Kamala's Filibuster Threat and Pro-Life Voters

Hey everybody, enjoy this episode. Become a member. Members.CharlieKirk.com. That is Members.CharlieKirk.com. Email us as always Freedom at CharlieKirk.com and become a member to support this program.

Buckle up everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job. Building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments at NobleGoldInvestments.com. That is NobleGoldInvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to NobleGoldInvestments.com. That's something Kamala Harris said yesterday. Now there's been a fair amount of apprehension amongst those of us that are pro-life that Donald Trump is insufficiently pro-life.

Therefore I'm going to stay at home and I'm going to protest vote him. Meaning I'm not going to vote and just so you know there are at least in my circle I know of a lot of pro-life people that refuse to vote for Trump. Now they're getting there because they say that Trump is not as pro-life as they would like to be. I think this is silly and foolish and I say this as somebody who is very, very pro-life. But recent developments by Kamala Harris shows that he is far more pro-life. Vastly more pro-life and more to the point, pro-life in the ways that politically matter right now. And I think that is the most important framing to put on it.

Yeah. And so what Kamala Harris announced yesterday for the first time is that she is willing to nuke the filibuster, which is a tactic that is used in the Senate. It's not constitutional. That slows down pieces of legislation, effectively saying that we're going to gut the filibuster to reinstitute Roe versus Wade. Now, this might sound like something you've seen on a television commercial from Kamala Harris, but it's something completely different. What she is saying is that she will overturn any state that might have pro-life legislation in Oklahoma, in Kansas, in Tennessee. What is so remarkable about this tape that we're about to play, this is Kamala Harris in a phone interview, I imagine a radio interview of some sort, and she does this unprompted. Nobody asked a question of Kamala Harris about the filibuster, at least to my knowledge.

I don't know if the question was asked. It seemed as if Kamala Harris just meandered right into it and said it, and her team had it prepared for her to make this announcement. Kamala Harris wants to tell states like Tennessee what they can do with their pro-life legislation. The brilliance and the moderate ground that President Trump has been saying is this is a states' rights issue.

It has been for quite some time. There will be ballot referendums and state laws. Kamala Harris wants to overturn the state-directed, citizen-led component of the pro-life abortion debate. Listen to Kamala Harris saying that she will get rid of the filibuster to accomplish such radical and unprecedented policy objectives. Play cut 55. And so I would also emphasize that while the presidential election is extremely important and dispositive of where we go moving forward, it also is about what we need to do to hold on to the Senate and win seats in the House.

That being said, I've been very clear. I think we should eliminate the filibuster furrow and get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom and for the ability of every person and every woman to make decisions about their own body and not have their government tell them what to do. So, Blake, what does this mean for a state like Tennessee? So what she's saying is that she will nuke the filibuster, have the Senate get rid of the filibuster. You don't need 60 votes to close debate anymore to basically she says bring back Roe. So what that would literally mean is they would pass a federal law that says the original Roe v. Wade ruling is now the national abortion law, which basically means you can have no restrictions whatsoever on abortion in the first trimester.

You can't really have that many restrictions in the second trimester. And then like in the third, you're kind of allowed to ban it maybe. But that might even just they just say Roe because they know it's popular. So they could easily say we're passing Roe and it'll just be nationwide, you know, New York legal throughout pregnancy for basically any reason.

And if you pass that, here's what's going to happen. Now, we've often had some like dooming stuff on the right because pro-life stuff hasn't always done great when it's an up or down vote at the ballot box. So you actually mentioned Kansas, but Kansas is an example where their Supreme Court said it's a constitutional right. And so they actually have very liberal abortion laws because they didn't amend it successfully to get rid of it.

Now, we didn't do great there. But if you set those aside, here are states that have very strict laws right now. Texas, second biggest state in the union, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Idaho, all of those have essentially, at least according to the abortion supporters, they have basically outright bans. Georgia has a heartbeat bill, six weeks. Florida has a heartbeat bill, six weeks. And we might lose that one, but it's a 60 percent threshold to amend. So that very easily could survive in Florida.

We'll see. You have a heartbeat bill in South Carolina. You have a heartbeat bill in Iowa. So I didn't keep exact track, but that's about 20 states. Oh, North Dakota had a ban and then a judge threw it out.

But it's like a low level judge. They'll probably reverse it. So you basically have about 20 states here that have vastly more restrictive abortion laws, thanks to the Dobbs decision, that have so far not been overturned in any vote. And, you know, it's actually been over two years at this point.

