Episode 990: Getting It Right and the Midterm Election Results
Air Date: November 11, 2026 | Hosts: Bob Metz and Robert Vaughan
Clip (Idiocracy 2006):
Joe had awakened to a world in crisis. The economy was in a state of deep neglect. A great dust bowl had ravaged food supplies.
I didn't get any.
Thank you. Your account has been charged. Your balance is zero. Please come back when you can afford to make a purchase.
Oh c'mon. My kids are starving.
Bob Metz:
Welcome everyone. It is Wednesday, November 11th, 2026. I'm Bob Metz.
Robert Vaughan:
And I'm Robert Vaughan.
Bob Metz:
And this is Just Right. Broadcasting around the world and online.
Robert Vaughan:
Join us for an hour of discussion that's not right wing. It's just right.
Bob Metz:
In the wake of last week's midterm election results in the U.S., and in addition to our own upcoming take on those results, we can think of no better time to turn our focus towards the real political divide between the left and the right. And more importantly, why it is essential to understand the incompatible ideologies that each polarity represents.
And given what appears to be a major shift in voting patterns, we thought it might also be useful to consider what it is in an individual voter's way of thinking that would cause that voter to switch sides. Well, that's the very question that Robert asked our guest last week, Jim McMurtry, during one part of their video discussion that we did not include in last week's audio broadcast, but which we shall return to right after our reminder that you can write us at feedback@justrightmedia.org. Hear us on WBCQ and on Channel 292 Shortwave. Follow and like us on your favorite podcast platform and visit us at justrightmedia.org, where you can access all of our social media links, archived broadcasts, and the support button that makes it easy for you to support the show. Because as always, your financial support is appreciated and is what makes this show possible.
Now Robert and his guest will only be with us for this first quarter of the show, after which I shall once again become today's solo host, expanding on their conversation by carrying it over into the broader left and right debate, and then to applying these principles to the midterm election results.
As it happened, Robert's discussion with Jim McMurtry occurred very shortly after Jim had run in BC's provincial election for a political party called OneBC. And it is about that election that Jim is speaking as we now continue the conversation.
Jim McMurtry:
It's just absolute madness what's happening in the school. And at the beginning I showed you I got 3.3% of the vote. But ten years from now, I'm gonna be the one remembered, and all those other people are going to be disappointed because they weren't being honest.
If people think that someone like me deserves only 3.3% of the vote and somebody else who's going along with all this, I mean it's just an extraordinary thing. It's just a rabbit hole. It's upside down and it's an inversion of anything that's this rational.
Robert Vaughan:
What you're describing to me is what others have described as the Long March, from Marx to Gramsci to the Frankfurt School, the deconstructionists, infiltrating every walk of life, especially journalism and the schools, to raise up a bunch of compliant, non-thinking, dough-head people, so they can control them.
But I wondered, you ran for the Liberal Party in 2006. Could you very briefly tell us how you went from running for the Liberals to running for the PPC in OneBC? What was your evolution of political thought to change you from somebody who would support the Liberal Party in Canada to a Maxime Bernier?
Jim McMurtry:
I'm a kid who got through high school because I love literature and I loved reading and books like The Inheritors, To Kill a Mockingbird, Huckleberry Finn, which is young. And so when I got into the University of Toronto and did my doctoral work there, I thought that because they were trying to cancel Margaret Atwood's at the time, a prominent Canadian author, The Diviners and most famous work, I said, Well, I'll make a case that I can make a case for literature in schools. And because what I really felt was the political right was censoring literature. Like everybody wanted to get rid of Margaret Laurence, burn her at the stake, or people on the political right, the religious political right. And so I was on the left, very much on the left. And so I wrote that dissertation, and I believe that so fundamentally the kids should have a right to read freely and think freely and so on in schools.
So here I am all these years later. The censorial forces, the forces that want to cancel literature, which are again, they've got rid of Dr. Seuss. In my school in adversity, they got rid of Agatha Christie. So the people who are wanting to close everything are from the left. And so it's been an interesting thing. But I'm me. I haven't changed at all. I love literature. I want kids to read and think freely in a classroom. And if you don't think freely, people are going to start to say you can't talk about this, you can't talk about that. No, somebody's going to be traumatized or triggered.
Or the moment you start letting people, whatever their excuses are, to again to control people's thought, to curtail it, to restrict it, to reduce it, reduce their language then you're going to have a problem with me, because that's the most fundamental value, and that's what education is.
So all of a sudden I realized that I was on the right. I hadn't moved. I was now on the right. And so yes, I ran for the Liberals because 21 years ago I was still believing that the Liberals were the party against censorship.
And I started even during the election, I'm looking around, going, how the hell did I end up here? Short while later, not really, 2015 hit. And then Trudeau, Trudeau's biggest effort was one censorship bill after another.
And then Carney and I mean, it sits on believable. The Liberal Party, Liberal Party, which means freedom is the one that's closing our thoughts, and you can only think this way, and Trudeau's saying, well, you can't be candidate if you're against abortion or are concerned about abortion or whatever. And so Robert, I'm the same person. And then that's the example I showed in the election is that I've decided rightly or wrongly, this is who I am. And I'm not budging from that. And I'm too old, and I'm too principled.
