern crisis. You believe this, okay? He's going to help businesses large and small in the country. And maybe the tariffs aren't so bad Anthony. You know what I mean?
We think of the tariffs as starting of depressions, the Smooth Holly trade act in the 1930s, but maybe they'll protect our industries and we can regrow our manufacturing. And Wall Street responded this morning with a 1200 point rise in the Dow Jones. Okay. And so I'm sad for my nation on many levels, but I'm not sad for my portfolio right now. My portfolio went to the moon, particularly my Bitcoin position. So I want you to respond to that. So you push back on me now. Go to the second or
third derivative. Tell me as a superficial Wall Street executive what I'm missing in the analysis. I don't think that's necessary. That's superficial. What I do think is that the attitude that's what matters, which a lot of these guys think. Or again, I think to be to the benefit of the Democrats, because that is driving a lot of the inequality, the accumulation of wealth in the and the ever shrinking group of people. And yet the people who paid the price for that
are voted for Trump. That's what that's my reaction. They voted against the economic. And by the way, I was voting against my economic interest because my thing is I don't want my fellow neighbor suffering. You got a lot of crypto. I do got a lot of crypto. Yeah. Eat your hard out. Eat your hard out. Yes. You want to get me a Bitcoin month's sponsor. So generous. I gave it back. I sometimes think that's like 40% ago. So let me just make the sign of the cross on the year. But
I sometimes hate it when people say they voted against their economic interest. So that's so stupid. And that's the worst thing you could possibly do. This is human life. There are things that matter sometimes to people more than money. No question. Trump says they're better than anybody. And so constantly say that you voted against your economic environment. Therefore, you're the more and at the bottom of the pile. Well, that's wrong. I don't think we do think that.
I think it's different for myself. I voted against me. I think because I want rising living standards for these people. There's no reason to be. I think people are the best judges of their own interests. I think it's up to them to decide what might most of them. And through history, for as long as there's been democratic politics, a lot of people have often decided that what matters to them are those classic kind of family faith flag issues. What people dismiss as cultural
war issues, they really matter to people. So the plans don't stop or in the six days war or whatever. From Trump's rise, what you just said should probably tattoo it on the inside of my skull. That is an axiomatic historical fact. I just still flashed up there. Somebody was confirming that RF Kennedy fluoride is going to get taken out of the water. It's ridiculous. It's from a public health and safety thing. The fluoride thing is on that conspiracy.
That's against your health interests. You know, he's like, he can all agree that's not great. Dominic, I hate that thing, but you know what I'm going to do. What will history say about Joe Biden? History will barely mention Biden now. He'll be an interregnum between the two Trump President's. So people will talk. He will be an actor in the Trump story. People will write books about the Trump years, the age of Trump. And Biden will be an important character in that story.
He's a remarkable figure because he's the only person who was able to beat Trump. And we've all been laughing at Biden for being a thousand years old and for the last four years. But maybe we should take him a little bit more seriously and look at what he got right. And the kind of the guy from Scranton Pennsylvania who knew how blue collar Americans thought, who knew how to talk to them in the kind of, you know, the simple kind of earthy terms. So paradoxically,
it means that Biden looks like a punctuation point in history. But at the same time, it also makes him look politically more adept, I would say. But again, they didn't plan. He will see only person who could beat him in 2020. But there's such a lack of planning to not see everyone was saying from the minute he was elected. He's always going to be, look, what age is he going to be? He's already a bit doggery. I remember seeing him on the last day of that campaign in 2020.
And he got off a bus and mentioned thank someone there in the name of his dead son. And I remember saying he's anyone, you know, he was obviously a very, very long and tiring campaign. And he's doing 20 stops on the last day. But I remember thinking, this is, that's not great at all. And yet it was, it was completely covered up and it was a non-issue. And we now know that they were concealing quite a lot about his state for people. It just shows you, rather, the old E-Nought
Powell's, the old policy sends in failure. I mean, Joe Biden has had an incredible political grip and an incredible life. So to be honest, I'm just going to be like a punctuation bucket, the Donald Trump story is, yeah, but I guess, you know, I probably not going to get invited to the last Biden Christmas party now because I'm going to say something that none of them are going
to like. But I really think there's a big responsibility for Barack Obama in this story. I really believe when they are writing that history, they're going to say that Barack Obama blocked Joe Biden, literally physically blocked them. You remember that very long Rose Garden speech that Biden gave in 2016? You can't run. I cut it deal with the Clintons in 2012. I told them I'm paving the way. And so this is the group that says democracy's on the line, democracy's on the line. But no democratic
process in 2016, no democratic process in 2024. You see what I'm saying? Yeah. And you got to say to yourselves for a second that does Obama bear some responsibility? Are you saying that? You think if Biden that stood when Henry didn't, he would have done what he wanted. I do. He would have been Trump's story with a no Trump story. Trump would have been back on the apprentice. Trump would have been railing this screed that Nigel's this screed. Could
another populist figure rise perhaps? You think if Trump's story would have been dead then? Dead would have been no Trump. I don't forget Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. I think Biden would have outperformed her. He'd have outperformed her in the states. No question. No problem with the blue states. Well think about it this way, Dominic. He beat the incumbent sitting president with all the power of the incumbent seat and Air Force one swooping
into these areas. He beat that. It's very hard as you know, and sure everyone here knows, to beat an incumbent president. They have the power and the flex of the presidency. And he beat it. But Obama stopped Biden from running. And I think that's also got to be a part of this. You know, I think there's also an Obama to rangement syndrome at work. So as soon as Obama won the presidency, there was always going to be an inevitable backlash. There are a lot of people.
Frankly, I mean, I hate saying we were going a white lash less than I, but there are a lot of people who basically were inflamed by the spectacle of black president. No question. And it's very interesting to be on the screen there. She raised the billion dollars WTF. She was a picture who came in during the sixth inning and the best she could. It's an absolutely beautiful day. I have to say that. We're in a wonderful building. Thank you to Spotify for putting us up like this.
