00:10:19 Jordan Peterson: And that's not what they mean. They mean equality of outcome, and that's not the same thing at all. And I saw in that inability to draw that distinction part of the reason that the Democrats have shifted in the direction that you described, in the direction that seems to be opposed in many ways to the best interests of both the working class and the middle class. but also characterized by this incredible strain of illiberalism and corporate fascist collusion, the sort of thing that you document, for example, in the relationship between the power elites and Big Pharma. And so my sense on the Democrat side, I couldn't shift the Democrats to the point, the ones that I was talking to, to the point where they would draw a distinction between them and the radicals. It just didn't seem possible. And so why do you think I don't think the universities are salvageable, by the way. So why do you think the Democrats are salvageable?

00:11:11 (someone): Well, I don't think we have a choice. We have a two party system. And I, you know, I'm a lifelong Democrat. I feel like my party is being taken away from me in some ways by the, you know, the the kind of ideologies, the extreme ideologies, and really, you know, the departure of common sense that I think troubles you in a lot of, you know, the things that you think about. But I mean, why do I think it's salvageable? Because I'm talking to people on the street. You know, there are so many people who have

00:09:07 Jordan Peterson: And it looks to me like something analogous happened within the Democrats. Like, I worked with the Democrats for a long time in California trying to help the Democrats.

00:09:16 (someone): By DEI, you mean?

00:09:18 Jordan Peterson: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity. Oh, okay. Yeah, the social justice warrior types within the universities. And so, What I saw among the Democrats that I worked with was that they were unable to draw a dividing line between the moderate types and the radicals. So and this is something maybe I'll push you about. So, for example, I went to Washington. I talked to a lot of Democrats, senators and congressmen about what I saw happening in the broad public sphere, but also in the Democrat Party. And I asked I asked them this question. When does the left go too far? And none of them were able to answer. And even though it's completely obvious that the left can go too far, I mean, that's one of the cardinal lessons of the 20th century. And I suggested that the left goes too far when it pushes equity. And all I got as a response from the Democrats, senators and congressmen alike was, well, the people who say equity, they just mean equality of opportunity. And that's not what they mean. They mean equality of outcome, and that's not the same thing at all.

00:13:10 Jordan Peterson: Well, I mean, part of the reason that I was willing to work with the Democrats to begin with, and I did that for about five years, was because I thought, I think like you do, according to what you just said, that, well, you kind of have to work with the institutions that exist, because those are the institutions that exist. And there seems to be some utility in trying to pull the Democrats, let's say, back towards the center as much as that's possible. But I found that I think we had some success in that regard, but It was in particular the, and I see this on the conservative side too, by the way, with the unwillingness to see, this is probably more true in Canada even, what is really at the core of this progressive ideology that stresses equity, for example, because equity is an unbelievably dangerous doctrine. And as far as I can tell, it's indistinguishable from the sort of Marxist ideas that swept across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and China, for that matter. in the 20th century and that still prevail, certainly in China. And it isn't obvious to me at all that the Democrats have taken this with any degree of seriousness. And, you know, that's producing all sorts of strange pathologies on the cultural front. You've documented a fair bit, and this brings us into another area that's adjacent to that, I guess. You've spent a lot of time, your last book, Letter to Liberals, I think I've got that title right, concentrated on the strange collusion that has occurred between the Democrats and Big Pharma. And this is also something I find completely inexplicable.

01:06:58 (someone): It was driven by a couple of things. One was the recognition of the rules of the DNC is that you're as an officer of the DNC, you are not involved in tilting the scales or getting involved in democratic. primaries, especially Democratic presidential primaries, that you have different candidates, they go out, they make their case, and then the party coalesces around whoever the winner of that primary is. Well, in the lead up to that 2016 primary election, I started to see very quickly that The decisions that were being made, not in consultation with us as vice chairs of the DNC, but unilaterally by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was the chair, who was very close with Hillary Clinton, were made to give an advantage to Hillary Clinton. For example, limiting the number of debates. where she would have to face Bernie Sanders. Putting them at times where, you know, I think there was one that was scheduled during like the Super Bowl or something like that when nobody was going to be watching or paying attention to a presidential debate. There were newly implemented rules that said any Democratic presidential candidate that participates in a debate that is not sanctioned by the DNC will be banned from participating in any future DNC debate. And for me, I'm just thinking like, if our purpose and our cause is to increase involvement and engagement in our democracy, to get more people to pay attention, to learn more about these different candidates, to actually have a real dialogue about these important issues, why would you be punishing someone for going out and trying to engage in doing exactly that? Why would you be trying to limit the debate that the American people can be exposed to and involved with? And it was very clear why those decisions were made, to give an advantage to Hillary Clinton, who was designated as the one that the Democratic Party's powers that be wanted to win that election.