As Polonius said to Laertes, his son in Hamlet, "above all else, be true to thine own self." All the issues that we talked about, Robert, what we are lacking, and this is Dallas Brodie, the visionary leader, OneBC. And she said, what we lack is not ideas. There are a lot of good ideas in Canada. We lack moral clarity and courage.
Those who think they're immoral are immoral. And those who think they're courageous by standing up for minorities or hurting those minorities and destroying our country.
Robert Vaughan:
Well said, Jim.
Bob Metz:
Absolutely. Jim's personal account of his journey from left to right had many similarities with my own. But my own transition from left to right was not seen by me in those terms at first. I was still operating under the delusion that left and right were irrelevant and useless political labels. And there was actually one election in which I voted for the New Democratic Party, Canada's version of America's Democratic Party, over the very same issue of censorship, and for the same reasons Jim outlined.
But my more conscious transition between left and right began with my running for the Libertarian Party of Canada, which, despite its being associated with the right, is ultimately a party in philosophy of the left. Today I find myself on the right, but with only one federal political option on the right in the form of the People's Party of Canada, and one Ontario provincial party on the right in the form of the Freedom Party. And from what I've been hearing so far, in BC, perhaps OneBC might also be considered on the right.
Other than those, the rest of Canada's parties are just winging it in a leftist political environment, incapable of moving in the right direction. Why? Because they don't have the right ideas or solutions. And as Dallas Brodie, the leader of OneBC put it, it's not good ideas we lack. What we lack is moral clarity and courage.
And I agree. And I think that that moral clarity so required must begin with a political clarity in terms of distinguishing left from right, which in moral terms could have been labeled wrong and right.
And to demonstrate that polarity on this side of our upcoming bumper appearing as a guest on the October 4th podcast of the Iced Coffee Hour, Steven Crowder was absolutely on fire arguing why the left is never right. But most coincidentally, he also raised the issue of how, in Jim McMurtry's words, those who think they are courageous by standing up for minorities are hurting those minorities.
Then on the return side of the bumper, our attention shifts from the left-right divide to the red wave versus the blue tsunami divide with a brief preview of Matt Walsh having a meltdown over the midterm results. Followed by Canadian blogger Matt Ross's reaction to Walsh's crash out, which sadly largely echoed my own.
But first, here's Steven Crowder.
Clip (The Iced Coffee Hour, October 4 2026):
Host:
Steven Crowder, thank you so much for coming on the Iced Coffee Hour.
Steven Crowder:
Thank you for having me.
Host:
I first found out about you in late high school, early college from the Change My Mind series, you would go tour college campuses, put up a sign that said change my mind, and have some really fascinating political and sometimes philosophical or psychological discussions. I'm curious, how difficult is it to change someone's mind?
Steven Crowder:
It's not that difficult if you categorize them as two separate people. There are those who are default liberal. In other words, if you were not politically active, but you were going to take the default position according to what you watch, what you listen to, you would be a liberal. Those people, their minds can be changed quite often. And we see it quite a bit.
There's a separate group of people. People who are the purveyors of the myth of the propaganda, where they cannot acknowledge if it doesn't hold water because they're so bought in they have to sell it anyway. Those people you don't change their mind. Those people you make an example of them. Make them look silly, as stupid as possible, so that the people who are approaching in good faith hear the best argument.
But I do think that's the most valuable skill in the political space is being able to recognize the two different kinds of people and which one you're most likely dealing with.
Host:
Did anyone change your mind?
Steven Crowder:
You know what's funny is if anything, people ask me this, if anything sitting down made me more radically right.
So I will tell you this I've had my heart broken at Change My Minds. One that really sticks out is affirmative action is racist, change my mind at UT. And there was a girl who sat down, I believe she was Ethiopian, and she said, Well, I wouldn't be here at UT if not for affirmative action.
And I asked a few follow-ups. I said, Well, what were your SAT scores, something like that, GPA? They were stellar. And I said, Well, that's really sad to me. I said, because you need to know you absolutely deserve to be here. The fact that you're black, that you're has nothing to do with it. And if you think that's why you're here, that must be terrible.
Do you doubt as to whether you'd be here if you were a white person? And she kind of you could see on her face she was living in a life dominated by doubt.
And it's one thing to read about that on a page, the prejudice of soft expectations. It's another thing to see someone who's lived their life that way, because there's no way to truly develop self-esteem outside of getting really good at something or accomplishing something. If there's a way I don't know about it.
And so I've had my heart broken where I go, wow, the people who've actually instated these policies, they know better. They know that this is what's going on, but they don't care anyway.
But I don't know that anyone has ever actually convinced me to take a more left position.
Host:
So, what is something that the left is fundamentally right about that the right does not want to acknowledge?
Steven Crowder:
Nothing. It's got to be something. Yeah, I mean,
Host:
But the problem is when you say something like that, you completely alienate all of these people that are left-leaning center that are just gonna say, oh, well, what are the chances that let's say half of an educated American population are completely deluded?
What are the chances? There I just think logically speaking, if we're split and there's a hundred-something million people that believe one thing, a hundred-something million people that believe the other thing, and there's educated people on both sides, that there must be merit to it. You can't be the person that's just right on everything.