We have back with us Peter Heimann. I should just remind people Peter was a colleague of mine in the Labour Party back in the mid 90s and then in Downey Street, then he went off to become a head teacher, went back to help Kierstarma when his landslide. And has now been spending a time going around the country, talking particularly to Republicans. I wanted to get you back to say
because I, one of the people saying why wasn't I more shocked last night? Why wasn't sort of, you know, banging my head on the desk and saying it was partly having seen you earlier in the day because you were the person who just waited me actually that Trump's going to win because you'd sort of been explaining to me what you were seeing and hearing on the road from both sides. So just straight straight up, very simple question. Why did all the people who voted for Trump vote for Trump?
So I thought within a few days of getting here that he would win comfortably. I didn't think it was close. I didn't believe the polls. I'm not just, you know, saying that now I was taking you and other people. I think the starting point, and I know you've touched on this quite a lot in the broadcasts, is the left has got to understand this. There is a swamp and it doesn't eat draining. The left finds out impossible to understand. In other words, as someone put it,
the government hasn't performed for about 20 years. It hasn't performed on the economy for working people. It's done what people see as unnecessary wars. It hasn't delivered what they say they're going to deliver. So there are a lot of broken promises. So on the fundamental stuff in Washington is not working and as people see it and Westminster is not working, the equivalent.
And before anyone in Britain sort of runs to the defence and say, well, that's just Trump language, you all have got to say is Grenful Tower, Hillsborough, Blood Infection, Wings office, Post Office, Windrush scandal, you know, left alone 8 million waiting for treatment for the NHS and all the sort of public service delivery. No one can say that the government is delivering for working people. And that's a starting point. Then the second point is, if that's
the premise, then you need a disruptor. And that explains Trump, who people still don't understand. You need, if the swamp needs draining, you need someone who's capable of knocking heads together and draining it. Therefore, you need a larger than life personality. What comes with that is the show bids and the over the top nurse and the language we don't like and all the rest of it, because that is the essence of who he is. And that's what people are buying into.
If he's softened all of that, then he wouldn't be the disruptor. I respect that. I respect that. But he had four years of draining, he didn't drain it. So why is that? Well, what is staggering? There was a poll I saw that showed of all the presidents going back to Clinton. People thought by about 20% on all of them, some slightly less, that he had delivered for working people. In other words, his reinvention of his term of office, whatever we might think in
terms of the stats, everyone I spoke to, that's why Kamala Harris's language don't go back. People said, I want to go back. I thought it was better than Biden's term. And why? I don't, you know, Peter, can I ask you, we were talking earlier before he came on about the balance between the economic bread and butter issues, the high prices and so on, the disappearing jobs. And then the stuff about wokeery, transgender issues, all of that kind of stuff. What's the balance there,
do you think, in terms of Trump's vaters? I think it is, they come together, they overlap. All the DC think tank people I spoke to said the identity politics had gone too far. It was a bit late for them to a lot of a bit, there's a huge recognition that they have. But it's together in the disconnect between politicians and the public. So it's a disconnect in terms of you're saying the wrong thing. We talked about that a bit yesterday. You're not using the appropriate
languages we determine it. And that's the culture stuff added to. And I'm working even harder than working far harder than ever before in order to get on in life. And that's not recognized either. And I go back to the point of the Harris rallies, there was not a sense of class there. There was a sense of identity and single issues, whether it's abortion or climate or whatever. There wasn't a strand of within it for working people, cost of living poverty. So we need to return to a class-based
analysis of this. I don't mean class envy or whatever, but it means you've got to understand working people. But that's the way with a lot of these things that they kept saying, don't vote for darkness, don't vote for fear. I'm voting for hope. I am hoping that things will be better for me. And even this morning in the analysis, when there's many people who have said, fear wins over hope. And it's like, well, I actually think this is a form of hope for these
voters. And whether or not you might regard it as misplaced or whatever, to suggest that they're voting for fear or darkness is, again, the sort of misreading that gets you here in the first place. People disappearing up their back side as to whether he's a fascist or not seems to me entirely making entirely making the point that Trump is making. This is in addition to loving silly that I can't because I do love silly things. I have to retract my fascist comment.
So I know this is the case with we, nausea, and we are here, but it's the serious point. But this is exactly what they think we're doing. That we are in this elevated way, looking at whether intellectually he's a fascist or not. Well, naturally, what they're thinking is this is a guy who's going to make our lives better. Even if he doesn't. Even we may think you doesn't, you know, right, let me ask you this. You've worked for, yeah, I think it's you've
worked with Labour for several Prime Ministers. You worked with, with Keir Starmer. What lessons, if any, are there in this for the Labour Party? Well, they're huge lessons, I mean, as we've talked about, we've got a, it was fashionable in the Clinton Blair days to talk about reinventing government. We've got to seriously reinvent government. The performance of government, the delivery of government has to be better. That is not enough. We've got to have a story that connects
with people in far better ways. The story being told by Harris was not, I mean, there were message, it's very easy to criticize a campaign from outside. Yeah, and it's actually just lost. They've just lost and it's unfair in a way because they work, they're so far from whatever. But in terms of the message, the message wasn't fundamentally resolving the things that needed to resolve. The thing I still think at the heart of this is whether there was continuity
or change. They hadn't resolved whether you can't disown your own record, but you've got to make sense of it. We were talking the other day, we had a message in 2001 for Tony Blair, which was a lot done a lot to do. That's quite a boring message in some way, but it's actually very strategic because the way you get in smuggling some of your record, which you might say people don't feel yet, is by saying being humble about we've still got a lot to do to make your lives
better, but we have done a lot. We've laid the foundations in the first term, and now I'm going to build on it by accelerating. And she hadn't reconciled that. Yeah, so that's Labour.
How do you, if always you were here, he'd say to you as he said last night, and I thought he had a point on this, how do you do this from the left and progressive policies without going down the same route of lying, of thinking it's all about message, is opposed to about delivery, of demonising your opponents, of saying that, how do you do that without actually just playing their game, and becoming like them? I've met a group of groups of people who are working on this idea of
what they call belonging without othering. And although that's quite academic language in a way, the essence of that is interesting. People want a sense of belonging. They feel dislocated, they feel unheard, they feel strangers in their own land. But how do you do that? This is the challenge. I'm got all the answers to it without other without having enemies, without stigmatising this group or insulting immigrants or whatever. How do you rebuild community in a way
that's effective? Don't you need an amazing person as a vehicle? Do you think that just finding those politicians, and there are politicians, as you say, that you said at the start, Alistair, who are hugely charismatic, and no disrespect to Kamala Harris, but she's not one of those ones that you're just thinking, my god, they had something, they had some connection, they had some sort of something. How do you surface those people, or do you just have to wait for them, which is
what the Democrats seem to be doing? In an era when more and more people are saying, politics is really not for me. I think it's so really difficult. I think you need it, definitely. I think her personal story was almost underused in this. She feared Hillary going on about them. And it wasn't just about saying I'm going to be a first woman president. She could have used
her background and her story better. What I thought was interesting is the personal story, and I've seen this a lot of Trump rallies, but elsewhere as well, Trump's story of the comeback kid was more powerful than anything she had. Don't you think that politics works best when an individual leader is the embodiment and the incarnation of their message?