They've stuck around a little bit. They've gotten through an election cycle. And if you have pro-lifers deciding to stay home because Trump doesn't want a national abortion ban, what you are effectively doing is you're mad at Trump over something that won't happen. Because I'm just going to tell you, they're not going to pass the national abortion ban. And if they do, we will lose the following election. I don't like that that is true.

Yeah, Blake is super pro-life. That is what would happen. It's like saying, like, we should nuke China to stop abortion. Like, OK, that's just a dumb thing to do because it would have massively destructive follow up consequences. So we won't do it.

And that is the same thing here. You're going to not vote for Trump because he's not pro-life enough, but you'd rather have national row. And really, once Congress passes that, I strongly suspect it will be very difficult to ever get it repealed. So let's not have them pass it. And the key part of this is not just that she supports it. She's willing to remove the filibuster to get it done.

Yes. And that means everything else that they've talked about doing to get rid of the filibuster. They want to make Puerto Rico and D.C. states, which would, among other things, mean the U.S. flag gets uglier.

You don't want that to happen. And, you know, four Democrat senators, more safe electoral votes, and so on. Stacking the Supreme Court. Stack the Supreme Court.

Pack the Supreme Court. All those gun rights decisions you like, they can get rid of those. Religious liberty, gone. Religious liberty, done.

School choice, gone. Yeah, they can just rewrite everything they want. And they have a long list of packages that they want to do. Like, you know how we got in trouble for Project 2025? There are 50 different liberal nonprofits with 50 million more assets, and they all write their own Project 2025s. And almost all of them have a massive list of things they can do if they get rid of the filibuster.

And if you're pro-life out there, if you're a Christian or a Catholic, and you say, oh, I'm not voting for Trump because he's insufficiently pro-life, let me be as clear as I can. Not voting for Trump is a ticket to one-party rule and would have nationalized abortion. It would overturn every single state where we made progress. And then you'd be giving the keys to the Democrat Party to add D.C. and Puerto Rico estates, because they'll use the filibuster for that. They'll get rid of the filibuster for that. Pack the Supreme Court. And then also pass H.R. 1, which is universal mail-in balloting.

And just no, no, no. Amnesty. Don't pass amnesty. And look, I'll be honest, I was talking to some pro-life leaders last night and they said, yeah, we're organizing people to protest against Donald Trump.

And I said, you're being immature, children, throwing the country out. Not only is your protest point stupid, but if Donald Trump wins, the pro-life movement stays alive. If Kamala wins, it could be obliterated for a generation.

A generation. Not to mention Kamala Harris will use the FBI, the Department of Justice and the IRS to go after any pro-life leader in the country. And so I hope you guys are listening carefully here. She'll attack pregnancy crisis centers. Every state that has passed pro-life legislation will just be overturned and reversed. But I guess it's worth it to not vote. It is, it is, would you call it, Blake, moral virtue signaling, right? Yeah. You'd rather go back to the era where things were worse because I guess like you had more moral clarity then or something? No, that's what some people say.

It makes you wonder, you know, what team they're actually on. How would you define your relationship with sleep? Are there challenges, trouble falling asleep or staying asleep? Here's the thing about sleep.

It's the foundation of whole body health. Good sleep is both mental and physical and our daily performance depends on it. So how do you get to your dream state? Three words, Beams Dream Powder, a science-backed healthy hot cocoa for sleep. This product will single-handedly change the way you sleep for the better.

Other sleep aids can cause next-day grogginess, but Dream contains a powerful all-natural blend of reishi, magnesium, altionine, apigenin, and melatonin to help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed. My listeners get a special discount on Beam Dreams Powder, their science-based healthy hot cocoa for sleep with no added sugar. Text Beam to 717767. That's Beam to 717767 for up to 40% off. Better sleep has never tasted better.

Don't let sleep evade you like it has me. Text Beam to 717767. That's Beam to 717767 for up to 40% off. I want to play more tape here of the push to get rid of the filibuster. Blake, explain to our audience again the significance of the filibuster because this is being met with massive opposition from Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema.

Both leaving though. Yeah, so what is the, like tell us what are the components of the filibuster? So what the filibuster is, is in the Senate you need a majority of votes to pass something, 50 votes or, 51 votes or 50 plus the vice president, Kamala, right now. And, but they have rules that govern how the Senate works and some of those rules govern debate. And what a filibuster is, is when someone refuses to allow debate to end. And what they've done with the rules is they say, you need 60 votes to force an end to debate.