00:00:01 (someone): Hello everyone. Today I'm speaking with writer, attorney, environmentalist, and 2024 presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

00:00:25 Jordan Peterson: We discuss how the Democratic Party has become one of fear and ideology, its inexplicable conclusion with legacy media and big pharma, how the COVID-19 pandemic became an issue of tribal allegiance, the use of the doomsday climate narrative for political gains, what can actually be done with renewable energy, and why the era of Kennedy Democrats can not only be revived, but uniting for Americans across boundaries, both physical and philosophical. What made you decide to throw your hat in the ring for the presidency at this point?

00:01:05 (someone): Well, I saw the country going in a direction and my political party going in a direction that was very troubling to me. You know, the country one really needs a reboot. But, you know, the role of my political party, I felt like the Democrats kind of got derailed and became the party suddenly and mysteriously of war. When they were always skeptical of the military-industrial complex, they became the party of censorship, which is abhorrent to every definition of liberalism. They became the party of fear, which is against our traditions. Franklin Roosevelt, in his 1932 inaugural address, said that the only thing that we have to fear is fear itself, and he understood that fear is a weapon of totalitarian elements and totalitarian control. It became the party of the neocons, which again was antithetical The neocons were Republican, very belligerent, pugnacious, foreign policy about subduing the world and establishing hegemony through violence. It became the party of Wall Street, President Biden has surrounded himself with.

00:54:07 (someone): He is talking and listening. I know that's another... absolute heresy. He's not the cause of these things. He's the result of failures of other and more sophisticated people.

00:54:18 Jordan Peterson: Well, and I think I have a friend who's working very closely with the Democratic Party in the United States and has been quite effective at doing so and trying to move the party closer to the middle and away from the radicals. And we discuss this a lot because, you know, I think one of the reasons that the people who hate the Democrats in the United States truly hate There's just vitriol there. It's because they've proved themselves incapable of generating a candidate who can actually take on Trump. And I think there's a disappointment even among the enemies of the Democrats that's so profound there that it generates precisely this vitriol. The man is characterized by manifold flaws, and I'm not saying this in a partisan way, and the fact that the system works so poorly that a credible centrist candidate can't be found to to offer himself at least as a viable alternative. I mean, my poor friend, who I said has been following this and has been deeply involved in the debates, he's just tearing out his hair watching the Democrat debates and watching it degenerate. Well, he should. Well, exactly. He should. It's so sad to see that.

00:55:31 (someone): You have a New Age spiritualist who is going to be President of the United States. You have them dissolving the idea of nationhood.

00:16:18 (someone): And that is a crisis that now kills 100, this year killed 106,000 American kids, twice the number of kids that died during the 20-year Vietnam War. Vioxx is another good example. That was another symptom of the corrupt collusion between pharma and the regulatory agencies. And the capture of those agencies by that industry, which has become, the agencies themselves have become sock puppets for that industry. And they killed between 120,000 and 500,000 people with a drug they marketed as a headache medicine and an arthritis medicine when they knew that it caused heart attacks. And they didn't tell the public that. They concealed that from the public. So, you know, a lot of people would have said, oh, it caused heart attacks. Well, I'll take an aspirin. But they weren't allowed to make that choice. pharma with the collusion of the regulators, took that information, deprived the public of informed consent. Now, the question is, Democrats knew that. There's more pharmaceutical lobbyists on Capitol Hill than there are congressmen, senators, and Supreme Court justices combined more than any other industry. They give double in terms of lobbying what the next biggest industry So it's easy for them to own Congress still. There was an ideological resistance among Democrats until a decade ago, or really a decade. What happened was that during—Democrats are always starved for money, for campaign Republicans can take money from dirty industries and from, you know, sort of people, disreputable people, you know, from whether it's the oil industry, the tobacco industry, the NRA or, you know, things that a lot of Democrats consider disreputable.