So great example of that. It's only the example of that, Margaret Thatcher, who says in the end in 1979, you know, I'm from Grantham, I'm from the middle of nowhere, I'm an ordinary plane speaking. I'm a grossest daughter. I'm a grossest daughter. I'm a woman, so I'm something new, but because I'm a woman, I understand about inflation and prices. You embody your message. You don't need to explain what your message is because you are your message. Bill Clinton in the 1990s
and new Democrats, you know, he can connect with ordinary voters. He's got a populist side to him. It's only Blair, of course, as you will know. I do think the Democrats, if they found a candidate, the Martin's and not that great. So they can fix a multitude of things. Peter, a question. So behind you while you're speaking, Peter, there's a biplane flying back and forth on the Hudson River, and there's a tagline being dragged behind it. It says,
we held the democracy together. Donald Trump disavowed that in 2020. He said that he wanted, was rigged. I believe you've fermented an insurrection, but if you don't believe me, go look at the Jack Smith complaint about the evidence associated with that. Is he the person, and I accept the outcome, by the way, because he won fair and square democratically, but he's either
right person to hold the democracy together? Well, for everyone to judge in a way, we'll all have our different opinions on whether he's right or what other, you know, but I suppose what I pushed back on is the idea, is it a risk? Is it a risk now that we're with? But I pushed back on again, it was the wrong way of looking at it. This surely has ruled him out. January the 6th has ruled him out, or what they should have done. But he should have
said, what they should have done. But he should have done. What they should have done is have ruled him out, and actually that it was sort of, well, I mean, we may think it should have done. So for many things, violence, it was not building, I mean, incidentally, his supporters say he absolutely didn't. So now, so what do we know that we do? Because we've read the complaint. Yeah. So he didn't have guardians of the democracy to excise him from the democracy,
because he fermented it. He never accepted, he didn't do the traditional thing and sit there at the inaugural. He didn't help the Biden team transition. Now we're bringing him back. All those Republicans announced that now they're all bang at his knee. I'm just telling you, I think it ends in tears for a lot of people. That is, I mean, that is the two types of really think about it for a second. We had the people, the Democrats forgot what a unique and
amazing electoral candidate he is. But those people, those Republicans who knew and who said, or who went very quiet and were shocked and appalled on January the 6th, then just let it sort of percolate for a couple of years and then we're back with him. Well, yesterday I made a sort of tentative and wishful thinking prediction for Harris that was against all the instincts I've had last years. This prediction I will make is entirely in keeping with my feelings that I've
had for the last years. It will go wrong. His presidency will go wrong in ways that will be corruption and wickedness and things that those same Republicans who were shocked on January the 6th will fight that will happen again. And then this time they can't sort of forget it because you have been more once. And so we'll talk a lot about the Democrats. All you've done the same as, you've done the same again, but this will happen again in his presidency. Things will go very badly
wrong. I think like that. I mean, you know, Pence has gone, I mean, the answer is going in the
woodchipper. I got there by like year three, you know, the Trump woodchipper. So the only part I would make is, so I agree with everything you said, but we, the left has got to do more soul searching about why it's getting this wrong and not just think sort of throw its hands up and say, how could, because as soon as you say, how could people have done this and how could they have voted, you are saying people are stupid or you're, or they're unhinged or they're deluded or whatever.
And I think that's a very bad place to get yourself into in politics. Well, thanks for coming in again and good luck with this project you engaged in trying to work out how bloody it's taken. It isn't easy, but thank you very much, Dean. We're going to go to a quick break and then we'll be back to talk about all sorts of stuff. See you soon. Welcome back to this third restless party's live stream from a very warm, sunny, beautiful New York
where people are digesting the extraordinary result from from last night. And I just want to, I think we should just talk a little bit about the campaigns and how they feel. There's nothing worse than losing election. Well, I'm okay, there are worse things than losing election, but if you're a political campaigner or a politician that very few things worse than losing election. And I've been getting messages today from all sorts of people involved on the Democrat side saying this is
like kind of death. This feels like a death in the family. This horrific. But I can have to pick themselves up and analyze it. What about what are you hearing from Republicans? Well, I mean, I've heard from both sides. So I'll start with the Republicans. They are ecstatic. They feel that they that Trump is subdued. Okay, again, he was subdued last time when he won. So I don't know how long that will last. And they see that as a good thing. They see him bringing in big amounts of
staff. When you say he's subdued, what he's like reflected. Well, no, no, somebody just be brutal. A direct quote, he's 78 years old. He's absolutely exhausted. He's too tired to govern. He's going to let other people do this job. It's happening again. I'm just telling you. The people are saying, you know, they're and but they're saying that in a good way. They're saying that meaning he's going to pick good people. He's going to let them run the government. Not to
worry. I got one very wise, you know, what sort of a text saying that I hear by declared that you won't be deported. Don't worry. Ha, ha, ha. But but but the point being that they're in a great mood and they think Trump is in the right place. They don't see Trump in an anger place. They don't see Trump like, hey, good morning. Where's the enemies list? I got a hundred days to get the right DOJ in place to wipe out my enemies. They don't see him doing that at all.