They call this cloture. And if you are not able to end debate, there's no time limit on it. So they can just perpetuate it indefinitely. And so this used to be a pretty rare thing. And it used to be like to filibuster, you'd have to physically keep talking. So you occasionally, Strom Thurmond did it for, I think 24 hours to post something like that.

Yeah. And so it used to be that way, but over time there's been this move towards making it more sclerotic, not able to do stuff. So now you can just filibuster forever and you don't need to be physically talking. So it's essentially become, you need 60 votes to pass anything. Now this is something of a legal fiction because you can get rid of the filibuster by majority vote. It is not in this.

I want to be very clear. It is not in the U.S. Constitution that I'm holding up right now. It is purely a norm that the Senate maintains and you can get rid of it. So, for example, you used to be able to filibuster Supreme Court nominees. The GOP got rid of that so they could get Gorsuch on the court. You could filibuster lower court nominees, I believe. I think Obama got rid of that one.

Well, that's right. So Obama got rid of it first for circuit court. For circuit court. And then the Supreme Court was still there. And then McConnell took the precedent. Because remember, McConnell said you're going to regret doing this. Yes. And then McConnell went, you know, we win and we get Amy Coney Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

It almost works like, it's kind of like, it's like nuclear war, like military escalation, like you can escalate back and forth. And so in theory you could get rid of the filibuster for anything. They used it for the Inflation Reduction Act. Yes. So that was, did they get rid of the filibuster or was it that technically the filibuster doesn't apply to... Not sure.

There was one of the... Reconciliation. That was a part of Obamacare. No, that's correct. Yeah, because of Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts.

Yes. And so there's all these complexities to it. And what is ultimately the case is you can just get rid of the filibuster by majority vote. So what's funny about the filibuster is it actually, it doesn't quite protect the minority the way people say it does. What it actually does is it protects the majority from votes they like don't really want to take and they need a political excuse for not doing. That's why Republicans loved it so much. Oh, can't pass, can't secure the border. We don't have 60 votes.

Sorry, guys. Whereas if there was no filibuster, they would have to be much more overt that we actually kind of support open borders. So that's a really good summary. Thank you, Blake. And on that, this is Joe Manchin saying he will not endorse Kamala Harris because of this.

Play cut 63. I think I've been very clear my whole career is that the 60 vote threshold that we are, that we basically operate under in the Senate is essential. Would you endorse her for president then? I'm not endorsing her.

Secondly, this is let's go here. Cut 56 on CNN about the filibuster. Now that she has said that she would got the Senate filibuster rules in a past measure, Manchin tells us this morning he will not endorse Harris for president. He is one of the staunchest supporters of the filibuster.

Play cut 56. Now that she has said that she would got the Senate filibuster rules in order to pass a measure to preserve abortion rights, Manchin tells us this morning that he will not endorse Harris for president. He is one of the staunchest supporters of the filibuster in the Senate. Manchin argues that it is essential to forcing bipartisan consensus and compromise in the Senate as in the minority of Democrats in particular who are pushing to gut this altogether because it would lower the threshold for advancing legislation from 60 votes to 51 if Kamala Harris had her way. They're basically trying to set the precedent here that the filibuster is not going to mean anything and we're going to use whatever is at our disposal to do what? So this time they're using Roe because that's like, that's, you know, their winning issue. They never shut up about abortion. But you have to understand Democrats don't see this is not get rid of the filibuster for this and it's totally around for everything.

Democrat activists want to get rid of it for the whole shebang. They're thinking this is why we can't get the Green New Deal climate stuff. This is why we amnesty. This is why we can't get amnesty. This is why we can't get statehood for all these. This is why we can't pack the courts. And that's what the key thing, the real key thing is pack the courts because then you can just have a court say all the other stuff is required. This is vital in a modern era for checks and balances. Kamala wants to get rid of it to bring in a radically communist agenda to the country. Pay attention.

If she wins, watch out. into a self-directed gold IRA, you can enjoy the potential for long-term growth and stability. Diversify your portfolio with a tangible asset that has real value. Setting up your gold IRA has never been easier with Noble Gold Investments.

Streamline process and expert guidance. This election year, don't let election volatility and uncertainty keep you up at night. Vote for the timeless safety of gold and silver in 2024. Noble Gold Investments will help you with up to 10 one ounce silver Trump coins or 10 ounce silver American flag bar if you open a qualified account. Go to NobleGoldInvestments.com now.