01:12:59 (someone): And you see this, yes, with some women who feel like they have to go and look tough, but that only happens if they're not actually strong, internally strong individuals themselves. But we also see this with some of the male leaders in this country. We saw how, you know, how people react, again, like in the media and in media, how the media and politics, how they react when we go to war. We saw how Nancy Pelosi and Brian Williams and others declared Donald Trump, this is the first time he seems presidential, when he decided to go and launch some rockets and missiles against Syria. people who hated him, people who could not stand him and were obsessed with trying to destroy President Trump. All of a sudden, he goes and launches some bombs and they're all over the television saying, well, finally, he's acting like a president. Give me a break. This is the problem with the lack of leadership that we have and how you started this question asking about how is it the Democratic Party that should be the party that is at a minimum skeptical and cynical about the military-industrial complex and going out and starting new wars and regime change and all of this stuff. Well, they have become party to it, part and parcel of it, and have become that machine that benefits from all of this, and so they can't. It would be self-defeating for them to now exercise skepticism or challenge. And this, you know, I wanna jump back to a question you asked earlier we didn't get to finish, which was, what are some of the positive things that I'm seeing in the Republican Party right now? We see at a minimum,

00:10:19 Jordan Peterson: And that's not what they mean. They mean equality of outcome, and that's not the same thing at all. And I saw in that inability to draw that distinction part of the reason that the Democrats have shifted in the direction that you described, in the direction that seems to be opposed in many ways to the best interests of both the working class and the middle class. but also characterized by this incredible strain of illiberalism and corporate fascist collusion, the sort of thing that you document, for example, in the relationship between the power elites and Big Pharma. And so my sense on the Democrat side, I couldn't shift the Democrats to the point, the ones that I was talking to, to the point where they would draw a distinction between them and the radicals. It just didn't seem possible. And so why do you think I don't think the universities are salvageable, by the way. So why do you think the Democrats are salvageable?

00:11:11 (someone): Well, I don't think we have a choice. We have a two party system. And I, you know, I'm a lifelong Democrat. I feel like my party is being taken away from me in some ways by the, you know, the the kind of ideologies, the extreme ideologies, and really, you know, the departure of common sense that I think troubles you in a lot of, you know, the things that you think about. But I mean, why do I think it's salvageable? Because I'm talking to people on the street. You know, there are so many people who have

00:00:01 (someone): Hello everyone. Today I'm speaking with writer, attorney, environmentalist, and 2024 presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

00:00:25 Jordan Peterson: We discuss how the Democratic Party has become one of fear and ideology, its inexplicable conclusion with legacy media and big pharma, how the COVID-19 pandemic became an issue of tribal allegiance, the use of the doomsday climate narrative for political gains, what can actually be done with renewable energy, and why the era of Kennedy Democrats can not only be revived, but uniting for Americans across boundaries, both physical and philosophical. What made you decide to throw your hat in the ring for the presidency at this point?

00:01:05 (someone): Well, I saw the country going in a direction and my political party going in a direction that was very troubling to me. You know, the country one really needs a reboot. But, you know, the role of my political party, I felt like the Democrats kind of got derailed and became the party suddenly and mysteriously of war. When they were always skeptical of the military-industrial complex, they became the party of censorship, which is abhorrent to every definition of liberalism. They became the party of fear, which is against our traditions. Franklin Roosevelt, in his 1932 inaugural address, said that the only thing that we have to fear is fear itself, and he understood that fear is a weapon of totalitarian elements and totalitarian control. It became the party of the neocons, which again was antithetical The neocons were Republican, very belligerent, pugnacious, foreign policy about subduing the world and establishing hegemony through violence. It became the party of Wall Street, President Biden has surrounded himself with.

00:09:07 Jordan Peterson: And it looks to me like something analogous happened within the Democrats. Like, I worked with the Democrats for a long time in California trying to help the Democrats.

00:09:16 (someone): By DEI, you mean?

00:09:18 Jordan Peterson: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity. Oh, okay. Yeah, the social justice warrior types within the universities. And so, What I saw among the Democrats that I worked with was that they were unable to draw a dividing line between the moderate types and the radicals. So and this is something maybe I'll push you about. So, for example, I went to Washington. I talked to a lot of Democrats, senators and congressmen about what I saw happening in the broad public sphere, but also in the Democrat Party. And I asked I asked them this question. When does the left go too far? And none of them were able to answer. And even though it's completely obvious that the left can go too far, I mean, that's one of the cardinal lessons of the 20th century. And I suggested that the left goes too far when it pushes equity. And all I got as a response from the Democrats, senators and congressmen alike was, well, the people who say equity, they just mean equality of opportunity. And that's not what they mean. They mean equality of outcome, and that's not the same thing at all.