Just give us a, those are the facts. Give us a, never catch a thing. Something totally different. Give us a feel for what happens that you were part of the transition team last time, right? How does this transition actually work? You've now got between now and January. You've got processes to go through. Yeah. I assume that Biden and Kamala Harris who will have to certify the election defeat herself. It's pretty grim prospect for her. But what's going to happen now
between the relations between the Trump team and the current administration? It's a fascinating question. And I think the Biden team is going to help the Trump team, even though the Trump team didn't help the Biden team. But Trump will ignore everything that the Biden team presents him because he has a big brain and he's smarter than everybody. The other problem for the people that are on his executive transition committee, which I once served on at 2016,
is that Trump has no executive management skills. He's a rock contours, a communicator, he's a projectist politician, but he's not an executive allister in the sense that, okay, allister, you're good at this, merina, you're good at that, Dominic, and delegating, and then you report back to me, doesn't do that. But ends up happening is it's like a billier table. The balls are running all over the billier table. And then he gets upset if you have done something that he
doesn't like. Always after the fact, you had to be very, very careful. He puts everybody on eggshells. We had people in place. We brought them to Trump. We told the people that they were going to be the XYZ. You didn't tell me in time. I don't want that person. Will he read stuff? Will he read folders? Oh, economy foreign policy. Never, never. Trump likes pictures. Okay, and he likes pictures of himself. And you know what he likes pictures of himself? He likes pictures
of himself straight on like this because he complains that he looks fat from this angle. Okay, so when you're presenting something to Trump, it's two pages, three or four pictures of him. There may be a MAGA hat on and it's looking straight up. You think I'm making the shit up? No, no, no. I'm telling you. It's just something. He's just made crazy. Okay, I know. I just want to see which, I'm just using any pictures of Trump. I'm just going to get some, give us some,
compare which, which, which, which presidents read tons of stuff. Oh, but the more you read can be a very dangerous thing. So Jimmy Carter famously a massive micro manager. The great fact about him is the here handle insisted on handling the bookings for the White House tennis court personally. Richard Nixon would stay up till three o'clock four in the morning. There was a pull of reading papers. The more you read can be, I mean, it sounds of read, can't you and choose
your thing to say? I mean, obviously it's not ideal just to stare at photogast of yourself. It's odd. But it's a good thing. I mean, much design joy doing it. I mean, just say, you know, you can't make this shit up and that's exactly what he does. But you present him something, something in there related to him and then you tell him what you want him to do. And if he signs off on it, you're fine.
But if you're doing stuff in that transition that he hasn't signed off, I don't tell you right now, treasury, super important to him commerce, super important to him state department, which I do think is going to Marco Rubio. Yeah. Oh, I do. I do a super important to him. Marco's very tired with Susie Wiles. Susie Wiles wanted Marco to be the vice president. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. She's good. She's from Florida. Marco's from Florida. She wanted him to be the vice president. She thought
he fit the niche, the niche for the Latin community, etc. Trump did not want that. He wanted to triple down on the base. And I think he gets his secretary his question for you. So the way you're describing Trump governing, which is he doesn't read much. He likes looking at fights across himself, whatever. He's not massively dissimilar in that regard from Ronald Reagan who wanted everything reduced to bullet points who didn't like he said. Can I say that? He figured the famous story
makes it hard work never killed anybody. But I say, why would you take the chance? Yeah, right. It was a great line. But what Reagan did is he surround himself with very, very skilled, ruthless, effective operators. Will Trump be able to do that? I just want to explain that there's a very important Reagan had on his desk a plaque. It said you can get anywhere you want in life as long as you don't care who gets the credit. Remember that line? That's a German line.
Okay. Harry asked for him and he took it from Harry Astrum. Yeah. Trump is the opposite. All credit comes to me. I am the black hole for credit. Don't try to take credit. Oh, you think your president president Campbell now, Alistair? Oh, Alistair, you're getting more famous than myself. Those are key words run run for your life. Okay. Does he pit you again to see each other? Oh, 100%. 100%. He'll say something to you that he knows going to antagonize him.
And then I'll say something vice versa. And then he'll watch that happen. And he'll laugh about it. He thinks it's funny. To be fair, that's what we do on the rest is. Yeah. Yeah. But you're, you're sort of, you know, you're running for the last while you're the, you're the seed man. I'm a puppet master though. I know you are. You're the Mac Evalian. Here's one for you, Anthony. Yeah. This is unlikely right now given some of the things you said. But JD Vance did call him Hitler.
If the fight went again, and it was the White House saying, we think you should come back. Okay. So, so first of all, I am running for re-election in my marriage. Okay. So sali.com, you're very important to me at this point in my life. I got to do it just way more important. And I'm probably, I could be totally limited in that marriage for all I know. Okay. So there is no way that I would ever return to a Trump government or frankly any real, any type of
government. However, I am an American. If they put me on a, the presidential monuments committee, if they said to me, they wanted help on the crypto advisory council. Would I do an outside council advisory position as a private citizen? I would certainly do that because I'm an American. And I would want to, I want to advertise the salio. Not he's not advertising. Skyrim. No, let me tell you something. Let me tell you something. Deirdre. I don't want that. Okay. No
most men would not want that. And I'm just telling you, you don't, you don't want that. Okay. All right. What do you know? Amazing. Marina, the rest is entertainment. Right? No, I, I got, I got the gesture I understood. And I think you're probably right. Just do like a little random committee. Yeah. What, what for the non-fascist? What do you think the media is going
to do with a second term Trump? I want to say the media. I know it's such a big thing. But what's the mindset that says if you are on the Trump beat, if you're the Guardian Washington correspondent, you've got four more years of this. So first of all, how you feeling about it? Secondly, how you're going to handle it? Well, I tell you well, I'm not even, I'm not going to sort of narrow it down to the Guardian because this is a good, across all New Jersey. I'll be loads
of anguished hand-ranging about, you know, did we miss something this time? How do we say, how do we cover it this time when it's going to get crazy and how do we fact checking it? All the same things that we've been saying. But the honest answer is it's good for business. It will drive, as I said yesterday, it will drive subscriptions up. It will be good for business. There will be a lot to cover. Lots of things will happen. And if you're in the news business, in some ways,
that's what people want. I know people say, no, I want to add living a peaceful world when nothing happens. But actually, people, it will, it will drive business and many, many news organizations will probably hang on longer than they would have done because of this. But the point, the Peter Jaime was talking about, he seemed to be saying, I was really worried about this. He seemed to be saying, you know, banging on about fascism, banging on about, you know,
January the 6th the whole time. I think part of the problem, first time, the media didn't bang on enough about the bad stuff. And that's what normalised it and legitimised it. Do you think the media will just think, oh, well, that's Trump? Leave those sorts of things? I mean, I don't know. I think there was a lot, you know, there was a lot of people complaining that people even went and spoke to people who voted Trump and said, you've gone on interviewed Nazis. And I
I, this is, again, this is not helpful. And it's whether or not the media regards itself as a sort of actor in all this, which I don't think it should, personally. I think, you know, you're a journalist and you should, you, I mean, I'm an opinion journalist, so it's different. It was quite obviously marked as a opinion. But I think you should, you know, you should cover your times. You shouldn't necessarily think completely that you are an actor. It's now, don't forget that Trump tries to make
them an actor because he's used them as a really, the fake news media. They're a really useful antagonist and they can be blamed for all sorts of things. And they're almost like a part in the pantomime. So I think you just, that is best to avoid. But as I say, I mean, honestly, it is good for business. And that is the reality. Joe Biden and Donald Trump have spoken and Camel Harris and Donald Trump have spoken and Joe Biden and Camel Harris have spoken. I think
of the three that might have been tastyest conversation. That's not a love triangle. Let's just say that. But I have a question for you. They detain a journalist. Maybe it's an international journalist. There's a 2,300 journalists at the White House. They've decided it's not enough to take the press credentials away from the sum, but the person's detained. Maybe they're put in a holding tank or something like that. How does the press report that? Well, then this is what I mean
when I say things will go wrong. Bad things are going to happen that lots of people, including plenty of sort of moderate Republicans who still voted for Trump, will have to recognise as a dark path to be going down. I do think those things will happen and I would sort of bet on that happening. I'm not suggesting that they will definitely sort of imprison a journalist. But yes, of course it could happen. And it will divert from something else. And he will use it as a tool.
