Bloomberg Radio disses flyover states

The migrant takeover of Springfield, Ohio, has become a major cultural moment, particularly thanks to former president Donald Trump declaring on the debate stage that they [the migrants] are “eating the dogs.” A musical remix of his declarations went viral — and I’ve heard completely non-political people jokingly mimic Trump’s words in public. Setting aside the debate over whether or not there is evidence Haitians are stealing and eating people’s pets, or ducks and geese from the local park, the residents of Springfield have legitimate concerns over mass migration. Serious problems arise when approximately 20,000 people from a vastly different culture move to one place and don’t make a real effort to assimilate. Then you have the added resentment of these newcomers taking local jobs at cut-rate pay and getting the rest of their lives subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

Trump recently announced that he would visit Springfield, as well as Aurora, Colorado, the site of several apartment complexes that were taken over by members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. Trump pulled a similar move after the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, when he managed to arrive there before a single member of the Biden administration.

Springfield is particularly salient because of Harris’s past role as the border czar (yes, she was the border czar) as immigration has skyrocketed to a top two issue for voters nationally, just behind the economy. Hence my surprise when a family member sent me a clip from a Bloomberg News program where a political science professor from Brown University and two Bloomberg news anchors laughed at Trump for wasting his time visiting Springfield… Illinois.

The awkward moment happened during an episode of Bloomberg Surveillance, which was posted on the Bloomberg Television YouTube channel for their 2.2 million subscribers. 

Guest host Alix Steel previewed the vice presidential debate happening this Tuesday by joking, “I wonder how much we’re going to hear about cats and dogs — I’m actually not entirely kidding on that.

“In all seriousness, Trump said he wants to go to Springfield. Is this an actually important issue in the way swing voters need to be looking at these candidates?” Steel asked, apparently oblivious to the fact that immigration is a top-three issue for swing-state voters next to the economy and abortion. Some polls put it at number two or three in Pennsylvania, which some election prognosticators have identified as the hinge on which this election swings. it sits at number two in border state Arizona, another state that is up for grabs. 

Brown University political science professor Wendy Schiller responded to the question by arguing that when Trump was in office he introduced a cap on SALT (State And Local Tax) deductions which was “to punish states like Illinois… because they didn’t vote for him,” before linking that to the migration crisis in Springfield.

“So now, it’s like, he wants to go to Springfield,” Schiller said. “You’re not going to win Illinois. You know, you should be in Pennsylvania and North Carolina and Arizona and Nevada and Wisconsin. Not Illinois. So I don’t know what’s going on with the Trump campaign’s thinking, but these are not the states he needs to be in. He doesn’t have to be involved in this.” [Emphasis mine.]

Oops! 

In case you needed a reminder, Trump intends to visit Springfield, Ohio. Amazingly, Steel and her cohost, Paul Sweeney, laughed along with Schiller’s commentary and did not correct her rant. 

I reached out to Schiller to ask if she had realized her mistake and how she managed to get the two Springfields confused. It seemed a bit out of pocket for an Ivy League political science professor. This is what she wrote back: 

I made a mistake in confusing those two cities and their states. But I stand by the original premise in the argument that Trump should be visiting states that are in contention for him, meaning he has a chance to win them or that he might lose them. In the case of Illinois, he is going to lose there, and I would argue he will win relatively easily in Ohio. Colorado has been blue in recent presidential elections, so it still does not make sense to me that he would go there for electoral politics. The only rationale for his visits to these states would be to highlight the border security issue for the voters around the country and specifically in swing states like Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Still, with an election this close, going in person to the states up for grabs remains a more promising strategy.

It is true that Ohio will likely go to Trump by a significant margin — most polls show him up about ten points. But I wonder if it’s true that the free earned media he would surely get from his visit, plus the demonstrated care about a top issue for voters, would be worth less than a similar half-day event in a swing state. One of the draws of Trump during his early political career was that he spoke to issues that mattered to everyday Americans. He made the average voter who generally doesn’t have much power (political, financial, etc.) feel like he cared and could be their voice.

I wouldn’t underestimate that appeal, particularly as most of the mainstream media downplays what is happening in Springfield, Ohio, and makes it out to be a joke. The people who live there did not consent to having all of those migrants move in, did not consent to having their taxpayer dollars fund their stay, did not consent to the Biden administration granting them Temporary Protected Status and did not consent to having their wages undercut by foreign labor. Trump has promised them that their objections will finally be heard and taken seriously; that’s a really powerful political tool.

I reached out to Bloomberg yesterday and am told that a correction ran on-air today. The program first aired last Friday. 

Liberal podcast bro is first boot on Survivor

I am a longtime Survivor fan, which regular readers of this newsletter will know thanks to my investigation of Survivor villain Russell Hantz’s alleged fantasy football scam. Imagine my delight, then, when I found out that politics and Survivor were about to have an epic crossover event.

Pod Save America podcaster and Crooked Media co-founder Jon Lovett, who served as a speechwriter for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, was cast in season forty-seven of Survivor. He was featured heavily in season promos, and host Jeff Probst described him as one of Survivor’s great “storytellers.” It certainly gave the impression that he was going to last awhile on the season.

It’s all over the internet at this point that, alas, Lovett did not make it past the first episode. But if you want to avoid further spoilers, stop reading here.

Anyway, the story of Lovett’s downfall on the show is pretty incredible. He basically embodies every stereotype about liberal dudes in one ninety-minute episode.

He starts out by making a self-deprecating joke about his lack of friends. (As an aside, he also reveals to everyone that he is a popular podcaster and speechwriter, which is a big no-no because a huge part of Survivor is being able to talk people into keeping you around and, at the end of the show, awarding you the million dollars. Being seen as a good communicator instantly makes you a big threat.)

Despite his way with words, it quickly becomes clear that Lovett is having a hard time getting socially close with the rest of his tribe. His one moment of bonding comes with tribemate Andy, who blurts out to the openly gay Lovett, “I’m bisexual.” OK, cool. 

Lovett’s tribe ends up losing the first immunity challenge, and Andy has a meltdown in front of all of the players, declaring that no one on his tribe likes him, and he will likely be the first person voted out of the game. He exclaims that he even thought about “throwing Jon under the bus” to save his own skin. Yikes.

Andy’s mental instability should make him the obvious choice for the tribe to vote out unanimously. But Lovett decides to try to save Andy, despite the clear disunity he brings to the tribe and the fact that he openly expressed his willingness to be disloyal! Prioritizing the standing of the minority at the expense of the larger group: classic Democratic Party move.

So Lovett decides to offer up another tribemate, Anika, for people to vote out. I’m unsure why Lovett thinks this plan will work since he already acknowledged that he hasn’t built any real relationships with the other tribemates. You need trust with the other players to get them to agree to a blindside. 

Naturally, the other tribemates start talking about Lovett’s aggressive gameplay and decide he might be a bigger threat to the tribe than Crazy Andy. They also all point out that Lovett is physically weak and can’t help much around camp or in challenges. They decide that, this early in the game, it’s better to have a slightly insane person who is physically strong (Andy) than a physically weak schemer (Lovett). Lovett is voted out near-unanimously by the tribe. Brutal!