That is NobleGoldInvestments.com, NobleGoldInvestments.com. OK, joining us now is Jeff Clark, great American here. Talk about Kamala Harris.

Has she ever done anything? Senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America and former assistant attorney general of the United States. Jeff, welcome back to the program. Thanks for having me, Charlie. Glad to be here and talk about this important topic.

Yes. So Kamala Harris is running ad after ad here in my home state of Arizona, saying, I put cartel members in prison. I prosecute cases. Is there any evidence that she's ever prosecuted a case from start to finish? So I have been looking and the only thing I can identify is a Politico article.

I'm sorry, let me put that off to the side for a second. So I ran searches on Westlaw, which I'm particularly expert at using. It's a very large, the largest and most comprehensive computerized legal research database. And I can't find any evidence of any cases that she prosecuted. And I searched for habeas cases where the transcripts might have wound up there. I also looked for whether she'd argued appeals, can't find anything. Those tweets have gone viral. Elon Musk has spotted them. And I challenged her and her campaign weeks ago to please post up on some kind of logging website her past trial transcripts so that other lawyers like me can look at them and see if they show any signs of an impressive lawyer or if she's being puffed up and overblown like an empty pantsuit. And I'm sad to say I really don't find any evidence like that.

She hasn't met the challenge. But now back to this Politico article. So there's an author, Eric, spelled H-E.

I don't know how he pronounces it, whether it's hey or he. And he was kind enough actually to respond to me. He did a story and that story says that she prosecuted a 300-day sex crimes prosecution against two different defendants. Their trials might have been split up. And then they referred to trial transcripts, plural. But when I contacted Eric, he did respond, but he said he doesn't have the trial transcripts. The only way to get them is to physically go to the courthouse and look at them.

So I'm working on that next step. But many of us think that this may not have been cases that she prosecuted. It may have been that she made some kind of an appearance at the trial. And I'm looking to see whether she actually first chaired a trial ever. Otherwise, it's really misleading to call yourself some kind of ace prosecutor. And she was accused of that by one of her past political foes, you know, a man named Bill Fazio.

And I'm going to get in contact with him, too, because he exposed her. She was making claims. She prosecuted hundreds of cases. And then in a debate, she dialed it back to say 50. So she's already been caught lying about this, Charlie.

Yes. So just help me understand how common is this for people that ascend as a DA and then an attorney general? Is it frequent that people rarely have any courtroom experience as a prosecutor? In my experience, someone who becomes a local DA usually has significant trial practice behind them. You know, it is a politically elected job, so it is possible to come in from the outside. But usually, if someone runs for a DA from the outside, it's someone putting aside these Soros prosecutors who, you know, was in private practice.

They might have been in the criminal defense bar, for instance, or they might have held other government posts. But for her to become the DA and to win and to beat people like Mr. Fazio, who was really a veteran prosecutor, you know, she's an empty suit, as I've said. And I think it's because they just propped her up.

They portray her as attractive and dynamic and younger. And that's kind of been the press clippings that she's been running on ever since. And once she got the DA job, then she got some special patronage jobs that Willie Brown gave her on state boards in California.

And then, you know, she became attorney general of California, and then she parlayed that into a Senate seat. But so far, we're not finding that she actually has much of a record as an actual real lawyer, Charlie. It seems as if this is a pattern, right, Jeffrey, that it seems as if she says one thing and then does another. And this is significant because in an attempt to win over center-right moderate Midwestern swing voters, she's making herself seem as if she is this, you know, amazing prosecutor, that she's able to come in and lock up the cartels. And she knows how to try these cases.

Blake, do you have a thought on this? I'm just kind of wondering, like, you know, she never gives interviews, of course. And if she does, a lot of them will be softballs. But it'd be really fun to just, if the press would actually put her on the spot and ask her, like, relatively basic legal questions, because, I mean, she failed the bar the first time. Like, I do wonder how... What is a motion to dismiss? Yeah. Like, you know, how does it work?

How does law stuff work? You know, Ms. Harris, we just want to know. Like, you could easily, you know, swage our concerns and just, just tell us, just tell us, Kamala. So Blake and Charlie, look, the master at this is Senator John Kennedy. And I have, you know, posted on X. I'd love to see him question her, right?