Steven Crowder:
I'm not saying I'm the person who's right on everything. For I've made a ton of mistakes. But let me ask you this. Flip side of that. How do you have an entire political party? There's not one member of the DNC, not one national member of the DNC, Democratic Party, who will say that there should be any limitations on nine-month baby in the womb as a baby. Is there validity to that?
Host:
But that is the DNC, and they need to work together. And that's different from people that can just be the average everyday voter that's left-leaning center.
Steven Crowder:
Yeah, I see the question. I thought you meant from a worldview, the prism the Leftism.
Host:
I mean like DNC RNC, I mean leftism, as far as the left worldview is nothing. They're right about nothing. Now, as far as presenting something exclusive about which they've provided insight, the answer is still nothing. If it's identifying a similar problem, it's really easy to say, well, yeah, we find common ground. For example, the left says public education is broken. Okay, but so do we. The left says, we need a government that works better for the people. Well, so do we. The left recognizes that there's growing wealth disparity. Well, so do people on the right.
But I am conservative. I am right-leaning, and I have been since I was 12 years old, since I've observed the left everywhere that I've been. So we can identify the same problems. But as it relates to the solution, I am literally going to disagree with the left on everything.
There's no solution to wealth inequality from the left outside of take from someone to give to someone else. There's no solution from the left on education, aside from throw more money into a system that's broken.
There's no solution from the left as it deals with second amendment rights, first amendment rights that actually would be something I could agree with. So when people say this stuff now, they go, man, they just want us left versus right. So we don't focus on the elites. Man,
I go, well, hold on a second. There are Jews, for example. I probably disagree with American Jews on most things, certainly theologically, but not everything.
I probably disagree with most black American voters on a lot, but not everything.
I probably disagree with a lot of billionaires or millionaires on a good amount of if we're categorizing them this way.
I am going to disagree with the left's proposed solution in this country on everything. And I just think that clarity for me is important. I don't shy away from it.
I still will sit down and have these conversations, but I'm the guy who does. But what good ideas coming from the left? Really? What good ideas coming from the left today?
Host:
What are the good ideas coming from the right?
Steven Crowder:
Closing the borders, deporting illegal aliens who are here, allowing people to keep more of what they've earned, allowing school choice, just a really easy one, attaching the voucher to the student as opposed to putting it directly into school.
I can't think of anything valid from the left as far as the right. I mean, all of those immigration, school, taxes, second amendment, first amendment.
Host:
What do you think the right could be improving on then?
Steven Crowder:
I mean, the right could always improve on the messaging.
Host:
But what about from a policy perspective? Because the messaging, I feel like is also sort of like a you're kind of pushing off the actual answer to the question because it's saying that there's nothing inherently wrong or fundamentally wrong from a theory perspective incorrect.
Steven Crowder:
The Republican Party, the administration or the right-wing worldview. Because I just don't, I don't find any flaw with a right-wing worldview. I just don't.
Host:
So let's distill it down to this then. If it's the theory of the left and not the policy prescriptions being proposed by them, but let's just say more liberal theory. What is the strongest belief of liberal theory?
Steven Crowder:
Marxism. Marxism.
Host:
That is the that is the most valid.
Steven Crowder:
Viewing everything. If you want to understand the left, pick any issue, right? I'm sure we've all seen this. Queers for Palestine. It's funny, right? Because if those queers went to Palestine, it would be men for a week. It's silly. How do you have a Palestinian flag next to a rainbow flag, Rashid Flip? It makes no sense.
It does make sense when you understand Marxism. They view every single individual issue through the lens of oppressor, oppressed. An oppressor is just the byproduct of success of whatever gains you've made. That's why if you're wealthy, you're bad. If you're a white male, you're bad.
So in this country, trans oppressed, LGBTQ, oppressed. In the Israeli conflict with Palestine, oh, well, they're less successful, so they're oppressed.
Remember the Stop Asian hate campaign that went away really quickly when we found out who was committing the actual hate crimes against Asians, black Americans. Doesn't mean all black Americans, just as far as interracial crime statistics. They discard useful minorities, if it doesn't help them perpetuate that narrative.
Pick any topic, and I'll show you. You want to understand it? Look at it through the lens of who's the oppressor, who's the oppressed. That's how they see everything.
And I don't hate someone for being more successful than me. I don't hate someone for being part of a larger majority group than myself. That's the fundamental difference as we view individuals and character and systems, and they view oppressor-oppressed.
Clip (Matt Walsh, November 4 2026):
Just two years after Donald Trump retook the White House and Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress. Voters have made it clear overwhelmingly that all things considered, they'd prefer to be governed by the Democrat Party, which has been fully captured by communists who want half the country dead and openly seek to destroy Western civilization itself.
This is a disastrous and profoundly irrational outcome on many levels, but also not unexpected. Donald Trump abandoned the America first principles that got him elected, and voters responded accordingly.
There's no way to soft pedal this, and I'm not going to try to. It is a political catastrophe of historic proportions. The Republican Party needs all new leadership. None should be spared from blame, starting at the top with Trump himself.
Trump saw how the other Republican president this entry derailed his presidency and destroyed his party with an unpopular, pointless foreign war, and decided that he'd go ahead and do exactly the same thing. You know, the great almost Shakespearean tragedy here is that Trump launched his movement and seized control of the party. In large part because he was one of the only Republicans willing to criticize Bush's disastrous foreign war. And now Trump's tenure will end in ruin because he launched a disastrous foreign war of his own.
