Episode 278 Scott Adams: How the Latest News Will Influence the Midterms
Date: 2018-10-28 | Duration: 43:00
Topics
President Trump hosted the Young Black Leadership Summit 400 Black leaders of tomorrow met President Trump Event was held at the White House Recent horrors, filtered as two movies on one screen Which movie is supported by President Trump’s reactions? Which movie is NOT supported by President Trump’s reactions? The biggest Republican turnout in history is poised to happen
I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com
## Transcript
This is "Coffee with Scott Adams" - a daily livestream where Scott discusses current events, persuasion, and his frameworks for understanding the world.
## [The Simultaneous Sip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=7s)
Joanne is always the first one. Nicholas, you're pretty quick. Keith, come on in here. It's time for "Coffee with Scott Adams," and it's time for you to find out where you put your cup, your mug, your stein, your chalice, or your glass. Fill it with the liquid of your choice—I like coffee—and bring it to your lips. It's time for the simultaneous sip. Join me.
Sometimes the simultaneous sipping is better than other times. I have a lot to talk about here. I wanted to track back to something I mentioned before because I have a better response to it—a better take on the debate with Andrew Gillum.
## [Gillum vs. DeSantis: Debate Persuasion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=70s)
Gillum is running for Governor. He was in his debate and he said to his opponent, Ron DeSantis, one of the greatest debate lines you'll ever hear. It's really good. If I can separate the technique from the politics, his technique was amazing. Gillum said the following of his opponent: "I'm not saying you're racist; I'm saying other racists say you're a racist."
Ouch. That is so good. Persuasion-wise, it was so good. You can make your own decisions about the ethics, the morality, or the accuracy, but it's a great line. Since I heard it, I've been thinking: how would you respond to that?
Here is how, so that you're ready the next time it happens to you. You say: "Well, some people, when they want to gain information, they'll talk to experts. Some people will go to Google and they'll do their own research. But apparently, my opponent, Mr. Gillum, gets his knowledge from racists. Now, if his question is based on the assumption that he believes the racists are credible, then perhaps Mr. Gillum should explain to us why he's agreeing with racists. Personally, I disavow them, and I don't take their opinions as a way to form my worldview. But Mr. Gillum apparently does, based on his question." Not bad, huh?
## [The Young Black Leadership Summit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=193s)
Let's move on and talk about how this week will affect the midterms. Probably nothing that happens the month before the election changes how anybody votes. People are kind of locked in a month before the election. We can still see if there is maybe a little bit of movement one way or the other, but it won't be a lot.
Here are some of the things that happened recently. Number one: the President hosted a gigantic group of 400 young black leaders of tomorrow. Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk brought them into the White House. I wondered: is that the greatest number of African Americans who have ever been in the White House at the same time? Did President Trump set a world record for the most simultaneous happy black people at the White House? Maybe. I'm no historian.
You have to think that helps his case. The two biggest problems with the President—well, healthcare is still the biggest issue, but it's not necessarily the biggest issue with this President specifically—are his rhetoric and allegations of racism. Having 400 happy, supportive, young black leaders—the cream of the crop—at the White House is all good.
## [The Two Movies on One Screen](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=317s)
It probably won't move the needle by itself, but here's the point: the United States is divided into two movies. There's the anti-Trump Democrat movie, and then there's the pro-Trump conservative movie. They are very separate. I’m looking for which movie is showing cracks in the plot, because one of these movies is going to be more solid than the other on Election Day.
Having a big event that is very visual with all the young black leaders at the White House works against the Democrats' movie, but only slightly because they can still explain it away. The Republican movie is completely intact because if you're a Republican, you don't think the President is a racist. This is exactly what we expected. The Democrats have to explain why he did this if he's such a big racist, so they call it a "publicity stunt." But there are a few things that happened this week that are going to be a little harder to explain away.
## [Guns and the Synagogue Shooting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=439s)
Let's talk about guns. How will the gun conversation change things? Normally, a big gun tragedy works against Republicans because people say, "There it is, it's guns." But in this case, the situation looks like the kind that could have been stopped with an armed guard. Indeed, there are lots of places of worship that do have armed guards now.
Until one of them has a shooting, it makes the armed guard approach look like it isn't crazy. A reasonable person could still say they don't want guns, but it's harder now because of the President's argument that an armed guard would have made a difference. I think the gun issue will be a tie. Both sides have an argument they will just retreat to.
Before we go further, our thoughts should be with the victims. The synagogue shooting is one of the most horrible things that has ever happened on U.S. soil. It’s not just the number of fatalities—11, I think—it’s the context and the history behind it. It is an enormous tragedy. With all due respect to the families, the world does have to keep going, as the President noted.
## [Law Enforcement Success](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=626s)
We are seeing almost phenomenal, oppressive work by law enforcement. They impressively found the "Van Idiot"—that’s what I’m calling the guy who sent out all the bombs that didn't explode. I don't like naming terrorists; I want to delete them from history. So, he is "Van Idiot." Law enforcement did a great job there, and that makes the President look good because he's the "law and order" President.
Then, with the synagogue shooting, the police officers ran toward the gunfire. Two of them were injured pretty seriously. Law enforcement looks like superstars. Their visibility is high, and all of this works in favor of the President because he is branded with law enforcement.
## [The Whiteboard: Cracking the Plot](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=751s)
Let's go to the whiteboard. Events like the two terrorist acts go through what I call the "Click Filter." The news industry isn't what it used to be. Now they can measure how many clicks a headline gets in minutes. This separates us into two worlds because partisan content gets the most clicks.