00:17:57 (someone): What happened was that during—Democrats are always starved for money, for campaign Republicans can take money from dirty industries and from, you know, sort of people, disreputable people, you know, from whether it's the oil industry, the tobacco industry, the NRA or, you know, things that a lot of Democrats consider disreputable. And they have unlimited money. The Democrats traditionally could only get big money, reliable big money from two sources. One was the labor unions. In other words, the trial lawyers, and they don't have anywhere near the kind of money that these industries have to give away. And so something changed during Obamacare. And that was that the Obama administration and my uncle, Ted Kennedy, was chairing the Senate Health Committee at this time. So I watched this whole thing very carefully and was disturbed at that time. Because of the lobbying power of Pharma, Obama could not get Obamacare passed without the collaboration of the pharmaceutical industry. So he basically had to make a golden handshake with the devil. And the agreement they made was that, number one, Obamacare is going to benefit you because it's going to pay for all of your products, the pharmaceutical drugs to Americans. But, and here was the key, we will not bargain. overprices with you, which, you know, Medicare used to do, the Canadian government bargains when it, you know, provides health care to Canadians. It bargains against really good deals, which is why Americans go to Canada to buy drugs, because they're, you know, they're much cheaper there. But here they could pay the top, they could charge the top rate and the Obamacare would have to pay And that is how Obama got the pharmaceutical industry's support.

00:05:43 (someone): And I think a lot of Democrats who don't like me, I think mainly because of the propaganda that has dominated, the very, very negative propaganda and negative portrayals of me and the misinterpretations of my viewpoints, which have dominated the media and the public consciousness over the past several years, that that will begin to recede a little, the more that people see of me and the more that, you know, if the polling shows that I am more likely to be President Trump than President Biden, I think it will force a lot of Democrats to take a second look at me.

00:06:26 Jordan Peterson: — Why do you think that people feel that you might be a better alternative to Trump than Biden is? Like, what is it about what you bring to the table that's making you more credible on that front?

00:06:36 (someone): — Well, I think the reason my numbers show that is that I've been able to bridge the divide between Republicans and Democrats. A lot of my supporters, I think I do better than any candidate with independents, which are now the biggest political party. And I appeal to a lot of Republicans as well. And so, and I don't think, you know, President Biden can do that. And if you just do the math, you know, I, in the end, I'm going to, it's likely that I'll get almost all the Democrats who vote. If I'm right, if it's me against, let's say, President Trump, the likelihood is that most Democrats would vote for me and that he will get very little crossover. whereas I will still get a lot of Republican votes, and I'll dominate the independent votes. And I think that will continue.

00:28:53 (someone): We wouldn't be having any of these conversations if we were now in year four of a Hillary Clinton presidency. We're having different conversations. They're worse right now in a lot of ways about race, about class. But the fact that has stuck with me the most and one of the things I'll say is I went in open eyed all the way down to assess my party in the political situation. I've only gotten more disillusioned and angry with the Democratic Party.

00:29:19 Jordan Peterson: OK, OK, so OK, so let's let's go return to that. OK, I'm going to keep that in mind. Let's return to that. So you put together this team or this team was organized to produce messages that would support the Democrat Democratic Party fundamentally. But the but the overarching philosophy was one of self-criticism, let's say, if the self includes the Democratic Party and. What other what are the rules, what were the other rules for the messaging? See, I don't think people are going to understand exactly what you did. You made these ads, but you went out and did it with your own team. And so who are the ads generated? How are the ads generated? Who are they targeted to? What was their consequence? And what were, what were the rules that you used and agreed on when you were making the ads and how did you agree on them?

00:30:14 (someone): Sorry, that's a lot of questions, but part of this is it was so it was all entrepreneurial, George.