Clip (Matt Ross, November 5, 2026):
Big shock. The crash outs are here. And I'm not talking about crazy lefty liberal crash outs. We all know I love to talk about those. I love to call out liberals for being insane and crazy and hypocritical. But unfortunately, what we have here now is we have the actual instant crash out of the right wing alternative media.
I find it really funny how in America and in Canada, but in America especially, how quick it was before the alternative media started to turn on President Trump and on everything that he stood on and they stood on for the last two to six years.
One person that stands out for me, and this is somebody I've got great respect for, somebody who I like very much, but I couldn't help but notice how Matt Walsh basically threw everybody under the bus, all the people he supported under the bus. But for him to drop a video as soon as the midterms were gone, and completely call out Trump and all the policies that he thought ruined the midterms and ruined the Republican Party.
Well, my question is, to Matt Walsh, if the Republicans would have won the midterms, would you have also called these faults out? Would you have called out Trump for all the policies, the tariffs, the war in Iran, the trolling of Canada, and so on and so forth. Would you actually be singing the same tune? Rather than being a doomer and saying it's all over, and President Trump is to blame, and, and we all, now, now, now the world, we're screwed, basically, all the Republicans are screwed, and basically trying to blackpill everybody. Would you actually have said the same thing had the Republicans won?
It's unbelievable. When I was watching Matt Walsh today, how fast it was before he started to turn on the very politics that he backed for years and years and years. But it's not just Matt Walsh. We're seeing almost all of these right-wing alternative media people turning on the very person that they've been supporting for the last six months.
But Matt Walsh and the alternative media crashing out so quickly. Again, it's not a shock to me. But then I look at people like the Democratic Party, and you see how long and how and I'll have to give them credit for this. The Democrats don't turn their backs on people so quickly and so easily. There is a lot more loyalty, it seems to me when it comes to the Democrats and to the leadership within the Democratic Party.
And it makes you think and it makes you wonder about this alternative media and how quickly and how easily they will turn on you.
Bob Metz:
I really have to commend Matt Ross for asking that question. If the Republicans had won the midterms, would Matt Walsh have called the same fault out.
My own reaction to Matt Walsh's post-election diatribe made me think that he was suffering from PTS, post-traumatic syndrome or something, with his contradictory and in my opinion, very misinformed reactions to the election results. And on the supposed issues that Trump failed to deliver. I saw the same train wreck right across the so-called right-wing political spectrum. And as Matt Ross said, the right-wing alt media quickly turned on Trump, and on everything they both stood on for his last two to six years prior.
And this just reflects the message that we ourselves have been repeating for years. I mean, welcome to the conservative movement. Only two months ago, on our September 9 broadcast, highlighting the right divide, which podcaster Michael Knowles described as a billion different versions of conservatism, we cited just a partial list of those terms being used by right-wing bloggers and podcasters in attempting to describe their own identity crisis.
Among them were social conservatives, classical liberals, traditionalists, populists, the Christian right, the atheist conservatives, the ideological conservatives, the right wing, the MAGA right, RINOs, modern conservatives, progressive conservatives, alt right, far right, moderate right, and of course, the woke right. But most notably, none of them identified as being just right.
And again, it bears noting that most adjectives in this context mean not. For example, alt right, far right, moderate right, and woke right all essentially mean not right. Otherwise, the adjective wouldn't be necessary, would it?
The point to be made here is that the right consistently fragments over differing priorities and issues from the ever divisive issue of abortion to the wars being fought around the world, taxes, economics, religion, culture, but at least they fragment over what you could call real issues.
In contrast, the left remains united even though their individual priorities and issues are completely detached from reality and are incompatible and in complete conflict with one another, like gays for Palestine or transgenderism mixed with feminism and Islam. To the left, simply being opposed to anything labeled right is all that is necessary to quote unquote unite them. And in a polarized binary electoral system, that may well be an advantage.
For those who broadly self-identify as being on the right, I would recommend that you adopt that same attitude in the given binary polarity from which you're forced to choose. Unite under your common opposition to the left. And then after the election, just go ahead arguing amongst yourselves to your heart's content, and to the delight of those on the left.
Now, getting back to Steven Crowder's argument that the left has nothing to offer the electorate, in response to being asked what good ideas the right offers, his general overview of closing the borders, deporting illegal aliens, allowing people to keep more of what they've earned, allowing school choice, attaching a voucher to the student as opposed to putting it directly into the school system. All that sounded to me like a Freedom Party of Ontario platform, particularly on the education front. And it even took us a while before we could not avoid acknowledging that Freedom Party was, as one of our slogans now suggests, still right for Ontario.
But notice what Crowder said about changing people's minds. He says that changing someone's mind is relatively easy if you categorize them as two separate people. The first being a default liberal, not politically active, and the second as being a purveyor of the myth, who is trapped into that position by his or her own irrationalities.
And isn't it interesting how that pattern of thought realignment was perfectly in tune with both Jim McMurtry's experience and my own? It's like the various versions of that old saying, if you aren't a liberal when you're young, you haven't got a heart, but if you aren't a conservative when you're older, then you haven't got a mind. That progression from left to right is, as we've demonstrated many times before, the process of political maturity.