And all sorts of these sort of things will happen. Yes. But I think then the press have to sort of work together. But they would do. I mean, everyone, lots of people. But he Putin doesn't. Let's take some of your questions. We've had lots and lots and lots. Sorry, we want music to get through them all, but here's a few. Furgle banks, what's the next step for those Republicans? So the question's not going away again. What's the next step for those
Republicans who spoke out for Harris during the election campaign? Anthony. Well, I think for me, I'm going to regroup with members of that Harris team. I think there's a group of executives, Mark Cuban, myself, others want to regroup with them and at least give them our report back from the field based on our feelings of what they would need to do to recalibrate. I think we are no longer Republicans, frankly. We have to just accept that.
Republican Party, because that's Trump's party. It's known as a Republican party. It should be the Trump-Lican party, but that's the party. And so I have to probably, I'm thinking about, frankly, re-registering as an independent, because it fits more where I am right now. I am a former Bush Reagan Republican, but that doesn't exist anymore. And it's not ever coming back. And so I'm not going to join forces with him at a principle. I don't think what he's doing is
the right thing to do. It's the fact that I'm talking to you about the potential that a journalist could be jailed is a sickening thought in this beautiful, wonderful, amazing country. So I will re-register as an independent. I will offer a voice against nonsense that I see happening. And I'll explain to the American people why this is dangerous for them. We just spoke in an event. I said, the bellicosity of this man's rhetoric is having an effect on your family. It's having
an effect on the culture in our society. And it's giving the license that people will be cruel to each other. I don't want to represent that. I think many of us in that camp that, is it, Fergo, I'm sorry, my contacts aren't in today. Fergo Banks is saying, it's a great question. I don't think we can be, I don't think we could be with him. And so I'll be in the box of independence. Can I just get a assurance that this one hour a week, arrangement that you have
put in the rest of the US is going to be. One hour a week, sleep deprivation, dehydration. Get a carry on. I'm going to need like an IV chip. I'm going to need better health after that. I haven't brought them up, but I'm going to probably need them as well. So you carry on. Yeah, I'll carry on. I'm just mentioning. Especially when we sit in Rory's chair. Okay, where Rory's flying around the world. Okay, I like this chair. I feel like it's a chair.
How is the closest I can get to power at this point in my career? Sitting next to him. We're sitting next to Alistair. We'll just sit up in the chair because this son of a bitch is really tall. Would have more Lauren Kelly. Mary, why don't you take this one? Would a more radical Democrat candidate have had a better result against Trump? Are we just in an age that values the extremes whichever way that falls? Great question. Well, I mean, socially
radical. No, that would have been an even greater kiss of death, no, not at all. But economically radical, I mean, yes, the idea of left economic populism that I suppose is best in body and in some way, the figure of someone like Bernie Sanders. People, what you don't want, as Peter was saying, is that you need that person to sound like a disruptor, even if that person is actually a bit of a continuity economic proposing a sort of continuity economic program.
And I don't think that people feel that enough radical suggestions were being made. But a lot of what Biden did with his legislation was to steal the close of Mago. He understood that the people needed more than that that that that that that Trump had noticed how bad things had got for people off the financial crisis in a way that the Democrats had been really slow to realise. So he did actually sort of steal that close to something, Stan, and give and pass this
legislation. You don't necessarily want a radical, but you want, I mean, Rory, thank God, is not here. I don't think populism is always a bad thing. And I think somebody who's a populist with a common touch, that's what the Democrats need. Is what you want to do. Who do you think gives us a few names that you think might be the candidate next time around? On the other side. So, you know, I don't know how Kim Jeffries, I don't know them as well. I don't know how, excuse me,
they're all ambitious. I know AOC wants to run. I don't even know if she's at the age threshold of 35 yet, I'd have to look that up. But I know those are the people that want to run. They are, they would represent that sort of harder left progressive wing of the party. She is 35. Yeah, so I think she would want to run. She has a compelling message, incredibly hard worker. She's very charismatic. But then again, radical.
Radically progressive is more of the problem. Yeah, I think again, look at what we had a woman just run. She was against fracking. She became forefacking. She was against, she was for defunding the police. Now she's against it. She was for bail reform. Then she was against it. I don't know what they're going to morph themselves into and they start messaging as a presidential candidate. But I disagree with that. I think they need a Clinton layer figure.
He's a 40, 45 year old person. He's been around the block. Perhaps he's a governor. Yeah, I'm fortunate. He probably is a man just to be brutally honest. He's probably a governor out there that's done a good job in his state. Which state? It would have to be one of the bigger states. I've got to look through the list and you say, okay, this guy. So I think Gavin is too old now. I think he's jumped. I think he's jumped the shark. He may try it. He's 55. He may try it.
Too old. Yeah. I think he's too old. I do. I do. I do. I think I think the what's happened here has been burnt by a Californian from San Francisco. He was the mayor of San Francisco. I think that stove is a little bit too hot for Gavin. I might be wrong. Let's take another question. Ciroan Zare. Now Trump has the Senate in the House. Dominic, I think. Can he bend democracy and become a semi-tyrant? How much power can he give himself? How much power does the president
have to say to a British prime minister in their own countries? In many ways, not as much. I mean, with my history hat on, when this system was set up by the founding fathers, the one thing they wanted to avoid was a tyrant. So that's the point of the federal system, the separation of powers, the kind of balance of power, senior judiciary, the legislature, the executive. A president has less power than we commonly think. There is no doubt that Trump
will want to be an imperial president. For once for a better word, he'll have the Senate. The House is still in the balance, as far as I understand. They're in the lead. I think, I mean, he's got two years. Then there's the midterms. Who knows what happens in those midterm elections? How much can he do? Probably less, I would argue. He can set the tone. He can make a few landmark executive orders. But it's hard for any president, even with a majority
in Congress to get stuff through. So he may be more limited than we think. Okay. Another question. Jade Higgins, Kirsta Amos statement congratulating Trump felt disingenuous. Would you have guided him to be more honest? Would you have guided him to be more honest about the difference of opinion, or is it better to seem courteous? I think you have to seem courteous. You have to be courteous. You have to acknowledge as you did last night. He won. And also in the special relationship,
the United States is the far bigger partner. And it is now a big part of Kirsta Amos job, is to try to make sure there is some sort of relationship there. It's interesting. I watched a little bit of Prime Minister's questions. That's how sad I am, Anthony, today. I was interested in Ed Davy, the Liberal Democrat leader. He went at Kirsta Amos on trade and tariffs. And essentially saying, this clearly is going to make it very, very difficult
for Britain if we're not more closely aligned with the European Union. And I thought it was very interesting take. I think you've got it. I don't know what you think, Marie. I think you've got to say the sort of things that Kirsta Amos said last night. I mean, the idea that in the first statement, you sort of say, well, yeah, but where there's difference of opinion will go. Oh, no, you can't. No, no, no, I didn't even think it sounded disingenuous.
It sounded bland and political, which is probably what you were trying to go for, just a sort of boilerplate, nothing to, nothing to incendiary, nothing to, and nothing. So I, no, I thought that was the tone to strike. I mean, they all struck something like that. You saw all the leaders around, all the sort of, that was, the liberal-ish leaders around the world. I've just seen it as well. You saw a Modi and Trudeau just put out pretty positive.
Alex, can I just say, can we hear a little bit about that in what you've been hearing from inside the Democrats' campaign? Do you know what we don't do that? I don't think we went. No, we just went on the revoke. We just did the revoke. Democrats are saying something that I think I find unusual. And I'm shocked by it. They're tripling down on the hysterical nature of not understanding Donald Trump. And so, you know, and I talked to three business executives that I'm
close to. I said, you know, we are almost going to have to have an intervention. They don't understand the movement. They don't understand how we got 10% more of the Latino vote. How we got 46% of the, they don't understand. I've talked to five or six counts people. I've talked to strategy people. I've talked to people inside Biden's White House. And they're all sitting there, you know, Alistair, before to do it as a death. But it's more than that. There's a denialism that has taken
place where they ran the same playbook that Hillary had right down to the concert. And we said, please don't do that. And they did the exact same thing. And the outcome was not that we not only would lose the House and Senate, like the House that the House is still being voted on or counted, let me say, but not not only do we lose that, but we also lost the popular vote. So guys, what are you doing? Yeah. Let's have a little run around the world. Start in the Middle East. So Benjamin Netanyahu
was I think the first leader to come right out and say, this is great news. What do we think this means for, let's take them in order, Middle East, Ukraine and China, Taiwan. Let's start with you, Donnie. Middle East, Netanyahu is obviously delighted. My sense is that there's no end in sight. There and where the peace process, such as it is, whether it restarts very hard to say, Russia, Ukraine, so I saw Zelensky's message. Zelensky sent a very finely crafted message. You
know, he's hoping for the best. And for that, he used the word strong a lot, which is a word clearly calculated to appeal to Donald Trump. But my fear, I mean, this has always been my big fear during this election, is that the real losers of this are the Ukrainians. China, Taiwan. China, Taiwan, I think, listen, if Trump appeases Putin in Ukraine, I think that sends a very worrying message to Beijing. If I was in Taiwan, would I feel confident that Donald Trump would step up to deter
a Chinese attack? I wouldn't, frankly. And what was the other thing the United Nations, do you say? No, no, Europe. Oh, Europe. Because I think European foreign policy defense, I think this, you know, we said last night, the one thing Trump definitely got right was that NATO countries, you know, that's absolutely right. He was absolutely right about that. I think Europe has put this question off for far too long. And by Europe, I don't mean this so just the EU, I mean, the EU,
and Britain. And it's allies in the kind of, as it were, the Atlantic, Western, democratic world, so Australia, Canada and so on. I think there's been, there has been, Trump was right. There has been too much free loading on the back of American defense spending. And Britain and its allies have to think very seriously about security apparatus that maybe has the United States as a semi-detached or indeed absent on them. So, you know, I mean, I'll start with the Middle East. He doesn't understand
it. He has no concept of it. And so one thing about Trump from his nature, Aleister could never brief Trump and start explaining things to him didactically, he would flip out because he doesn't want people to know that he doesn't know things. So we were on the plane once and someone was trying to explain, they brought a foreign policy guy on it saying, look, let me explain to you the Sykes-Pico Struti, which is exactly the treaty that was happened in World War One to evacuate the
Ottoman Empire, the British and the French out of the Middle East. There was some sinister things that happened where they left border disputes everywhere and they had the tribes fighting with each other. These guys almost like they have, I'm going to leave this mess and let them handle it, right? So they created these imaginary countries, Iran, Syria is not Iran, but Syria and Iraq are two imaginary countries, etc. Kuwait is an imaginary country. That's why that war started
and Trump cut them at the knees. What are you talking about? I know what the Sykes-Pico Struti was clearly didn't. And I know more about the Middle East than what's in my thumbnail that's in your entire brain. And what are you talking about? Because he's so insecure, he didn't want somebody to explain to him something that he didn't know in front of a group of other people. So about an hour later, we were sitting at the table with him. I think he was like
horsing like McDonald's French fries. And I said to him, you know, you remember, just just that curiosity, you ever see the movie Lawrence of Arabia? Lawrence of Europe with Peter O'Toah, what a great movie. I was a young kid, but it's all that movie. We saw it on the big screen, Cinem scope, blah, blah. Yeah, do you remember what the movie was about? No, not really. I don't remember what the movie was about. And then I took them
through the plot of the movie. And I took them through the Sykes-Pico Struti through the movie. When I was done doing that, he didn't sit to me. So that's what these sons of bitches did. I said, yeah, let me show you on my phone. They literally took a ruler and drew a line between Iraq and Syria. And as you see the thread, there's no, usually there's a territory, there's a mountain, there's a river,
but they just cut it right here. And they knew these tribes would be fighting for hundreds of years after they evacuated from the area. And so that fortified him. Okay, the other thing he didn't understand was Gat. Do you want me to keep going? Or do you want me to stop? Is it okay? I tell the Gat story real quick. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Did not understand Gat. Okay, the general agreement to trade in tariffs. And so someone was coming to brief him on Gat. I said, please don't fall into the same
trap. Okay, I want you to tell him a story about George Marshall and Harry Truman and what they were trying to do. Why, Mr. Trump, do you know why the tariffs, the US were accepting high tariffs on the way in? Okay, I mean, we were allowing for blockades and we were low-tariffing. You know, we were allowing countries to tariff because we were 3% of the world's population, 65% of the world's GDP. And we wanted rising living standards, okay? So, and we did that for the Europeans and we
did that for the Japanese. And then we layered on the Marshall Plot, which Trump did learn about in eighth grade social studies. So he sort of knew that. And then he looked at me and he said, so this thing was intentionally uneven. I said, oh, yeah, it was intentionally uneven because there was a specter of the talternism and communism. And we had a balance, the powers in the world. And then he looked over at me and he says, how do you know all this? I said, you know, I need
to read. And then the very next day, and you'll enjoy this, Alcora, he was trying to tell somebody this new, imparted knowledge. And he was fumbling the goddamn thing all the way. Worcester Mucci, okay? Come on, tell me that story again, okay? But I'm going to tell you why this is an important story. He's still using it. He's still using it. You'll see it in his speeches, you'll see it in the ways talking. He had the instincts to raise the tariffs, but he didn't
understand the history. Also, I said, by the way, you know, whether Europeans are panlusted 2% that when Eisenhower was running NATO, he went back to Truman and they were fighting those 2% he said, don't let it go. Who would he let it go? We want let it go because we're going to be the biggest military. And he tore a page out of Thomas Hobbes. And so he said, that was a good thing.
So it is a good thing. And he said, let it go because in the Leviathan written 350 years ago, there is one global hegemon who uses its military might beneficially to suppress the interness and conflicts around the world. This is what Eisenhower told Truman. He said, let it go. I told Trump that. He said, well, you know, it's 60 years later, should we still be letting it go? And the answer to the question is no. Not at this moment because the world has changed.
But he didn't understand the historical context of all of these legendary leaders making these decisions. Have you read any books? Sorry, that's a bit off topic. Me? No, not you. He's like every book. He hasn't eaten the joke. The one that he wrote. No, the joke on the campaign in 16. Trump has written more best sellers than he's read because he always had a ghost right right in the garden. I can't wait. Yeah. Let's just say that you mentioned
that tariffs and we talk about economy and global trade. I mean, I don't, I'm not an economist at all, but I got the feeling when he was talking about tariffs during the campaign that he literally didn't know what he was talking about. He doesn't understand the consequences of what he was saying about tariffs. Okay. Sorry. I know he does because light does. Yes, he does. So what do you say about China? He understands what he does. He does. He does. He does. He's exaggerating. Okay, light
hyzer who he adores. Okay. And light hyzers from a blue collar family in Ohio and for people's benefit that was our US trade representative under Trump. And he wrote a very good book on trade, by the way, I would recommend it to people. But light hyzer is somebody that's roughly Trump's age. I remember Trump is an agent. He's an agent. Okay. He would take advice from you,
Alistair, because you're inside of a 10 year window of him. He doesn't like taking advice from people younger than him, but light hyzer and him at the same age and light houses are explained to him what we need to do with the tariffs. Trump's always exaggerating them, which makes you think he doesn't understand it. But that's for the messaging to the that's the red meat to his base, the exaggeration. What's he making of this? The way that he prepares, the way that he gets brief.
So I mean, how can you possibly run a non chaotic administration? Well, that's why it's like that. Well, I mean, we'll be chaotic. There's no question. I mean, as Marina was saying, there will be plenty of chaos to come. The story doesn't end here. There will be all kinds of ludicrous myths out. Because that's the nature of a Trump administration. I don't, I don't
apologize. I don't have my laptop. If we Googled the letter that Trump wrote to Erdogan in early 2020, if we can find it somewhere, it literally looked like somebody wrote it with a broken crayon. And it was like, it was all grammatically like incongruous. And General Kelly called me. And he said, did you read this letter? If this would have never gotten out, if I mean, it was literally crayon. But listen, look at it. So in other words, like people are like, okay, forget it. I can't,
I'm not getting fired. I don't want an ass-each-weat about me. Let them send the broken crayon matter out to Erdogan. Okay. Dear Mr. President, let's work out a good deal. Exclamation might, you don't want to be responsible for slaughtering the sounds of the people. I don't want to be responsible for destroying the turkish economy. And I will. I've already given you a little sample with respect to Pastor Brunson. I've worked hard to solve your problems.
Don't let the world down. You can make a great deal. General Miss Lume is willing to negotiate. He's willing to make concessions that they would never have made at the past. I'm confidentially closing a copy of a letter to me just to receive. History will look upon you favorit favorably. If you get this done the right and humane way, look upon you forever as the devil. The good things don't happen. Don't be a tough guy. Don't be a fool. Don't be a fool.
I think that's the power of a lawyer later. I'll call you later. I mean, literally. The whole of the call. He's like, okay, he obviously took a broken Creole, a crayon out, and he wrote the damn thing. And someone transcribed it and just sent it out. I can't let this slide out from the past. What was the upshow? Well, yeah, well, yeah, well, I can't remember this plotline. Then what was the upshow? I don't know. I don't know. What was the reply?
So, so it was not something to mess with. I don't, I don't honestly remember. Okay, but he had this weird relationship with Erdogan because he liked Erdogan's strength. You know, he liked the fact that he took over democracy and then he ended the democracy. He was fascinated with that. And he also liked Erdogan's control over the central bank. Okay, and thank God you have minutiaid in place. And because minutiaid helped get pal through the nomination process. Okay, and,
and Trump likes, he wants the Fed to be dependent upon him. And I would tell you that would be an international nightmare. It would destroy the deepest, most liquid capital markets in the world, the US. But this is the type of nonsense that's going to come out of his administration. He doesn't have people checking him. Okay, God, why is he also going to be alive? I don't know. I have to ask a question for you. Yeah, a transition process. Yeah. How's that? So that's the important
question now. And the question, who's he predict the cabinet? Who's he getting in? Secretary of State, Rubio? I think it's going to be Rubio. I think Linda McMahon is going to go to Commerce. She was a small business executive. Her husband owns the Worldwide Wrestling Federation. He's Jimmy McMahon, which is very capable, very good person, by the way. And so I think she'll do a good job there. She'll be a safe pair of hands. I think Treasury, there's going to be a food
fight between Scappa Cent. Probably not a name you don't know, but I know him in the hedge fund. It's used to work for George Soros. Very smart guy, very capable. John Paulson and a gentleman by the name of Howard Lutnik, that is the co-chair of the transition team. I think Lutnik is the wildcard, frankly, because he's new to Trump world. And I think he is hurting his position by over talking. There was a Wall Street Journal article about him. A couple of guys dropped bombs
on him in the article being very critical of him. He's a CEO of Canada. He's a CEO of Canada Fitzgerald. So another very smart, these are smart guys. But the problem is when you're trying to out Trump Trump. You create chaos for yourself. And that could be a problem. And what do you do in Marlago? In Trump Tower? Well, it will be a Marlago deal. It'll set up a facility down in Marlago. The interviews would be held in Marlago. Trump asked me to do something for him. It was called
the Tiger team, which I wasn't well suited for. What was the Tiger team? I want you to be tough like a tiger. And I want you to screen out the people that are not full-mag-up people. And so Don Jr. is going to do that for him now. And that's what Lutnik really wants. He wants everyone to be loyal. You can't be a guard. You'll fail the Trump test. If you're a guard in variety or that doesn't transfer into the group. You're a middle of the road
Republican. We don't want you. We want you with a Magatat 2 on your forehead. And we want you with a red tie and a red hat coming through the door to get this in her. Sorry, sorry. Sorry, Laura Trump and Don Jr. What do you see? Where do you see their rules for? We have any kind of... She has something formal. What about him? So it's a very interesting question because he likes having his family around. And I don't think
Jared Kushner and Ivanka are coming in. If Jared gets US special envoy to the Middle East to further the Abraham Accords and you can still run his private equity enterprise, I think he would probably do that. I don't think he's going to be in the administration. I think Ivanka clearly wants out. That's just reading the tea leaves, though, not speaking with her. Don Jr. in the past, for whatever reason, I think they're very similar. There's been a little bit
of combustion between the two of them. And they seem to do better relationship-wise if they're not doing that. And so he may not end up in the administration. That's my sense. Laura will have a role. Yeah. She'll have a role. She'll be doing something fairly, fairly large in the administration. Well, look, we're coming to the end of specials in New York. We had eight hours of it last night. Yeah. And now, thank you very much. Thank you.
And all that. Final thought. It's around the table, Tom. It's a shock. It makes you recalibrate the way you thought about the last eight years or so. But it is the new normal. It's no longer enough to say Trump is an aberration, a short term reaction. And this is 21st century politics now. And those people who don't like what Trump stands for, and I can myself among them have to realize that we're in a new world. There were the post-war,
settled, consensual style of doing politics is gone forever. And we are in an age of turbulence and chaos. And we need politics that deals with that. I agree. Buckle up. That's my two words. Yeah. Yeah. Again, maybe I'm too optimistic. I think there is a scenario where he has gotten his retribution. He's won back the presidency. It's a incredibly hard thing to do. He's 78. And he may leave it up to the locals. I've gotten pushed back now that I've said that. Three or four people
have said to me, no, he's craving the autonomy. He's got the House and the Senate. He's going to try to break this system. So what to see? One way or another, something's going to happen. But if a journalist gets jailed in this country, there's not one person on this panel that would be surprised by that if it happens in a Trump administration. And that's the most worrisome thing I can say in terms of where this republic stands right now on the cost of 2025.
Okay. Well, we've got that's it. With the end of our third and final restisting point. Can I tell Rory that I got the seat now or no? You can tell him. And also I think if Rory wasn't, I see now what he'd be saying is that I think Kamala's going to win. Yeah. We're going to have that. He'll be asking what the odds are, you know, four days after the certification. Can I get back to what was meant to be like big momentous finale? Okay. Thank you.
Yeah. So that's it. America has decided. Donald Trump is going to be the next president of the United States. And his presidency as Marina has just said, it's going to be turbulent. So make sure you hit subscribe so you don't miss out as the restist politics and the restist politics US follow it all the way. If you get, you know, if you want to something a little less cerebral, you can always try the restisting street. Dominic and Simemerina, it's been absolutely
brilliant 24 hours. And despite the result, which I don't think any of us feel great about, it's been a pleasure. None of this would be impossible for us without Spotify, who've been incredibly generous in letting us use this wonderful skyscraper studio here in the World Trade Center. And that's the sponsors too. If you've missed any of these live streams, you can head to Spotify now to watch it all on catch up and one last thank you to all of you. And we're into the millions now
watching around the world. It's been brilliant to see how many of you joined us. That's it for us. Goodbye.