e problem with college admission has something to do with the college, you're missing the first 18 years of the kid's life. The first 18 years can make a big difference. So no, you can't fix that after it's too late. So while it might look like bad news, I think that's good news in the sense that we're getting back to capability over identity.

Well, you would not be surprised to know that there was a college in Memphis, Tennessee, a little college called Rhodes College. And there was some pro-Trump graffiti that they say was racist. And they did an investigation to see who did this pro-Trump racist graffiti. How do you think that turned out? Take a guess if you haven't heard the story already. So there was graffiti from what looked like a Trump supporter, and it was very racist. And then they looked into it, and it was a hoax. Of course it was not a Trump supporter. It was an anti-Trump person. Of course, of course.

MSNBC had a pundit on there. She might think of herself as a young Black woman. The only thing I know for sure, she's a Black woman. I don't know how young she is. But she said, quote, "The Democratic Party should be led by young women of color."

So is that what the Democrats got wrong? Did they lose everything because they didn't have enough young women of color running things? Now, nothing against young women of color who, by the way, are doing great in society. If you didn't know that, Black women are doing really well relative to historical norms but also relative to white men. Black women are going to college at record rates, earning well after graduation. So Black women are doing great actually.

So she says the Democratic Party should be led by young women of color. Of course that's identity politics, and of course that's the reason they lost. So I could not be more amused by their inability to learn from their mistakes.

But here's one that's fun. I'm told that this didn't actually happen in the real world, but there was a post that makes it look like it happened. It's still just as fun even though it didn't happen. So there's a clip of Scott Galloway saying that he had planned — this was before the election, like a day before or something — he said he planned to bet $358,000 on Harris. And he said the reason he thought that was a good bet — and I was just told in the comments earlier that he didn't actually place the bet. So the day before the election he was talking like this is very serious and he was placing the bet, but somebody says he didn't place it.

But his argument went like this: that the A-plus polls have Harris ahead. So the polls that he trusted had Harris ahead. But Polymarket, where people are just betting, didn't have her conclusively winning like that. So the odds were that if you were just looking at it as one of many bets in your portfolio, you probably would have gone with the odds, meaning that it looked like she might win. Yet the betting markets were not saying that. So you probably would get a nice payoff in the betting markets if the A-plus polls were in fact reliable.

So everything he said is logical. It's mathematically and statistically and of risk management perfect. So everything he said was right. The problem was the A-plus polls. How many of you thought the polls were accurate and real and even trying to be real by election day? I feel like 100% of the people who follow me know that the polls were some kind of a political structure and not — they're not really at least all of them are not meant to be even serious. I mean, I don't think they're trying to be accurate. I think they're just backing their team.

Now Rasmussen, they were superstars yet again, beat all the A-plus guys. But they don't get mentioned because if you're right all the time, the Democrats don't like to mention you. They'll leave you on the list.

So I do wonder how many people took Scott Galloway's advice and put down their own big bets on Harris. And as I told you, I think I mentioned this before, I was very confident that Trump would win. I mean, in plenty of time to have placed the bet if I wanted to. I wasn't confident a year ago, but within a month of the election, if you were watching, I think all of you saw me say, yeah, Trump's going to have the votes.

So your question would be, why didn't I bet on it? Was I lying to you? No, I did bet on it. I bet on it a different way. Over the summer I loaded up on Tesla stock and Bitcoin, the two things that you could pretty well predict would go up if Trump won. So I'm pretty happy with my Tesla and Bitcoin.

Anyway, as you probably all already know, Congress tried to get away with slipping in this resolution budget bill that some call an omnibus bill, but it's something in between. And they tried to do their usual Congress trick, which Thomas Massie called them out and predicted months before it happened because they always do it. And what they do is they wait until it's right before Christmas where everybody just cares about going home. And then they say, either vote for this foot-tall thing that nobody could read and has all kinds of pork in it, or you'll miss your Christmas. Your children will hate you.

And so people being people, they're like, ah, no time to fix this. I can't fix the whole system. I'll just say yes and go home. But that's what should have happened. But it's a different day. It's a different day, isn't it?

So what happened instead was everybody looked at this bill and said, are you really going to sign a bill that nobody read? And so people like me, upon first exposure to the story on X, said immediately no, no, no, no. We can't do this anymore. So I don't need to know what's in the bill. I just need to know it's a foot tall, and that's it. Now there were plenty of other reasons not to vote for it, but you only needed to know it was a foot tall because that tells you that the process doesn't work. Because nobody's going to read the foot-tall thing, and it's going to be full of pork. So you don't need to know anything except it's a foot tall. I didn't need to know anything else. So I was a hard no on first second.

But of course I'm not that influential by myself. But you saw a whole bunch of other people who have a million-plus followers on X and other places say, no, no, no, hell no, hell no, hard no. Would that have made a difference? Probably not. Probably not.

But turns out that there's a whole new dynamic now. So I love saying that. You know, it's like a reference to the Hulk. I've said this before, but we have a Vivek. There's a Vivek on the Republican side. He actually read the foot-tall bill and pulled out the important parts for us. What? How is that even possible? I would love a video of just watching Vivek sit down with a foot-tall bill and pour through it so quickly that you get to see for the first time what a super smart person can do. I'm pretty smart. I couldn't do that, right?

So however smart Vivek is, I can't judge it because as soon as somebody's a little bit smarter than you are, you really don't know how much smarter. You have no mechanism for measuring it because it's outside of your domain. So he's far smarter than I am, at least in this element. So he does what I've never seen anybody do before. He has a big audience. He's very credible. We all know he's working for the country, not for h