He goes through the forms of federal abstention and stumps people. He would definitely stump her. She would be totally exposed. And so, of course, she's never going to do that. And of course, the press is never, the mainstream press is never going to put her through that. And she's not going to agree to do something like come on your show, Charlie, and have you quiz her about any legal topics or put, you know, have you pair up with a lawyer guest to ask her questions. She's going to dodge all that and the mainstream media is going to cover for her.

Yeah. And so kind of on that, on that part, on that point. So her campaign is largely centered on trying to be tough on crime. I'm going after the cartels.

I'm going after people on the border. The evidence actually shows any work she did as AG and DA was to be soft on crime, was to allow violent criminals and to be released. Not actually trying cases, but her work seemed to be more about relaxing standards for violent criminals.

Is that correct? I think that's fair. And I also think, right, that the whole framing of her versus Trump, you know, the geniuses on the Democratic Party, their political consultants, they decided the framing would be excellent for her. If Trump is a criminal defendant, and she's the tough on crime prosecutor, she, as she said, knows his type, you know, she's gone after a whole array of different criminals, etc.

Like, I don't buy that. I don't buy this, the idea that she prosecuted transnational criminals. I want to see the evidence of that.

I've seen no evidence of that. You know, she was focused in the sex crimes unit. And, you know, there are many people who are, who know the California legal system well, and they're skeptical that given how many years she spent as a line prosecutor that she possibly could have, you know, done much in terms of really being a first chair in a sex crimes case, because those could be complicated and, you know, very fraught. So, you know, I just think her record is exploding. Her record is, you know, phony. And, you know, I don't, I think she's going to run from this.

That's why she hasn't answered my challenge online. So, so, yeah, Jeff, I also want to talk about lawfare here. And there was another segment last evening on CNN where they said Donald Trump threatens to use the legal system against his political opponents. I mean, it's so Orwellian, it's hard to even grasp here. You have been a victim and a target of lawfare.

I don't think we're talking about this enough. Bring us up to speed on how your situation is and what Kamala Harris would do if she's president. She would turn the Department of Justice into her own private secret police. Look, I think, you know, it's a laugh out loud moment when you hear the left try to say that Trump's going to be an autocratic dictator who's going to turn the Department of Justice into a weaponized system going after Democrats that he doesn't like. What have we been experiencing for the last three plus years under Joe Biden and Merrick Garland? We've been experiencing a weaponized justice system. And, you know, that's why they use special counsel Jack Smith, because they think that that's an accountability defeating mechanism.

It fuzzes up who's really responsible. We know that Joe Biden and Merrick Garland are responsible for that. We know from FOIA information that America First Legal got that Joe Biden actually authorized, you know, information that the archives was looking at so they could use that to trump up the documents charges against Trump that were brought by Jack Smith down in Florida, for instance. The idea that, you know, there's some independent guy who's not a Democrat, he's just an independent Jack Smith, and he's responsible for all of this and it doesn't fall on the Justice Department's, you know, political head or on Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's head is ludicrous. They've weaponized the justice system. And, you know, there needs to be accountability for that, Charlie. And I think President Trump is going to bring that and for them to try to call that, you know, accountability, weaponization is ludicrous. They're the ones who launched these political attacks.

They're the ones who are bringing Marxism into the justice system and violating equal protection up and down the, you know, various states and in the federal system. And, you know, they should actually be put on the spot about that. I'd like to see Congress put them on the spot more about that, too. And they haven't done enough of that.

No, they certainly haven't. Jeffrey, please plug your information. And finally, just really quickly, can you talk about Judge Chutkin has allowed Jack Smith to file a 180 page legal brief that the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity doesn't preclude his prosecution of President Trump.

Comment on that and how can people support you? Sure. So tomorrow that's going to drop. Jack Smith's going to drop a 180 page brief, which is, you know, 135 pages in excess of the normal 45 page limit. And it violates normal procedures, the federal rules of criminal procedure, because President Trump should get to file a motion to dismiss against his superseding indictment. And instead, that's going to wait and you're going to get Jack Smith using anticipation to defend what Trump might say and defend his indictment.

So he gets to move twice in the chess game, which is just totally wrong and I think violates due process. And then that's not going to be public immediately. Eventually, there'll be a redacted version that's issued. And that's going to inherently be in October.

And that's their October surprise against President Trump to try to convince the center of the electorate not to vote for him. Charlie, thanks for for mentioning me and my fight, which continues against the D.C. bar, especially and against Fannie Willis. I can be found at Jeff Clark, U.S. on X and Getter and at Real Jeff Clark on Truth Social.