Republicans look at Fox News, Drudge, and their own social media silos, which produces the "Republican Movie." Democrats do the same for their movie. The question is: which of these movies is challenged by recent events?
The GOP movie is completely consistent. You have the "Van Idiot," a Trump supporter. If Trump were a strongman dictator type who only cared about his side, you would think he would be soft on the Van Idiot because the guy was going after the President's enemies. But because he's the law-and-order President, he immediately called for the death sentence. Think about that: the President recommended the death sentence for one of his own supporters who acted against the President's critics.
Then you have "No-Name," the shooter at the synagogue. That story is also completely consistent with the Republican movie. The President is tough on him and immediately brings up the death penalty. It probably also helps the President's narrative that the synagogue shooter was not a fan of his; he was not a Trump supporter.
## [The Charlottesville and Central Park Five Hoaxes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=1125s)
The Democrat movie is showing some cracks. Specifically, the Charlottesville hoax and the Central Park Five hoax.
The Charlottesville hoax is when the anti-Trump media reports that when Trump said there were "fine people on both sides," he was talking about white supremacists. To believe that, you’d have to believe the President thought people marching with torches against his own family—his daughter Ivanka is Jewish, Jared is Jewish, his grandchildren are Jewish—were "good people." It’s even weirder because he said there were "fine people on both sides." If you believe the media version, you’d have to believe Trump also said Antifa had some good people in it, which obviously didn't happen.
Now he’s calling for the death penalty for the guy who shot up a synagogue. That doesn't fit the Democrat movie where he sides with people who hate Jews.
Likewise, look at the Central Park Five hoax. When Trump was a private citizen in the '80s, he took out a full-page ad about crime being out of control. The way that is spun today is that the only reason he was in favor of the death penalty was that the suspects were black. But now we see this white guy who shoots up a synagogue, and the President immediately calls for the death penalty before the guy has even been tried. How do you square that with the claim that he only wanted the death penalty for the Central Park Five because they were black? It doesn't work anymore. The Republican movie is intact: he’s a law-and-order guy. If you break the law, it doesn't matter who you are—death penalty if the crime is bad enough.
## [Scientific vs. Legal Responsibility](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=1502s)
People are asking: did the President's rhetoric cause these acts? You have to look at this through different filters.
Through a legal filter, he’s not responsible. You aren't responsible for other people's actions. Socially, he’s also in the clear; even CNN has said they aren't saying he is legally responsible. But let's take the scientific filter. Does persuasion exist? Yes. If you say provocative things to millions of people on a regular basis, is it possible that you’ll get unintended negative responses from a few? From a scientific perspective, you can guarantee it.
However, how many variables did it take for these individuals to do what they did? It wasn't just the President talking. There were literally thousands or millions of variables over the course of their lives. The President was one of those thousands of variables that had to be just the way they were for the outcome to happen. So, scientifically, the way he talks could trigger some people, but we don't hold him responsible in a legal or social way.
## [The Third Act of the Midterms](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=1749s)
At his last rally, the President announced he was going to pull back on the rhetoric. He’s a surprising guy, and there’s a lot on the line. Can the President pull back for just a few weeks? He’ll still insult his critics, but he might not do it in a way that sounds violent.
If he goes the next few weeks without being provocative in that dangerous way, people are going to notice. It will be the top story. People say they cannot support this guy because of the way he talks, and then he says, "If you don't mind, I'm going to talk differently."
The President understands theater. In a movie, the third act is when everything looks doomed. For a Republican, the House looks almost unwinnable. If President Trump pulls this off—the "bad boy" becomes the "good person" in the third act to save the day—it will be one of the greatest moves of all time. He just has to hold it for three weeks. Does he like to win? Because this is a winning play.
## [Republican Turnout](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=1934s)
I saw on CNN that a whole bunch of seats in play are Republican seats already. What would be easier than Republicans voting for a Republican who is already in office? These people want to keep the court and the economy. All they have to do to have a "fun day" again like 2016 is show up and vote.
If there is one thing Republicans are best at, it’s showing up. They are doers. I feel like you’re going to see the biggest Republican turnout in history for a midterm. The President is the biggest variable in the election, and he almost couldn't have a better setup. Talking publicly about executing a white supremacist right before a midterm? From a persuasion standpoint, what could be more effective for his narrative?
## [The Death of Gab](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=2179s)
Let’s talk about Gab. It was supposed to be an alternative to Twitter, with the big characteristic being that they would not edit your free speech. It turns out the synagogue shooter was on Gab. He was probably kicked off Twitter, and Gab eventually suspended him too, but it wasn't soon enough. Gab lost its banking relationships and hosting services, which means it will probably have to close down.
Gab found out that Twitter wasn't dumb and that there is a reason they censor things. I feel sorry for Gab, but if there was a platform encouraging neo-Nazis and racists, you can't say they didn't see it coming.
## [Closing Thoughts](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or3YDSbS_OY&t=2301s)
Someone asked, "Where is Q?" Is it my imagination, or did QAnon become less relevant? It seems to me Q went from being a thing to being far less of a thing once people said not to pay attention to it.
Remember the flag posts. The Sunday before the election, make sure you tweet an American flag. That should increase Republican turnout.
I’m flying to New York today. Tuesday morning, I’ll be on *Fox & Friends* talking about *Win Bigly*. My new book is out in paperback in one day. I added a new chapter at the end to update you on my predictions. I’m also on Ben Shapiro’s Sunday interview show. I’ll tweet that link as soon as I get off here. I’ve heard good things about it. I will talk to you later.