Now, with another perspective on how voters voted in the midterms, on this side of our upcoming bumper, Ben Shapiro describes his concept of the gestalt on his November 4th podcast, while on the following day and on the return side of the bumper, Dave Rubin highlights J.D. Vance's controversial tweet about the four top reasons for the flip from red to blue, after which our conversation will turn in a radically different direction by raising the most obvious question that everyone has thus far avoided.
Clip (Ben Shapiro, November 4 2026):
So, what actually happened here, right? I can say that, this is a referendum on Trump, and it was. But what happened? And the answer is, we need to actually think how voters vote. So, I understand, listen, I'm into politics at a granular level that pretty much no one else in America cares about. And a huge percentage of our listeners are very into granular level politics. And so we look for sort of the chicken entrails, which is the policy that did it. What was it the way that he articulated this particular thing? Was it if he had just done this differently?
That is not typically how people vote. People vote based on the gestalt, meaning the whole ball of wax, the generalized sense that they have of President Trump. In this election, the gestalt of President Trump fell apart.
Again, in the aftermath of an election, the pointy heads and big brains, people like me, we'll attempt to find the one Jenga piece that if we just moved it here or replaced it there, it would fix everything. But that's not how people vote.
They based on a generalized feeling they have about everything. So was it the execution of the Iran War? Yes. Was it tariffs? Yes.
Was it the reflecting pool? Yes.
Was it Truth Social statements and threats against the Fed chair, and well publicized ICE controversies, and dumb memes? Yes, and yes, and also yes, and also yes. It was all the things. Because that's how people vote, and that's how people think. That is how people act.
But we can't we can break it down further. So let's break it down into what the three big things that happened here. Three big things have happened since President Trump 2.0 took office. Unaffordability. Chaos. Corruption.
Now, by every metric. Unaffordability was the top issue in this election with a bullet, by a long shot. There was no close second. If people believe that their lives are unaffordable, you're gonna lose. Your party is going to perform poorly. And by the way, again, this is sort of the generic way that things work in a midterm election. People believe that all the problems will be solved by an election. They don't get solved, then they're mad about it, and then they revert to the other party during a midterm. That's normal. And that's particularly true in the second term of a president's midterm, like 2014 for Barack Obama or 2006 for George W. Bush.
If people feel that their lives are unaffordable, your party is gonna get hit. But mere unaffordability doesn't mean what we saw last night. It's all the gestalt of all of these things all at once.
Clip (Ben Shapiro, November 4 2026):
Vice President J.D. Vance put up a tweet yesterday that caused a huge firestorm online in pretty much every direction. Here's what he wrote.
"One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was composition. Whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for the Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story. In some states, turnout was merely okay. In other states, it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team, our people were showing up.
"So I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest, but the data is telling us that a lot of Trump Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
"Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was nine points more Republican than the Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly, there were places we could have done better on turnout, but the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump Vance 2024 voted for Democrats in 26.
"Another pollster, one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we'd lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what could cause them to come back to our team. The top four answers accounting for nearly all of the responses were one, end the war, two, focus on cost of living slash inflation, three, put America first, four, change our relationship to Israel.
"Our voters showed up, and the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results."
Bob Metz:
You are listening to Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online.
And here's that obvious question I raised earlier that no one has so far been raising following these midterms. Was the election rigged or stolen? When Ben Shapiro correctly concluded that mere unaffordability doesn't account for what we saw in the election, I don't think he was considering that question in his analysis.
But for me, personally, I couldn't help but conclude that the midterms were indeed stolen, especially when I heard J.D. Vance's review of the four reasons, according to a pollster who nailed the results, accounting for the dramatic shift against the Republicans. I swear, if I ever hear those four ridiculous talking points again, end the war, focus on the cost of living, put America first, change our relationship with Israel. I mean, I'm gonna suffer from another COVID fraud pandemic attack.
I'll tell you, those four talking points, and always in the same order, have been repeated over and over and over again by so many media outlets that I'm just waiting for someone to overlay them all and play them simultaneously, like they did during the news coverages of the COVID propaganda, where every news outlet repeated the propaganda verbatim, word for word.
Those cited four reasons in the context of this midterm election are little more than leftist propaganda, even though we have to acknowledge that a large number of voters will actually have been influenced by them. But that does not account for the statistical size of the so called blue tsunami, especially in light of reality, and in light of the recent voting patterns that have shifted towards the Republicans, and in light of the consistent and open electoral cheating by the Democrats that we've witnessed every election previous.
Does anyone really believe that they stopped their cheating ways? I mean, let's apply the reality test. Vance said that his pollsters insisted that turnout was not the problem, that the Trump Vance voters would turn out but vote for Democrats.
Now that's a completely retarded argument, and I can't accept that, especially in light of the four propaganda points. First of all, if I voted for a party I supported, and which represented an alternative to what I might otherwise have voted against, and then subsequently became disappointed by my party for not meeting my expectations, I certainly wouldn't bother to go to the polls to support the other party. I would just stay home and not vote. And that's the way most voting patterns work.
And consider the four points in question. One, end the war. Really? The Democrats and the left are the definition of warmongers, and they initiate violence and force to achieve all of their political goals.
Number two, focus on the cost of living. The Democrats and their socialist supporters are the ones directly and demonstrably responsible for the high cost of living that the Trump administration has been working on to reduce since it came into office.
Three, put America first. Are you effing kidding me? The Democrats and the left are open and outright globalists whose every action and agenda item has been to destroy America, from their open border war tactics to their alignments with foreign socialist, fascist, and communist allies. How can anyone voting for the Democrats dare to suggest that putting America first is his real concern? Liar liar, pants on fire.
And four, change our relationship with Israel. What the hell does that mean? Change it from what to what? From what I've seen, most Democrats and the left who harp on this irrelevant mid-term electoral issue are racist Jew haters who would like to see Israel wiped off the map.
Why anyone even remotely on the right would ever vote for the party that literally represents the opposite of those four reasons, given that those four reasons are supposedly important to them is beyond any understanding. It is a complete contradiction in every sense of that word.
Given recent electoral voting history, you would think, wouldn't you, that wanting open, honest, and fair elections might be somewhere in the list of voter priorities, wouldn't you? But no, that most important of all issues facing America today isn't even raised. And that fact alone forces me to conclude that we are once again dealing with a stolen election.
And I'm certainly not alone in my electoral fraud suspicions, as we hear in this very brief comment by Canada Poli's Mark Paralebos.
Clip (Canada Poli, November 5 2026):
We're going to talk about the midterms under the moniker of sting, because I still think there's something going on. I still think there is. Art of war is to keep your enemies off balance and never let them know what you're going to do. And one of the theories, and I think plausible, is that Trump didn't try and counter the cheat at all. So all of their rigging went through.
And it looks really, really rigged because it was really, really rigged because that was allowed to be really, really rigged, and now the Department of Justice is going to prosecute them. But that also could just be hopium. So who knows? Who knows.
Bob Metz:
And to be fair, I also noticed that Barbara Boyd and Susan Kokinda during their panel discussion on the November 5th edition of Promethean Action also acknowledged the likelihood of electoral cheating, with Barbara Boyd pointing out that the four-cited electoral priorities are what the mainstream narrative has been shoving, and argued that, this is what you could predict would happen if there was a massive rigging, not by vote fraud, but by psychological warfare.
And on the point of voter fraud itself, Susan Kokinda acknowledged that it was indeed happening, and pointed to the rewards being paid by the government to anyone who reports such fraud that ends in a conviction. She also recommended supporting certain groups that are dedicated to fighting for electoral integrity. But she acknowledged to raise it as an issue at this point in time would be fruitless, and for many of the same reasons we will now hear raised by none other than X22 on his November 4th podcast. And it is here that he explains what Canada Poli may have meant when he said that we're going to talk about the midterms under the moniker of Sting.
Clip (X22 Report, November 4 2026):
Now the deep state, the corrupt politicians, big tech fake news, the puppet masters, you can see they did what they normally do. They cheated in the election. Yes, there was a red wave. All those people thinking it was a blue tsunami. Again, go back to 2020. Was there a blue wave for Biden who sat in circles, didn't come out of his basement, and he won the election?
Do you really think all of these crazy leftists, those people that didn't really go out and rally or people didn't even know who they were? Do you really think they won the election? Do you really think that there wasn't a red wave?
Remember, this country cannot function unless we have honest elections. Trump has mitigated their cheating. Are the elections going on for three weeks, four weeks, five weeks, six weeks? Are you seeing dump after dump?
Here, it was over and done with one night. Think about that. So did Trump mitigate the cheating? Yes. He mitigated the dumps. He mitigated the time that they needed to cheat in the election.
He forced them into cheating and using other methods. So he stopped one, and then you have registration, and you have the machines.
The machines flip votes. We know this. It's a fact. Now people are gonna say, well, the reason why we have this problem is because of Thune. The reason why we have this problem is because the Save America Act wasn't passed. The reason why we have this problem is because of that. That's why they were able to cheat.
Well, let me just tell you did you read the Save America Act? Trump pushed the Save America Act very hard. Thune pushed back. I do believe this was a plan between Trump and Thune.
Actually, when they started to boo Thune during a rally, Trump says, no, no, he's doing a good job, waiting to see what he's going to do. I do believe he had to keep the Save America Act from being passed. I know it sounds kind of strange, but why would Trump push so hard? Why would he go all out and say we need the Save America Act? Because if actually, if you look at all his posts, he says, one day voting, voter ID, and paper ballots. Well, do you know the Save America Act? There's nothing about paper ballots. Actually, when you look at the Save America Act, it is designed to make you think the elections are secure when they're really not.
Number one, when you look at the Save America Act, does this stop all the different states from using the machines that we use today? No, it does not. Don't we need to stop the machines? Shouldn't we just have paper? Shouldn't people just be counting it? That's what Trump keeps saying.
What about the registrations? Yes, you have to prove that you're a citizen on the federal level. But like in Arizona, you can also have a statewide registration system. Interesting, isn't it? So Trump learned from 2020. Remember, he came out like gangbusters, he got all the lawyers, he started to go to the courts, he started to do all these things.
And what did he realize? Everything that he tried to do was not going to work. Now I do believe he allowed Biden to get in office because he needed that, but he was testing the system. You see what Trump does, he tests the system to see how it works. And what did he learn? He learned if he goes crazy over it and calls it a rigged election, it doesn't work. What you need is hard evidence.
Now look at the stance that JD Vance has taken. Look at the stance that Trump is taking. He's going along with the narrative. Oh, it was the affordability. Oh, it was the war. First of all, we have no troops on the ground. Actually, right now there's just a steel wall in front of the Strait of Hormuz and ships are going in and out. Do you really think people are so concerned about the war? You think people, I'm not voting Republican because they got us into a war. Well, go back in time.
The Democrats were had us in war. Obama has had us in war. Clinton had us in war. And gas prices, gas prices are up, 30, 40, 50 cents. Actually, they're already coming down. Trump was again predicted that after the midterms, the gas prices were gonna come down. And here they are. So they were artificially kept up because they said, oh no, this is the way it works. Gas prices just can't come down. It just doesn't work that way. And all of a sudden they're coming down.
So do you really think the people said you listen, gas prices are up 40 cents. We have a steel wall, there's no troops there, but we're so pissed off at that that we're gonna vote Democrat, we're gonna vote communists, we're gonna vote socialists. We're gonna vote everywhere blue. Does that make any sense? When you really look at this, let's see, Trump lowered drug prices, made it affordable for people to get drugs. Trump closed the border off. No one's coming in. He deported millions upon millions of people.
Okay. Isn't this what everybody wanted? There's no men in women's sports. There's no men in women's bathrooms. He got rid of wokism across the country. Yes, it's still in process.
He made the economy better. He's showing you look at all the investments coming in. Look at all the jobs that are going to be coming online. Look how many jobs we're going to have.
So wait a minute. So fuel prices and a steel wall where there's no troops on the ground. This is why people actually voted for communism, socialism, and they decided to wipe out red states. Does that make any sense to anybody? No, it doesn't.
JD Vance put out a post and he talks about data analysts, and he talked to the experts, and they all agree that we needed to end the war, the focus on cost of living inflation, put America first, change our relationship to Israel. Now, these are all the points that the D's were pushing through the influencers and many other people, the black pillars and everything else.
I think JD Vance and Trump, they just went ahead and went with this and went along with that narrative because once again, you're trying to tell me now they're looking at the experts. Now they're saying, oh, we shouldn't have done this.
Trump and team have been looking at the internal polls from the very beginning. They know exactly how people feel. They know exactly what people are doing. Even when Trump says, listen, I went to all the rallies. If I was on the ballot, all these people would have won. Well, all the people saw who he endorsed. They went to the rallies because they believed in him.
I do believe there was a red wave, and Trump now is taking a back seat, the opposite of what he did in 2020, and he's going to let this all play out. She thinks freely says, I'm not a conspiracy person. I'm a math person. And I'm going on the record. Ain't no way $3.99 gas caused this. 37 seats changed hands last night, 25 house, seven senate, five governorships. Every single one went R to D. Not one went the other way. 2006 election was that clean. 1974 election reached that deep. None has ever been both.
In 1974, two years after Nixon won 49 states, Republicans still won seats from the Democrats. Last night, they won none. Twenty-one of the 25 house flips came in states Trump carried. Twelve came in states he carried by 10 points or more. I can't tell anyone what to believe. But statistically, me personally, I ain't buying it.
And Elon Musk, he put out something which is very, very interesting. He says, sorry, we're experiencing technical difficulties. Joe Lange says, technical difficulties. Do people really think they got away with stealing the election Asian wine in such an obviously fraudulent way? Here's what seems obvious to me now. It wasn't enough to let them barely steal the election. Trump needed them to go over the top. That when the evidence drops, the American people have no doubt about it. Mission accomplished.
And I think Trump needed to do this because again, if the Save America Act was passed, it would be a false sense of secure elections. So when Trump looked at the Save America Act, he realized that this is not what the people want. The people want voter ID, absolutely. The people want one day voting, absolutely, and paper ballots. And this is not what we were going to get. So this was a false sense of secure elections. And again, if you don't have secure elections, you don't have a country.
So what you saw happen was cheating on the next level. So Trump, he pushed them into using their registered voters and the machines. We saw problems with the machines once again. The machines, they have the ability to flipping votes. Once they are certified on the state level, it goes to the county level for testing. Could they change something? Absolutely. They've done it before. Can people get in remotely? We've seen that before.
So I do believe what Trump is doing this time around, because he learned from 2020, he's actually stepping back and allowing the process that he put together, going back to his first term, he's allowing it to play out. He's not running to the courts, he's not bringing the attorneys, he's not showing, hey, look, this affidavit, that affidavit. He's going with hard evidence this time around.
This time around, they've been monitoring the elections. The Supreme Court gave them the green light to have investigations. So I do believe that Trump wanted to catch the foreign entities. He wanted to catch the D's in the act.
Now, think about it. In the red states, we had the red states turn into blue states. Do you think some of the red states were monitoring what was going on? Do you think the red states are going to actually, as of April 2026, do you know every single state, all 50 states will now audit their elections? Now what happens when the red states start to turn up like, wait, there's anomalies here? What happens when they start to report that something is off here?
They're not when we look at the machine total and we look at the ballot that's in there, they're not matching up. And all of a sudden you see it in the red states.
Will the blue states then be forced to do something? Or will the DOJ be forced to investigate? Remember, the Supreme Court told them, yes, follow the rule of law, investigate. So if the red states report this, what do you think is going to happen with the blue states?
I do believe Trump wants to show everyone how the cheating is actually done. Again, I do believe it had to be this way. I do believe he's bringing them down this path. He shut down the other methods they were going to use, and he funneled them into exactly what he wanted.
And he had JD Vance put out a post saying, hey, it was affordability, it was Iran. You know what? We should have looked at this, we shouldn't have done it. Trump says, Yeah, I think it was the war. Basically, what they're doing is they're saying, Yeah, everyone who said that they were right, which they were not.
Trump is not going to pursue this. He's going to allow the states, he's going to allow the agencies to produce the actual evidence, and he's going to show the world how they did it.
Now, again, Trump knows that we're fighting an enemy. He knows that the deep state players are not going to give up power. He knows that he's going to have to fight them every step of the way. And sometimes he's not going to go directly at them. And I've said this multiple times. We are still at war with the deep state players. Just because he became president doesn't mean it's over.
This system is so corrupt, so evil, so deep, so wide, that it takes time to dismantle the systems that they have. Remember, Trump didn't come all this way. He didn't go through the first term with Russia collusion, alpha bank hoax, impeachment number one, number two, COVID, cheating of the 2020 election, then indictment after indictment after indictment, civil cases also, an assassination attempt, battling judges like we've never seen before, just to try to deport someone and to put his policies in place to build a ballroom to do the things that he needed to do. He didn't go through all this to say, you know what? Well, I guess we just didn't win Congress and we're done for.
Do you really think Trump works that way? Do you really think he went into this not knowing the poll numbers, not knowing how the people were going to vote? Do you really think he did all the rallies like he did? Like in 2020, do you think he just did all this to say, oh, I hope it works? He knew exactly what he was doing. He knows exactly what's happening. And he's setting them all up.
Bob Metz:
So what do you think about that? Just hopium, or has Trump really set the trap for the dopiums?
And consider what a stolen election would mean to all those pundits on the right who just overreacted to the election result on a completely false premise. How are the likes of Matt Walsh going to justify their reactions then? Now it seems to me that even if such evidence of election tampering is documented and released, that while it is possible, that will not necessarily result in overturning the election result. That might not even be necessary, since far worse consequences than just losing their seats could befall the cheaters.
And as someone I heard commented, instead of the election being too big to rig, it was rigged too big. A rigging in which we are expected to believe, in contrast to the voting strategy of voting for the lesser of two evils, American voters who switched from Republican to Democrat chose the greater of two evils, even as defined by them.
And at this point I could go on a real rant here, but instead, I'm handing this additional minute of outrage back to X22, whose sentiments and observations about this whole election echoed my own.
Clip (X22 Report, November 4 2026):
Now people want to go communist. Now people want to go back to what Biden had. Now people want to go back to what it was before. Do you really think the people want the entire country to go back to the way it was before?
Because Trump has ships outside of Iran with no troops on the ground? Do you really think people holy crap, 40 cents? Well, that's it, I'm done. I'm going back to the Democrats where they had gas at five, six dollars a gallon. I want the more expensive shit.
No. Come on, people. Do you really think that's what people thought? Do you really think after everything that he did, people said, you know what? I just can't take it anymore. I need the five dollar gas.
And you know what? That war where there's no troops on the ground? I don't know how I'm living in America. I don't know how I do it every day. I don't know how I function with the ships sitting out there. Because they're just sitting there. They're blocking the Strait of Hormuz and now they're letting ships in and out. Oil's getting in and out with no loss of life. I don't know how I can take it anymore.
I mean, really think about it. It doesn't make any sense. It's a bunch of BS. The White House put this out and says, PSA, Trump is still your president. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Bob Metz:
That's hilarious. If there's one thing that we've learned about Trump the man, it is that he is a fighter. And because of that attitude, he's a winner. On several occasions that we've documented over the years, numerous people who got to meet Trump for the first time and see him in action have referred to him as a master of Sun Tzu, The Art of War. Among whose principles was the idea that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Meanwhile, most of those analyzing Trump's actions and strategies are applying two-dimensional linear thinking with regard to both his objectives and his political and war strategies. And it shows the continually forget or deny that Trump is a wartime president who thinks outside the box.
And thinking outside of the fake political spectrum is something that we do best whenever we advise those on the right to reclaim that label as the rightful polarity of individualism, capitalism, and freedom, much as we shall continue to do when you join us again next week, as we continue our journey in the right direction. And until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, think right, and be right back here. We'll see you then.
Clip (Dry Bar Comedy, March 13 2026, Kellen Erskine):
My favorite game growing up was Battleship. You guys remember that?
Loved it until I figured out they could have just called it number letter. Because there is no wartime strategy. And well, it's bingo with toys on it. Can you imagine if that ship battle scenario ever actually happened? General briefing is man, he's like, alright, listen up, here's a situation. There are five enemy ships out there, exactly like our five ships. We have no idea where they are, but we do have good intel that they're not moving. Or diagonal. So when you fire at them, I just guess. I don't know. I'll fire one, stop, Let them fire one back. This is a war, we take turns. Oh, and every time after we fire a missile, we need to ask him how it went.