00:49:38 Jordan Peterson: And one of the things I was told was that there was a dearth of available bodies on the Democrat side. And you know, it's hard to get people involved in politics. And so that many of the positions were filled by people whose views were quite radical in comparison to the centrist, into the, say, mainstream centrist Democrat ideal. And so and I see this as like I would say Kamala Harris is a good example of that because I think Kamala Harris is in what inexcusably radical. She tweets out support for the notion of equity nonstop. And equity is not equality of opportunity. And so, I mean, I think you'll be called on to make those decisions, for example, when if you if you did establish a presidency, when you were trying to figure out who who was going to make up the bulk of your administration. You know, and I know Democrats, because they like the free flow of ideas, have a hard time drawing distinguishing lines. And so they have a hard time distinguishing the centrists from the radicals. But they have been captured in many ways by the radical viewpoint. And it's very dangerous. I mean, you've been subject to that to some degree on the censorship side. And so I've not seen the Democrats contend seriously with the problem of how to differentiate the mainstream centrists from the dangerous radicals. And they seem to continue enabling them. I've seen that right now on the trans front, for example.

00:13:10 Jordan Peterson: Well, I mean, part of the reason that I was willing to work with the Democrats to begin with, and I did that for about five years, was because I thought, I think like you do, according to what you just said, that, well, you kind of have to work with the institutions that exist, because those are the institutions that exist. And there seems to be some utility in trying to pull the Democrats, let's say, back towards the center as much as that's possible. But I found that I think we had some success in that regard, but It was in particular the, and I see this on the conservative side too, by the way, with the unwillingness to see, this is probably more true in Canada even, what is really at the core of this progressive ideology that stresses equity, for example, because equity is an unbelievably dangerous doctrine. And as far as I can tell, it's indistinguishable from the sort of Marxist ideas that swept across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and China, for that matter. in the 20th century and that still prevail, certainly in China. And it isn't obvious to me at all that the Democrats have taken this with any degree of seriousness. And, you know, that's producing all sorts of strange pathologies on the cultural front. You've documented a fair bit, and this brings us into another area that's adjacent to that, I guess. You've spent a lot of time, your last book, Letter to Liberals, I think I've got that title right, concentrated on the strange collusion that has occurred between the Democrats and Big Pharma. And this is also something I find completely inexplicable.

00:11:45 (someone): Because I'm talking to people on the street. You know, there are so many people who have responded to my candidacy positively because they see it as a return to, you know, being a Kennedy Democrat. You know, the Democratic Party that they loved and that they, you know, that they thought reflected their values, their ideologies, and their best interests, and the best interests of this country. And that was likely to, you know, build an America that they can be proud of, that their children can be proud of. has moral authority around the world and, you know, all the things that we'd like to see, that I think most people would like to see. I think the Democratic Party has been hijacked, as you say, by some extreme ideologies and, in some cases, kind of irrational, I don't know, thought patterns. And I think the idea of returning it to common sense is appealing to a lot of people. And I'm just thinking those things, and they seem to be reflected both in my polling and in the kind of reaction I get from people on the street and on Twitter. So it's a melange of things that makes me feel that way, but I could be wrong.

00:13:10 Jordan Peterson: Well, I mean, part of the reason that I was willing to work with the Democrats to begin with, and I did that for about five years, was because I thought, I think like you do, according to what you just said, that, well, you kind of have to work with the institutions that exist, because those are the institutions that exist. And there seems to be some utility in trying to pull the Democrats, let's say, back towards the center as much as that's possible.

00:10:19 Jordan Peterson: And that's not what they mean. They mean equality of outcome, and that's not the same thing at all. And I saw in that inability to draw that distinction part of the reason that the Democrats have shifted in the direction that you described, in the direction that seems to be opposed in many ways to the best interests of both the working class and the middle class. but also characterized by this incredible strain of illiberalism and corporate fascist collusion, the sort of thing that you document, for example, in the relationship between the power elites and Big Pharma. And so my sense on the Democrat side, I couldn't shift the Democrats to the point, the ones that I was talking to, to the point where they would draw a distinction between them and the radicals. It just didn't seem possible. And so why do you think I don't think the universities are salvageable, by the way. So why do you think the Democrats are salvageable?

00:11:11 (someone): Well, I don't think we have a choice. We have a two party system. And I, you know, I'm a lifelong Democrat. I feel like my party is being taken away from me in some ways by the, you know, the the kind of ideologies, the extreme ideologies, and really, you know, the departure of common sense that I think troubles you in a lot of, you know, the things that you think about. But I mean, why do I think it's salvageable? Because I'm talking to people on the street. You know, there are so many people who have

00:16:18 (someone): And that is a crisis that now kills 100, this year killed 106,000 American kids, twice the number of kids that died during the 20-year Vietnam War. Vioxx is another good example. That was another symptom of the corrupt collusion between pharma and the regulatory agencies. And the capture of those agencies by that industry, which has become, the agencies themselves have become sock puppets for that industry. And they killed between 120,000 and 500,000 people with a drug they marketed as a headache medicine and an arthritis medicine when they knew that it caused heart attacks. And they didn't tell the public that. They concealed that from the public. So, you know, a lot of people would have said, oh, it caused heart attacks. Well, I'll take an aspirin. But they weren't allowed to make that choice. pharma with the collusion of the regulators, took that information, deprived the public of informed consent. Now, the question is, Democrats knew that. There's more pharmaceutical lobbyists on Capitol Hill than there are congressmen, senators, and Supreme Court justices combined more than any other industry. They give double in terms of lobbying what the next biggest industry So it's easy for them to own Congress still. There was an ideological resistance among Democrats until a decade ago, or really a decade. What happened was that during—Democrats are always starved for money, for campaign Republicans can take money from dirty industries and from, you know, sort of people, disreputable people, you know, from whether it's the oil industry, the tobacco industry, the NRA or, you know, things that a lot of Democrats consider disreputable.

00:19:50 (someone): But here they could pay the top, they could charge the top rate and the Obamacare would have to pay And that is how Obama got the pharmaceutical industry's support. And after that, it became permissible for Democrats to accept pharmaceutical money. The pharmaceutical money began pouring into the Democratic Party. But, you know, on issues like vaccines, the Democrats and Republicans were pretty evenly split up to 2016. And then you had these, then you had Trump run for presidency. And during his campaign, on several occasions, he mentioned that he believed that vaccines were causing autism. And this was anecdotal to him. He had three friends who were women, who were mothers, whose children had been completely healthy and then had regressed into, you know, lost their language and regressed into stereotypical behavior of autism, associated with autism, after receiving MMR vaccines. And so he, you know, his belief was that the link was real. And he said it out loud on several occasions, I think three separate occasions. And at that time, anything that Trump said was immediately the reaction of the Democratic Party is whatever he says, we got to do the opposite. So even though we've hated NAFTA for our entire existence of our party, if Trump now says he hates NAFTA, we've got to start liking NAFTA. So that was kind of what happened was Those pronouncements by Trump were put by the Democratic Party doyens into the same anti-science dumpster as his climate denial. And it became a tribal issue. And so it was a culture war issue.

01:14:20 (someone): And this, you know, I wanna jump back to a question you asked earlier we didn't get to finish, which was, what are some of the positive things that I'm seeing in the Republican Party right now? We see at a minimum, There are dissenting voices within the Republican Party, for example, on the issue of this proxy war against Russia. There are not enough to be able to make a legislative change at this point. I hope that changes. But there are a growing number of Republicans who are saying no, expressing a lot of the concerns that we are, and from a Republican Party perspective, there's no, I'm not aware of any punitive measures being taken against those members. So even though they are not part of the establishment in the Republican Party, there is that room for dissent. And I've experienced this myself. There's that room for open conversation and dialogue, whether you agree or disagree. There's a growing movement of concern about these wars and a movement for peace and a responsible foreign policy. Whereas the Democratic Party has moved in the opposite direction where you are not allowed to ask questions. You are not allowed to challenge their narrative or their position. You are not allowed to hold a dissenting view because if you do, then they will seek to destroy you and cancel you and smear you and take away your voice. And it's really sad and unfortunate because there's nothing more undemocratic than that.

01:15:50 Jordan Peterson: Right, right.

00:04:16 Jordan Peterson: How are you doing in the polls at the moment, as far as you can tell, with credible polls?

00:04:20 (someone): Well, the public poll, I average about 20 percent, which is good. I mean, my candidacy is not being treated as serious by the mainstream media. I think maybe it is a little bit more so, but it was originally dismissed as kind of a fringe candidacy. But I'm actually doing much better than DeSantis, Governor DeSantis does against Trump, I'm doing much better against Biden. So it's, I think that that is just a media bias. And my, our internal poll numbers are much, much better. And I think the most significant thing for Democrats over the long term is that our internal polls show that I do much better against President Trump than President Biden does. So I beat him by almost double the percentage that President Biden does. And I do even better against Governor DeSantis. And I think that if the public polling reflects that, I think that that's going to be very persuasive to a lot of Democrats who really see the election as just a battle to keep Donald Trump from retaking the White House again. And I think a lot of Democrats who don't like me, I think mainly because of the propaganda that has dominated, the very, very negative propaganda and negative portrayals of me and the misinterpretations of