And also the movie about my challenges is at thejeffclarkstory.com, Charlie. Very good. Jeff Clark, thank you so much.

Thank you. We are all truly blessed to have a leader like President Trump. Those are the words of Goya president and CEO Bob Unawe. Bob is a true American whose grandfather came here as an immigrant and now has the largest Hispanic owned food company in the United States. In his new book, Blessed Donald J. Trump and the Spiritual War, Bob reveals how the word blessed stirred up hatred, division in the cancel culture and the boycott of Goya foods, igniting a spiritual war for the soul of America. Others reveal in the book that God, quote, has placed his hand on President Trump, allowing him to courageously bring America back to strength, prosperity and to God. Bob writes that the United States is engaged in a civil war for its soul, good versus evil, freedom versus tyranny. And he predicts America's spiritual resurgence.

Order your copy of Blessed on Amazon right now. Really quickly, Virginia early voting numbers are coming in. Some of this is speculative.

Some of it is still is rooted in data. Republicans are doing well with lower propensity voters in Virginia. So if you are in Virginia, drag a friend to the polls, get yourself to the polls, get out and vote early, make it easier on campaigns to know who to target. Vote early, everybody. Vote early.

Don't all of a sudden say, oh, yeah, I'm going to vote on Election Day. And then guess what? You get sick. You have the flu. You have covid.

Your daughter has to go to soccer practice. Or in Arizona, our machines fail. And you have to wait two and a half lines and people end up not voting. So in Virginia, Virginia early voting summary to date compared to 2020 strong Trump counties are up 63 percent. Weak Trump counties are up 58 percent. Competitive counties are up 36 percent. Weak Harris counties are up 23 percent.

Strong Harris counties are up 26 percent. This trend should seriously worry Democrats. Virginia is coming out strong, which might mean this turnout election, Blake, might be higher than what people were modeling. Maybe.

Very possible. And if that's the case, advantage Trump. So it seems, according to what the polls say. Again, again, for the record, when I say stuff like that, I'm not predicting Trump's going to win.

For sure. I've been very clear on that. I have no idea what's going to happen. I do know what I'm going to do.

Yes, exactly. So I know some people dump on Nate Silver. I'm going to defend Nate Silver.

He. He was definitely the analyst who gave Trump the best shot in 2016. He thought it was unlikely Trump would win. But he was like one third shot when you had professional analysts, people at universities who said zero percent shot. One said, I'll eat a bug if Trump wins. And I think he actually did, in fact, eat the bug, which liberals like doing anyway.

So it probably wasn't a big deal. But anyway, so this is what Nate Silver said just the other day. Quote, in 16 years of running election forecasts, I have never seen such a close election. Our polling averages in seven swing states, as of when he wrote this, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, seven states were within two percentage points when he wrote that. So that could mean if you have a very tiny shift one direction, Trump blow out, tiny shift the other direction, Kamala blow out.

That's how close it is. And that's what's really so crazy is you have a lot of swing states every election. But what really stands out is how there's seven or eight states that could be the state that decides the election this time. Whereas, you know, last time it turned out there was a pretty big range in the outcomes of so only one or two states were really like the tipping point. But this time it's just it's all over. Let's play cut 73. How how close this thing is.

Play cut 73. They like the job that he did as president. So we talk about popularity. We're often talking about favorability ratings. But how about approval ratings? How about approval ratings? Thinking that he did a good job in his presidency. I think people confuse that often. I think people confuse it very often.

Look at this. Think his presidency was a success. Donald Trump, 51 percent. The majority think his presidency was a success, despite his personal popularity being meh. Look at this for Joe Biden, way down at 37 percent. I think that this is a real drag on Kamala Harris, despite her own personal popularity. While Donald Trump with thinking his presidency is a success, I think the net favorability ratings don't actually get into the fact that there are a lot of folks who like the job he did as president, but don't necessarily like him personally. That right there means that Donald Trump should be successful.

We'll see. And every one of you out there, you have your marching orders. How many voters have you registered? If you haven't registered 100 new voters, then you're not doing your job. That's it. You're just kind of hoping it gets better. So I don't want to hear your complaint.

Go to TP Action dot com slash 100. How many ballots are you chasing? How many conversations do you have?

We are running out of time, everybody. And many of you did work over the summer. But honestly, a lot of you send us emails, angry emails. And I ask how many voters you registered to say, I don't believe in that. Well, Democrats do.

This will be the closest election in American history, potentially. Do something about it. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always. Freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless.