WEBVTT - Live from Aspen! Zohran Mamdani’s Win, and How To Communicate Probabilities

0:00:15.604 --> 0:00:26.604
<v Speaker 1>Pushkin, Hey, Risky Business listeners. This weekend, Nate and I

0:00:26.644 --> 0:00:28.604
<v Speaker 1>took a break from the World Series of Poker to

0:00:28.684 --> 0:00:32.124
<v Speaker 1>go to the Aspen Ideas Festival. Sunday night, we got

0:00:32.124 --> 0:00:35.244
<v Speaker 1>to tape a live episode of the Risky Business podcast

0:00:35.564 --> 0:00:38.204
<v Speaker 1>and we're so happy to share that with you today.

0:00:38.484 --> 0:00:44.044
<v Speaker 1>We hope you enjoy it. Welcome back to Risky Business,

0:00:44.084 --> 0:00:47.884
<v Speaker 1>a show about making better decisions. I'm Maria Kondakova.

0:00:47.564 --> 0:00:48.524
<v Speaker 2>And I'm Nate Silver.

0:00:49.244 --> 0:00:51.844
<v Speaker 1>So today on the show, we're going to be starting

0:00:52.404 --> 0:00:54.284
<v Speaker 1>with a little bit of poker. So Nate and I

0:00:54.324 --> 0:00:57.364
<v Speaker 1>are both here from lovely Las Vegas because it is

0:00:57.404 --> 0:01:00.004
<v Speaker 1>currently the middle of the World Series of Poker, but

0:01:00.124 --> 0:01:02.884
<v Speaker 1>we love Aspen and the Aspen Ideas Festival so much

0:01:03.204 --> 0:01:05.084
<v Speaker 1>that we're taking time off to be here.

0:01:05.284 --> 0:01:08.204
<v Speaker 3>With only one straight days of poker, we can spare

0:01:08.284 --> 0:01:10.164
<v Speaker 3>one day for the Aspen Night Festivals.

0:01:10.484 --> 0:01:14.284
<v Speaker 1>We're going to be talking about a recent controversy at

0:01:14.444 --> 0:01:17.124
<v Speaker 1>the World Series of Poker and what happened there. But

0:01:17.924 --> 0:01:21.044
<v Speaker 1>after that we're going to be getting into something much metior.

0:01:21.444 --> 0:01:23.524
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think the election of z around.

0:01:23.604 --> 0:01:26.284
<v Speaker 3>I'm Donnie in New York or not, excuse me, The

0:01:26.364 --> 0:01:29.004
<v Speaker 3>nomination he's still has to win. The general election is

0:01:29.164 --> 0:01:32.084
<v Speaker 3>one of the most interesting and seismic events in American politics,

0:01:32.444 --> 0:01:34.444
<v Speaker 3>at least since the election, you know, one of the

0:01:34.484 --> 0:01:38.484
<v Speaker 3>most successful opportunities for like a explicitly socialist left wing

0:01:38.484 --> 0:01:41.444
<v Speaker 3>candidate to Governess said, it's actually very pro financed. New

0:01:41.484 --> 0:01:44.404
<v Speaker 3>York is not left in the way that Portland is

0:01:44.524 --> 0:01:46.244
<v Speaker 3>or Espen might be, or things like us. We're going

0:01:46.284 --> 0:01:48.804
<v Speaker 3>to talk about both the strategy behind rank choice voting

0:01:48.804 --> 0:01:50.364
<v Speaker 3>and how that might have affected things, but also just

0:01:50.764 --> 0:01:53.364
<v Speaker 3>you know, a big political moment, how this might affect

0:01:53.364 --> 0:01:54.924
<v Speaker 3>the party's decisions going forward.

0:01:55.284 --> 0:01:58.364
<v Speaker 1>And after that we will play a little game called

0:01:58.524 --> 0:02:02.484
<v Speaker 1>how likely is It where we will test our knowledge

0:02:02.524 --> 0:02:08.284
<v Speaker 1>and your knowledge of probabilistic thinking. So let's get into it, Nate. Yeah, So,

0:02:08.444 --> 0:02:14.124
<v Speaker 1>first of all, we have a controversy at the World

0:02:14.164 --> 0:02:17.284
<v Speaker 1>Series of Poker last week was one of the biggest

0:02:17.364 --> 0:02:20.364
<v Speaker 1>tournaments of the summer. It's called the millionaire Maker because

0:02:20.404 --> 0:02:22.924
<v Speaker 1>first place is always guaranteed to be at least a

0:02:22.924 --> 0:02:26.844
<v Speaker 1>million dollars. This was a record breaking millionaire Maker, so

0:02:27.004 --> 0:02:30.884
<v Speaker 1>second place was also over a million dollars. This was

0:02:31.204 --> 0:02:35.804
<v Speaker 1>complicated by the fact that there was also a promotion

0:02:36.364 --> 0:02:39.804
<v Speaker 1>being run by a rival brand, the World Poker Tour,

0:02:40.204 --> 0:02:42.964
<v Speaker 1>which one of the two players who ended up getting

0:02:43.004 --> 0:02:44.924
<v Speaker 1>heads up, which is one of the final two players,

0:02:45.004 --> 0:02:48.404
<v Speaker 1>was eligible for which meant that if he won the tournament,

0:02:48.484 --> 0:02:51.484
<v Speaker 1>and only if he won the bracelet, he would get

0:02:51.484 --> 0:02:56.284
<v Speaker 1>an extra million dollars. So think about for a second, right,

0:02:56.324 --> 0:02:59.284
<v Speaker 1>in the context of decision making, in the context of

0:02:59.884 --> 0:03:04.884
<v Speaker 1>incentives exactly, incentives matter. What that does they get heads up?

0:03:05.204 --> 0:03:07.244
<v Speaker 1>So two people left, only one.

0:03:07.084 --> 0:03:09.924
<v Speaker 2>Time wines final feo.

0:03:10.004 --> 0:03:12.644
<v Speaker 3>Happens to be the guy who can win this additional

0:03:12.684 --> 0:03:15.204
<v Speaker 3>million dollar bonus on top of the million dollars has

0:03:15.204 --> 0:03:15.644
<v Speaker 3>already won.

0:03:15.844 --> 0:03:20.124
<v Speaker 1>Yes, Unfortunately, this guy has a chip deficit of nine

0:03:20.284 --> 0:03:23.284
<v Speaker 1>to one. So that means that the other player, right,

0:03:23.324 --> 0:03:26.124
<v Speaker 1>the one who is not eligible for the million dollars,

0:03:26.364 --> 0:03:30.524
<v Speaker 1>has him out chipped nine times. So what that means

0:03:30.604 --> 0:03:33.124
<v Speaker 1>is that usually nine times out of ten, that guy's

0:03:33.164 --> 0:03:35.604
<v Speaker 1>going to win the tournament. And what happens to the

0:03:35.604 --> 0:03:42.404
<v Speaker 1>million dollar bonus, It disappears incentives matter. So what ended

0:03:42.484 --> 0:03:46.764
<v Speaker 1>up happening was a very strange heads up match that

0:03:46.844 --> 0:03:49.764
<v Speaker 1>looked an awful lot. This is just allegations, you know,

0:03:49.844 --> 0:03:53.604
<v Speaker 1>nothing proven, an awful lot like collusion. There was a

0:03:53.724 --> 0:03:56.604
<v Speaker 1>lleged chip dumping where one of the players dumped chips

0:03:56.644 --> 0:03:59.284
<v Speaker 1>to the other players and made what was supposed to

0:03:59.324 --> 0:04:02.004
<v Speaker 1>be an incredibly competitive, televised by the way this was

0:04:02.044 --> 0:04:05.604
<v Speaker 1>all televised match into something that looked very strange into

0:04:05.644 --> 0:04:07.684
<v Speaker 1>people outside of poker. They were like, what in the

0:04:07.684 --> 0:04:12.044
<v Speaker 1>world was going on? The player who had the million

0:04:12.084 --> 0:04:16.164
<v Speaker 1>dollar incentive won the bracelet, won the tournament, and they

0:04:16.164 --> 0:04:18.244
<v Speaker 1>are now currently both under investigation.

0:04:20.204 --> 0:04:21.884
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. No, I mean there are a couple of themes here.

0:04:21.924 --> 0:04:23.764
<v Speaker 3>I mean one is kind of how so it's not

0:04:23.844 --> 0:04:27.524
<v Speaker 3>just that the tournament is televised, it's that in televised poker,

0:04:27.964 --> 0:04:30.924
<v Speaker 3>the audience gets to see the player's private cards.

0:04:31.204 --> 0:04:32.804
<v Speaker 2>Right, So to think that you could have.

0:04:32.844 --> 0:04:35.844
<v Speaker 3>This live streamed on TV and everybody can like see

0:04:35.844 --> 0:04:37.884
<v Speaker 3>the hands face up, basically accept the two opponents that's

0:04:37.884 --> 0:04:40.964
<v Speaker 3>taped to lay fifteen minutes. Right, If one player what's

0:04:40.964 --> 0:04:45.884
<v Speaker 3>his name, Jesse, Jesse, If Jesse had been way ahead.

0:04:45.644 --> 0:04:47.684
<v Speaker 2>Then maybe, like you know what, maybe we're gonna be

0:04:47.724 --> 0:04:48.204
<v Speaker 2>a little loose.

0:04:48.244 --> 0:04:52.404
<v Speaker 3>But instead, every single decision he plays as though he

0:04:52.444 --> 0:04:55.164
<v Speaker 3>has knowledge of what his opponent has.

0:04:55.284 --> 0:04:55.484
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:04:55.524 --> 0:04:57.124
<v Speaker 3>Almost that exception to the point where the hosts are

0:04:57.124 --> 0:04:59.484
<v Speaker 3>commenting on the real time. If you go and look

0:04:59.524 --> 0:05:02.964
<v Speaker 3>at computers, computers now have solved poker at least heads

0:05:03.044 --> 0:05:05.044
<v Speaker 3>up pick a poke in particular to a high degree.

0:05:05.204 --> 0:05:07.924
<v Speaker 3>These are all plays that are done zero percent of

0:05:08.004 --> 0:05:10.724
<v Speaker 3>the time in op and we'll play that are done

0:05:10.764 --> 0:05:14.564
<v Speaker 3>almost your percent of the time by two very experienced players. Right,

0:05:14.884 --> 0:05:17.604
<v Speaker 3>things like folding a pair to a tiny bit, which

0:05:17.684 --> 0:05:18.204
<v Speaker 3>heads up poker.

0:05:18.204 --> 0:05:19.924
<v Speaker 2>It's hard to make a hand in poker. You're never

0:05:19.964 --> 0:05:24.164
<v Speaker 2>supposed to do that. And so now and people are torn. Right.

0:05:24.164 --> 0:05:26.684
<v Speaker 1>There are people who say, well, they didn't hurt anyone

0:05:26.724 --> 0:05:29.124
<v Speaker 1>because they were heads up, right, so it's not like

0:05:29.164 --> 0:05:31.764
<v Speaker 1>they took chips from a third player. Now, I'm writing

0:05:31.764 --> 0:05:34.724
<v Speaker 1>a book right now about cheating in games, and so

0:05:34.844 --> 0:05:37.244
<v Speaker 1>this is something that kind of I've thought about a lot.

0:05:37.444 --> 0:05:40.044
<v Speaker 1>And on the one hand, I am sympathetic a little

0:05:40.044 --> 0:05:42.444
<v Speaker 1>bit to that argument because a lot of the worst

0:05:42.724 --> 0:05:45.364
<v Speaker 1>cheaters and a lot of the big cheating things in games,

0:05:45.484 --> 0:05:48.484
<v Speaker 1>it hurts other people, right, it hurts other players. You're

0:05:48.524 --> 0:05:52.564
<v Speaker 1>taking away equity from other players. If we assume that

0:05:52.644 --> 0:05:56.684
<v Speaker 1>they were playing completely above board up until this point,

0:05:56.884 --> 0:06:00.764
<v Speaker 1>then no one else was hurt. However, However, there is

0:06:00.804 --> 0:06:03.644
<v Speaker 1>another consideration here. Right. So one of the things that

0:06:03.804 --> 0:06:07.444
<v Speaker 1>I am a huge proponent on, and we've talked about

0:06:07.444 --> 0:06:09.324
<v Speaker 1>this on the show, is sportsmen.

0:06:09.884 --> 0:06:10.004
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:06:10.044 --> 0:06:14.044
<v Speaker 1>There are two concepts, gamesmanship and sportsmanship. Gamesmanship is you

0:06:14.124 --> 0:06:16.484
<v Speaker 1>know I'm going to win, and you know, I don't

0:06:16.484 --> 0:06:18.604
<v Speaker 1>care how I get there, right, Like, I will take

0:06:18.684 --> 0:06:22.204
<v Speaker 1>every single edge I can possibly take because I want

0:06:22.284 --> 0:06:25.164
<v Speaker 1>to get there. Sportsmanship is doing it in kind of

0:06:25.164 --> 0:06:28.124
<v Speaker 1>a the spirit of the game, right, the spirit of

0:06:28.164 --> 0:06:30.924
<v Speaker 1>the sport, in a to use an old school term,

0:06:30.924 --> 0:06:35.084
<v Speaker 1>in a gentlemanly fashion, right, that you actually respect the

0:06:35.084 --> 0:06:38.924
<v Speaker 1>game you're playing. When you're looking at a televised competition

0:06:39.204 --> 0:06:42.244
<v Speaker 1>that's representing the game and people are watching it and

0:06:42.324 --> 0:06:47.884
<v Speaker 1>expecting something to instead of competition, instead of an actual match,

0:06:48.244 --> 0:06:53.724
<v Speaker 1>to give people, you know, chip dumbing or whatever it is,

0:06:54.244 --> 0:06:56.644
<v Speaker 1>that goes against the spirit of the game, and that

0:06:56.764 --> 0:06:57.084
<v Speaker 1>is something.

0:06:57.204 --> 0:06:58.124
<v Speaker 2>Also it also.

0:06:58.124 --> 0:07:00.364
<v Speaker 3>Lates the rules, Like the first rule of poker is

0:07:00.364 --> 0:07:03.204
<v Speaker 3>that one player to a hand. It's an individual game,

0:07:03.444 --> 0:07:06.084
<v Speaker 3>not a team game. Right, So that fundamental precept of

0:07:06.084 --> 0:07:07.004
<v Speaker 3>poker is violated.

0:07:07.164 --> 0:07:09.124
<v Speaker 1>It does, and you know, I was thinking about it

0:07:09.164 --> 0:07:12.124
<v Speaker 1>in kind of broader games. Like imagine if you were

0:07:12.164 --> 0:07:14.964
<v Speaker 1>watching a tennis match, right, that's also a heads up match,

0:07:15.004 --> 0:07:17.764
<v Speaker 1>a player one against the other, and it became clear

0:07:18.204 --> 0:07:20.964
<v Speaker 1>that someone was throwing the match, and that's happened, right.

0:07:21.044 --> 0:07:23.604
<v Speaker 1>Tennis is actually one of the sports where cheating is.

0:07:24.404 --> 0:07:27.084
<v Speaker 1>There's a lot of it going on, and if you

0:07:27.164 --> 0:07:30.124
<v Speaker 1>watch that, you feel cheated as a spectator and as

0:07:30.124 --> 0:07:32.164
<v Speaker 1>a lover of the game, you kind of feel like

0:07:32.244 --> 0:07:35.204
<v Speaker 1>something was taken away from you. So I can understand.

0:07:35.404 --> 0:07:38.244
<v Speaker 1>And by the way, I really like Jesse, like the

0:07:38.644 --> 0:07:42.084
<v Speaker 1>player who ended up winning. He's sweet and sweet, wonderful guy.

0:07:42.404 --> 0:07:44.804
<v Speaker 1>But you have to be careful, right, if you like someone,

0:07:44.884 --> 0:07:46.644
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't mean that what they did know in the rest.

0:07:46.644 --> 0:07:47.964
<v Speaker 3>It's just kind of a theme that will tie this

0:07:48.044 --> 0:07:50.564
<v Speaker 3>into kind of larger themes at this conference. So I

0:07:50.684 --> 0:07:52.684
<v Speaker 3>not just straddle back and forth being poker and like

0:07:53.044 --> 0:07:54.884
<v Speaker 3>the real world, but like I am involved in like

0:07:55.524 --> 0:07:58.644
<v Speaker 3>lots of small, tight knit communities, right, I'm not an

0:07:58.684 --> 0:08:00.004
<v Speaker 3>effective out your wist, But I know a lot of

0:08:00.004 --> 0:08:02.524
<v Speaker 3>people who describe themselves that way, right, I know, like

0:08:02.564 --> 0:08:05.244
<v Speaker 3>the sports analytics nerds, I know people who work in

0:08:05.244 --> 0:08:08.044
<v Speaker 3>politics and politics analytics nerds right, and like over and

0:08:08.084 --> 0:08:11.284
<v Speaker 3>over again, people are very short sighted about the weird

0:08:11.764 --> 0:08:14.764
<v Speaker 3>by normal person standards, norms and their small communities and

0:08:15.564 --> 0:08:18.284
<v Speaker 3>don't think about what happens when this kind of translates

0:08:18.564 --> 0:08:20.684
<v Speaker 3>to the outside world that hey, actually there's such a

0:08:20.684 --> 0:08:23.364
<v Speaker 3>thing as like the state of Nevada has gaming regulations.

0:08:23.524 --> 0:08:26.724
<v Speaker 3>If there's no regularity, are actually obligated to report that?

0:08:26.924 --> 0:08:29.044
<v Speaker 3>Or the fact that, okay, why are we having this

0:08:29.044 --> 0:08:32.204
<v Speaker 3>world series poker? It's bigger every year, despite the tariffs

0:08:32.204 --> 0:08:35.764
<v Speaker 3>and despite various headwinds, writing their setting record fields again

0:08:35.844 --> 0:08:36.204
<v Speaker 3>this year.

0:08:36.244 --> 0:08:37.764
<v Speaker 2>Well where do the players come from? Right?

0:08:37.804 --> 0:08:41.004
<v Speaker 3>They come from like watching poker on TV or on

0:08:41.084 --> 0:08:43.004
<v Speaker 3>video and saying that would be extremely fun if one

0:08:43.044 --> 0:08:44.684
<v Speaker 3>day I were to make a final table and I've

0:08:44.684 --> 0:08:46.964
<v Speaker 3>done it, you know, I have one time finished second

0:08:47.004 --> 0:08:49.244
<v Speaker 3>place an event like this, right, you know, it's a

0:08:49.284 --> 0:08:51.604
<v Speaker 3>thrill of a lifetime. But like to undermine that and

0:08:51.644 --> 0:08:53.764
<v Speaker 3>to do it in this way that like, I don't know,

0:08:53.804 --> 0:08:56.724
<v Speaker 3>I think it a narrowness of like perspective.

0:08:56.884 --> 0:08:59.204
<v Speaker 1>It does, it does, and I do think that. You know,

0:08:59.244 --> 0:09:01.964
<v Speaker 1>when you're even talking about game theory, there's short term

0:09:01.964 --> 0:09:03.924
<v Speaker 1>and there's a long term, and you need to be,

0:09:04.604 --> 0:09:06.084
<v Speaker 1>you know, no matter what, you need to have the

0:09:06.124 --> 0:09:07.924
<v Speaker 1>long term in mind and the long term health of

0:09:07.964 --> 0:09:12.284
<v Speaker 1>the game and of how it's perceived. And on that note, Nate,

0:09:12.364 --> 0:09:15.724
<v Speaker 1>do you want to switch gears and go a little

0:09:15.764 --> 0:09:19.444
<v Speaker 1>bit into the game theory of a different arena of politics.

0:09:19.884 --> 0:09:24.724
<v Speaker 1>So we are both New Yorkers and we just had

0:09:25.324 --> 0:09:29.844
<v Speaker 1>a Democratic primary that is national news. That is rare

0:09:30.244 --> 0:09:33.964
<v Speaker 1>for a primary, even in New York, but we had

0:09:34.004 --> 0:09:36.644
<v Speaker 1>a very unexpected winner of the primary and zar on

0:09:36.684 --> 0:09:41.844
<v Speaker 1>mom Donnie showing a lot of shifts in the Democratic Party,

0:09:41.964 --> 0:09:45.804
<v Speaker 1>the Democratic Party base, and the potential the game theory

0:09:45.804 --> 0:09:49.324
<v Speaker 1>for the Democratic Party going forward. This is one kind

0:09:49.364 --> 0:09:52.964
<v Speaker 1>of potential blueprint should they choose to accept it.

0:09:53.364 --> 0:09:57.324
<v Speaker 3>So one amazing thing is that younger voters actually turned

0:09:57.324 --> 0:10:00.484
<v Speaker 3>out at a higher rate than older voters in a selection,

0:10:00.604 --> 0:10:06.444
<v Speaker 3>which basically never happens in elections anywhere. Right, So he

0:10:06.524 --> 0:10:09.884
<v Speaker 3>spoke very much the vernacular of vertical video and kind

0:10:09.884 --> 0:10:12.084
<v Speaker 3>of how young people think about in general. He's a

0:10:12.164 --> 0:10:14.604
<v Speaker 3>you know, charismatic guy that's kind of a New York

0:10:15.124 --> 0:10:18.284
<v Speaker 3>archetype of this kind of multi ethnic hustler type, but

0:10:18.364 --> 0:10:21.004
<v Speaker 3>friendly guy and obviously a smart ambitious guy. Right, It's

0:10:21.044 --> 0:10:23.724
<v Speaker 3>like a type we recognize, I think have some appreciation

0:10:23.844 --> 0:10:26.964
<v Speaker 3>for in New York. He's a problem member the Democratic

0:10:27.044 --> 0:10:32.444
<v Speaker 3>Socialist of America. During the campaign emphasized affordability, cost of living,

0:10:32.884 --> 0:10:37.764
<v Speaker 3>had tangible proposals on like free buses, rent freezes for

0:10:37.844 --> 0:10:42.844
<v Speaker 3>certain types of buildings, right, city owned grocery stores, thirty

0:10:42.844 --> 0:10:45.804
<v Speaker 3>dollars minimum wage. Right, So tangible focused on that, not

0:10:45.804 --> 0:10:48.604
<v Speaker 3>culture worse stuff. And he winds up beating former governor

0:10:48.644 --> 0:10:51.564
<v Speaker 3>and Dupomo, who in a terrible campaign but was very complacent.

0:10:51.604 --> 0:10:55.284
<v Speaker 3>And I think this is a kind of a generational moment.

0:10:55.804 --> 0:10:58.524
<v Speaker 1>I think it is, and I think it's very interesting

0:10:58.604 --> 0:11:03.204
<v Speaker 1>to see that Momdani was actually able to get the

0:11:03.284 --> 0:11:08.364
<v Speaker 1>voters who turned to Trump during the presidential election, that

0:11:08.524 --> 0:11:12.124
<v Speaker 1>demographic to actually come out and vote for the Democrats.

0:11:12.164 --> 0:11:15.724
<v Speaker 1>And there are you know, videos from him campaigning where

0:11:15.764 --> 0:11:19.404
<v Speaker 1>he actually manages to talk to kind of that exact

0:11:19.564 --> 0:11:23.884
<v Speaker 1>demographic that you know, voted for not just a different

0:11:23.924 --> 0:11:27.364
<v Speaker 1>type of Democrat, but for Republicans in the presidential election.

0:11:27.484 --> 0:11:29.004
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I mean it's a little bit because you know,

0:11:29.364 --> 0:11:32.244
<v Speaker 3>so we had comparatively high turnout about a million, probably

0:11:32.284 --> 0:11:33.804
<v Speaker 3>one point oh five million, right.

0:11:33.724 --> 0:11:35.244
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, this was our high start.

0:11:35.924 --> 0:11:36.484
<v Speaker 2>But there are eight.

0:11:36.444 --> 0:11:39.004
<v Speaker 3>Million people in New York City of whom three point

0:11:39.044 --> 0:11:41.284
<v Speaker 3>three to three point four million are registered Democrats, right,

0:11:41.324 --> 0:11:44.204
<v Speaker 3>so you're still only getting twenty five or thirty percent

0:11:44.684 --> 0:11:45.444
<v Speaker 3>of the electorate.

0:11:46.164 --> 0:11:48.284
<v Speaker 2>With that said, very broad based.

0:11:48.084 --> 0:11:51.684
<v Speaker 3>Right, He won precincts even in Staten Island, which is

0:11:51.724 --> 0:11:53.804
<v Speaker 3>kind of cuomo home turf. Not all of them, but

0:11:53.844 --> 0:11:54.244
<v Speaker 3>some of them.

0:11:54.284 --> 0:11:54.484
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:11:54.844 --> 0:11:57.404
<v Speaker 3>You know, Cuomo wins the Central Parkies, but you go

0:11:57.444 --> 0:11:59.084
<v Speaker 3>even a couple of blocks into the Upper east Side,

0:11:59.084 --> 0:12:01.244
<v Speaker 3>one of the more conserve neighborhoods, he started some mom

0:12:01.284 --> 0:12:04.764
<v Speaker 3>don Aid precincts right there. So, you know, a very

0:12:04.764 --> 0:12:07.404
<v Speaker 3>impressive performance. And of course we will be accused as

0:12:07.444 --> 0:12:09.924
<v Speaker 3>the New Yorkers are being provincial. But New York is

0:12:10.004 --> 0:12:13.364
<v Speaker 3>so big and so diverse, right that not in the

0:12:13.364 --> 0:12:16.204
<v Speaker 3>same proportions, But we have like lots of Conservatives in

0:12:16.204 --> 0:12:17.804
<v Speaker 3>New York are out number by liberals. We have lots

0:12:17.844 --> 0:12:21.564
<v Speaker 3>of conservatives, right, We have every imaginable ethnic group and

0:12:21.844 --> 0:12:24.164
<v Speaker 3>slice of racial demographic right. There are lots of working

0:12:24.164 --> 0:12:27.684
<v Speaker 3>class people in New York. He mostly did well among

0:12:27.724 --> 0:12:30.924
<v Speaker 3>the kind of upper middle class, you know, kind of

0:12:31.004 --> 0:12:33.804
<v Speaker 3>white people. Basically, but there are those two, right, and

0:12:33.844 --> 0:12:36.684
<v Speaker 3>did well enough? This is important, did well enough among

0:12:36.684 --> 0:12:39.124
<v Speaker 3>the other groups, right, because sometimes can they say, Okay, well,

0:12:39.324 --> 0:12:41.924
<v Speaker 3>we're not going to win any you know Democrats, Right,

0:12:41.964 --> 0:12:44.084
<v Speaker 3>We're not going to win any working class white men,

0:12:44.164 --> 0:12:46.204
<v Speaker 3>so just write them off, treat them as a zero,

0:12:46.364 --> 0:12:49.884
<v Speaker 3>when actually, like getting thirty percent of working class non

0:12:49.964 --> 0:12:54.324
<v Speaker 3>college men as opposed to twenty percent makes a big deal. Right,

0:12:54.444 --> 0:12:57.644
<v Speaker 3>Trump in this past election got something like eighteen to

0:12:57.644 --> 0:13:01.164
<v Speaker 3>twenty percent of the black vote, which is a significant minority.

0:13:01.284 --> 0:13:01.484
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:13:01.684 --> 0:13:06.484
<v Speaker 3>Mitt Romney got four percent against Barack Obama in twenty twelve. Right,

0:13:06.564 --> 0:13:09.964
<v Speaker 3>So going from four percent to twenty percent the population,

0:13:10.004 --> 0:13:12.124
<v Speaker 3>you can do that math, right, that's quite a big swing.

0:13:12.244 --> 0:13:15.084
<v Speaker 1>Actually, yeah it is, mate. Do you actually think that

0:13:15.484 --> 0:13:18.324
<v Speaker 1>the election was at all affected by the fact that

0:13:18.364 --> 0:13:21.924
<v Speaker 1>this was the second primary where ranked choice voting was

0:13:21.964 --> 0:13:26.124
<v Speaker 1>actually in use, because that was something that people really were,

0:13:26.484 --> 0:13:27.964
<v Speaker 1>you know, emphasizing during the.

0:13:27.884 --> 0:13:30.884
<v Speaker 3>Candidate You guys know what rank choice voting or run off?

0:13:30.964 --> 0:13:32.524
<v Speaker 3>Okay everyone.

0:13:33.964 --> 0:13:37.924
<v Speaker 1>Festival, and we covered it for our listeners on the

0:13:37.924 --> 0:13:43.964
<v Speaker 1>pod last week. So I mean, okay, so ranked choice

0:13:44.004 --> 0:13:48.364
<v Speaker 1>voting means you have five choices, you rank your choices.

0:13:48.764 --> 0:13:53.004
<v Speaker 1>If your first choice candidate is not one of the

0:13:53.044 --> 0:13:55.884
<v Speaker 1>top two candidates, then your choice gets moved to your

0:13:55.924 --> 0:13:59.164
<v Speaker 1>next ranked candidate, and so on down the line.

0:13:59.684 --> 0:14:02.764
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, so Zoran seemed to understand this and Cuomo did not,

0:14:03.404 --> 0:14:07.804
<v Speaker 3>yes one thing. He formed alliances with other candidates, right,

0:14:08.004 --> 0:14:11.644
<v Speaker 3>especially Brad Lander, the third place candidate. Now, from a

0:14:11.644 --> 0:14:15.084
<v Speaker 3>game theory standpoint, I don't think this is necessarily rational

0:14:15.124 --> 0:14:18.084
<v Speaker 3>for Brad Lander, because like, if you're in third place

0:14:18.124 --> 0:14:19.684
<v Speaker 3>and the other guy's in second place or maybe a

0:14:19.684 --> 0:14:23.124
<v Speaker 3>first place, right, you don't necessarily want to help him out, right,

0:14:23.364 --> 0:14:25.764
<v Speaker 3>But I think Brad Lander hates Andrew Cuomo's guts, has

0:14:25.764 --> 0:14:27.244
<v Speaker 3>a lot of people do in New York and so

0:14:27.724 --> 0:14:32.844
<v Speaker 3>and so there was that surround a very positive campaign

0:14:32.884 --> 0:14:37.284
<v Speaker 3>and a substantive campaign, which is a change from how

0:14:37.324 --> 0:14:38.804
<v Speaker 3>campaigns are often run.

0:14:38.844 --> 0:14:41.684
<v Speaker 2>And I do think, like not uniquely the left in

0:14:41.724 --> 0:14:44.244
<v Speaker 2>the United States. I mean, look at Trump also.

0:14:44.044 --> 0:14:46.084
<v Speaker 3>In NAGA, right, but like there often is a lot

0:14:46.084 --> 0:14:49.804
<v Speaker 3>of negativity, a lot of anxiety, right, and that wasn't

0:14:49.804 --> 0:14:52.804
<v Speaker 3>what he was doing, right. He was a smart, substantive guy,

0:14:53.324 --> 0:14:57.284
<v Speaker 3>you know, who literally walked the entire length of Manhattan,

0:14:57.364 --> 0:15:00.004
<v Speaker 3>like the last day before the campaign wearing a suit,

0:15:00.044 --> 0:15:02.764
<v Speaker 3>and so like did every podcast in the world.

0:15:02.804 --> 0:15:04.484
<v Speaker 2>I think I've done. I've done like six podcasts in

0:15:04.484 --> 0:15:04.964
<v Speaker 2>the day before.

0:15:05.004 --> 0:15:08.324
<v Speaker 3>I think Zorn probably beat that record, but he very

0:15:08.404 --> 0:15:12.444
<v Speaker 3>much earned it, and Cuomo was pure negative. We do

0:15:12.444 --> 0:15:16.164
<v Speaker 3>have a general election still where Cuomo is running again, right,

0:15:16.524 --> 0:15:17.164
<v Speaker 3>I don't know if that.

0:15:17.284 --> 0:15:19.444
<v Speaker 1>And so is Sarah Adams maybe and Eric.

0:15:19.284 --> 0:15:22.404
<v Speaker 3>Adams and come a mirror defective from your practic party

0:15:23.164 --> 0:15:26.204
<v Speaker 3>friendly with Trump. Right, you also have the proper Republican nominee,

0:15:26.244 --> 0:15:29.164
<v Speaker 3>Curtis Sliwa, who is a guy who founded The Guardian

0:15:29.204 --> 0:15:31.844
<v Speaker 3>Angels and owns like fifty six cats or something like that.

0:15:32.244 --> 0:15:36.204
<v Speaker 1>So yeah, yeah, So I'm also interested, you know, from

0:15:36.444 --> 0:15:38.724
<v Speaker 1>from the point of view of like the game theory

0:15:38.764 --> 0:15:43.524
<v Speaker 1>of the Democratic Party. Right, we have this election which

0:15:44.004 --> 0:15:47.204
<v Speaker 1>seems like an anomaly but might not be, and a

0:15:47.204 --> 0:15:50.684
<v Speaker 1>lot of the Democratic establishment don't want to embrace Zora

0:15:50.804 --> 0:15:53.564
<v Speaker 1>Mom Donnie right there. They think that he is, you know,

0:15:53.644 --> 0:15:57.604
<v Speaker 1>too fringe, right, that he is too radical, that some

0:15:57.644 --> 0:16:00.844
<v Speaker 1>of his ideas are are too kind of too out there,

0:16:00.964 --> 0:16:03.964
<v Speaker 1>and that they want to go safer, They want to

0:16:03.964 --> 0:16:06.044
<v Speaker 1>go more middle of the road, which is what they

0:16:06.564 --> 0:16:09.644
<v Speaker 1>were saying during the presidential election that they lost.

0:16:09.724 --> 0:16:11.364
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, it's kind of it's kind of hard to be

0:16:11.444 --> 0:16:14.284
<v Speaker 3>like an exciting centrist is part of the problem.

0:16:14.324 --> 0:16:16.844
<v Speaker 2>You know, I don't know if Mayor Pete is exciting.

0:16:16.884 --> 0:16:19.964
<v Speaker 3>I guess he's a well spoken person, for example. But like,

0:16:20.044 --> 0:16:22.844
<v Speaker 3>sometimes more the energy comes from the left. Again, like

0:16:23.084 --> 0:16:27.364
<v Speaker 3>to me, and look, I'm a University of Chicago economics major.

0:16:27.404 --> 0:16:30.084
<v Speaker 2>I'm unapologetically kind of a neoliberal.

0:16:30.164 --> 0:16:33.124
<v Speaker 3>Right, it does seem to me like, look, the left

0:16:33.124 --> 0:16:35.244
<v Speaker 3>has not had the economic left has not had a

0:16:35.284 --> 0:16:38.924
<v Speaker 3>lot of power in the United States recently, right, And

0:16:38.964 --> 0:16:40.884
<v Speaker 3>so I've become more sympathetics because I'm like, well, we

0:16:40.884 --> 0:16:42.964
<v Speaker 3>haven't made those mistakes. They will make mistakes, and it's

0:16:43.004 --> 0:16:45.964
<v Speaker 3>very hard to govern a state like New York. It's

0:16:46.004 --> 0:16:48.724
<v Speaker 3>particularly hard to govern New York City because New York

0:16:48.764 --> 0:16:52.124
<v Speaker 3>State controls the taxation policy, a lot of the budget

0:16:52.364 --> 0:16:56.444
<v Speaker 3>and things like that. They're always rivalries between Albany and

0:16:56.444 --> 0:16:59.564
<v Speaker 3>and city Hall, right that without being different.

0:17:00.124 --> 0:17:02.884
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, absolutely, And I also wonder, you know, if mom

0:17:02.924 --> 0:17:05.524
<v Speaker 1>Donnie does get elected. Right, this is a big if.

0:17:05.604 --> 0:17:10.004
<v Speaker 1>Still right, we're we're i mean twenty five percent, but

0:17:10.044 --> 0:17:13.844
<v Speaker 1>seventy five percent, as we know, is not one hundred percent,

0:17:14.564 --> 0:17:17.764
<v Speaker 1>as we very well know. So he but let's assume

0:17:17.804 --> 0:17:21.764
<v Speaker 1>he gets elected. It's going to also be a very

0:17:21.764 --> 0:17:25.684
<v Speaker 1>interesting shift where kind of candidates like Mom Dannie have been,

0:17:26.004 --> 0:17:28.044
<v Speaker 1>you know, the underdog right, and it's been kind of

0:17:28.084 --> 0:17:31.204
<v Speaker 1>the the underdog story of someone who is kind of

0:17:31.724 --> 0:17:35.164
<v Speaker 1>young and kind of more radical and has those ideas

0:17:35.484 --> 0:17:38.524
<v Speaker 1>and wins despite the odds. Now, what happens when you

0:17:38.604 --> 0:17:43.244
<v Speaker 1>become the establishment right like that that underdog story shifts

0:17:43.444 --> 0:17:47.164
<v Speaker 1>your incentives. We were talking just now in poker about incentives.

0:17:47.204 --> 0:17:51.684
<v Speaker 1>Incentives matter in everything. Your incentives shift, right, the things

0:17:51.724 --> 0:17:55.124
<v Speaker 1>that you were able to promise suddenly you have to

0:17:55.164 --> 0:17:58.404
<v Speaker 1>make coalitions with other you know, with lobbyists, with other

0:17:58.484 --> 0:18:01.644
<v Speaker 1>ruling factions, with you know, you need to face the

0:18:01.644 --> 0:18:04.764
<v Speaker 1>realities of power. And so it's much easier to kind

0:18:04.804 --> 0:18:08.564
<v Speaker 1>of be the idealist before you get elected. And once

0:18:08.644 --> 0:18:13.484
<v Speaker 1>you're once you the establishment, that changes and you change.

0:18:13.604 --> 0:18:16.604
<v Speaker 1>And so I'm going to be very very curious to

0:18:16.644 --> 0:18:20.164
<v Speaker 1>see what happens and how that story kind of ends

0:18:20.244 --> 0:18:22.964
<v Speaker 1>up shifting, and then what happens to the supporters kind

0:18:23.004 --> 0:18:25.044
<v Speaker 1>of what all the downstream effects are going.

0:18:24.844 --> 0:18:27.164
<v Speaker 2>To be Yeah, you're registered in Nevada. Now I am, Yeah,

0:18:27.164 --> 0:18:27.644
<v Speaker 2>I'm in New York.

0:18:27.724 --> 0:18:30.484
<v Speaker 3>This is the rarer time when I have a general

0:18:30.524 --> 0:18:34.444
<v Speaker 3>election vote in New York that could plausibly matter. And

0:18:34.884 --> 0:18:37.324
<v Speaker 3>you know, people like me who might be kind of

0:18:37.364 --> 0:18:40.204
<v Speaker 3>on vaguely the center of the culturally center left and

0:18:40.284 --> 0:18:44.644
<v Speaker 3>economically centered something right, A lot of people are are

0:18:45.644 --> 0:18:48.364
<v Speaker 3>concerned about him, but like, to me, it's a bit

0:18:48.444 --> 0:18:52.124
<v Speaker 3>like if you're picking a founder for a startup, right,

0:18:52.124 --> 0:18:57.444
<v Speaker 3>you're kind of going more off like the rod intelligence

0:18:57.484 --> 0:19:00.804
<v Speaker 3>and talent and work ethic, maybe more than like the

0:19:00.804 --> 0:19:04.204
<v Speaker 3>particular program or platform, right, or at least it's kind

0:19:04.204 --> 0:19:06.924
<v Speaker 3>of like what I'm telling myself potentially, And the fact

0:19:06.924 --> 0:19:10.364
<v Speaker 3>that he's a lot of dexterity in talking about policy, right,

0:19:10.404 --> 0:19:12.484
<v Speaker 3>He went on, like the Odds odd Lots podcast, which

0:19:12.484 --> 0:19:15.404
<v Speaker 3>is Joe Wisenthal and Tracy Alloway, which is kind of

0:19:15.404 --> 0:19:17.724
<v Speaker 3>in the same family as Risky Business, right, and like

0:19:18.244 --> 0:19:22.404
<v Speaker 3>talking a lot of wankery about policy and things like that, Right,

0:19:22.444 --> 0:19:26.804
<v Speaker 3>And like I like politicians who who are elected officials

0:19:27.124 --> 0:19:28.644
<v Speaker 3>and are responsive to.

0:19:28.644 --> 0:19:30.244
<v Speaker 2>Some degree to fulblic opinion.

0:19:30.244 --> 0:19:33.204
<v Speaker 3>I think it's how democracy should should function, right, and

0:19:33.244 --> 0:19:35.204
<v Speaker 3>he can say here are my priors. I'll stay for

0:19:35.244 --> 0:19:37.924
<v Speaker 3>the working class. I don't like capitalism all that much. Right,

0:19:37.964 --> 0:19:40.324
<v Speaker 3>but he's not proposing anything too radical and like and

0:19:40.364 --> 0:19:43.604
<v Speaker 3>it's not angry. You know, Bernie Sanders understood that.

0:19:43.844 --> 0:19:44.044
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:19:45.084 --> 0:19:47.604
<v Speaker 3>The one moment when the Sanders campaign got a little

0:19:47.604 --> 0:19:50.764
<v Speaker 3>bit angry was toward toward twenty twenty when they won

0:19:50.804 --> 0:19:53.164
<v Speaker 3>the first couple of primaries and they were instead of

0:19:53.644 --> 0:19:55.604
<v Speaker 3>bending the knee to the Timparty Party. Remember going to

0:19:55.604 --> 0:19:58.964
<v Speaker 3>a rally in Nevada, Bernie wound up winning basically three

0:19:58.964 --> 0:20:01.444
<v Speaker 3>states in a row. Iowa was disputed between him and

0:20:01.524 --> 0:20:03.644
<v Speaker 3>their pete, So we won't get into that, right, but

0:20:03.684 --> 0:20:06.524
<v Speaker 3>two and a half out of three, right, and he

0:20:06.564 --> 0:20:10.044
<v Speaker 3>gave species that were like, yeah, well screwed you Democrats establishment,

0:20:10.124 --> 0:20:12.684
<v Speaker 3>right now, you have to kiss my ring. And there

0:20:12.724 --> 0:20:14.444
<v Speaker 3>they still had leverage, right, they still had leverage. They

0:20:14.484 --> 0:20:16.804
<v Speaker 3>had the leverage to have Jim Clyburn and Amy club

0:20:16.884 --> 0:20:19.884
<v Speaker 3>Ashar Mayor Repete everybody else rally behind.

0:20:19.724 --> 0:20:22.284
<v Speaker 2>Joe Biden successfully for one term.

0:20:22.364 --> 0:20:23.644
<v Speaker 3>You know, whether that was a good decision of a

0:20:23.644 --> 0:20:25.884
<v Speaker 3>long run or not, we'll be I think debated, but like,

0:20:26.124 --> 0:20:27.564
<v Speaker 3>but yeah, you don't want to like rub it in

0:20:27.604 --> 0:20:30.764
<v Speaker 3>someone's face when they still have chips on the table,

0:20:30.804 --> 0:20:32.924
<v Speaker 3>so to speak, and so and so, you know, it

0:20:32.924 --> 0:20:36.724
<v Speaker 3>would behooves around to understand there's still a losible. We're

0:20:36.724 --> 0:20:39.164
<v Speaker 3>gona talk about what these probabilities mean. Twenty five percent

0:20:39.324 --> 0:20:42.564
<v Speaker 3>is a real possibility of losing, right, and so he

0:20:42.604 --> 0:20:45.964
<v Speaker 3>would be mindful to to keep up the strategy that

0:20:46.004 --> 0:20:47.524
<v Speaker 3>he had in the in the in the.

0:20:47.444 --> 0:20:52.044
<v Speaker 1>Primary, and uh mindful to h if he gets selected

0:20:52.604 --> 0:20:57.044
<v Speaker 1>to try to uh keep up the same strategy if

0:20:57.044 --> 0:20:57.284
<v Speaker 1>you want.

0:20:57.324 --> 0:20:59.724
<v Speaker 3>It's a really it's a really hard it's hard. It's

0:20:59.764 --> 0:21:00.564
<v Speaker 3>a really hard job.

0:21:00.684 --> 0:21:01.964
<v Speaker 1>It is it's an incredibly hard job.

0:21:02.004 --> 0:21:03.724
<v Speaker 3>You can probably do better than narrow dams, right, But

0:21:03.764 --> 0:21:05.004
<v Speaker 3>it's a it's a that's.

0:21:04.804 --> 0:21:08.204
<v Speaker 1>A it's it is. It's it is an incredibly hard job.

0:21:08.204 --> 0:21:11.484
<v Speaker 1>And I think we do need to remember that. Nate,

0:21:11.484 --> 0:21:13.644
<v Speaker 1>Do you have any other kind of final thoughts on

0:21:13.644 --> 0:21:16.324
<v Speaker 1>the election or should we talk probabilities more generally?

0:21:16.484 --> 0:21:18.124
<v Speaker 3>No, again, I kind of said at the top, I

0:21:18.204 --> 0:21:20.764
<v Speaker 3>do think that like the fact that Cuomo called in

0:21:20.924 --> 0:21:23.644
<v Speaker 3>all the cavalry right, he called him to Clinton to

0:21:23.724 --> 0:21:25.484
<v Speaker 3>endorse him. He called him like a Bloomberg called him

0:21:25.524 --> 0:21:29.804
<v Speaker 3>Jim Clyburn. Every black group, Jewish group, Italian group, got

0:21:29.844 --> 0:21:33.524
<v Speaker 3>all the ethnic groups in New York, right, lots and

0:21:33.564 --> 0:21:35.444
<v Speaker 3>lots and lots of unions, right, And that's how you

0:21:35.524 --> 0:21:38.084
<v Speaker 3>used to win in machine cities, machine states, that's how

0:21:38.084 --> 0:21:39.004
<v Speaker 3>you win elections.

0:21:39.044 --> 0:21:41.324
<v Speaker 2>And like and like Cuomo, Cuomo.

0:21:41.084 --> 0:21:44.364
<v Speaker 3>Kind of actually got the numbers that ordinarily would win

0:21:44.404 --> 0:21:47.684
<v Speaker 3>a New York mayoral race, right since two thousand and one,

0:21:48.044 --> 0:21:51.724
<v Speaker 3>he's the second highest total of votes. But like Mom, Donnie,

0:21:51.924 --> 0:21:56.164
<v Speaker 3>reached into new parts of the electorate, not totally new.

0:21:56.204 --> 0:21:59.484
<v Speaker 3>These are people who vote in presidential primaries and things

0:21:59.524 --> 0:22:02.044
<v Speaker 3>like that. But this is the case where it turnout

0:22:02.044 --> 0:22:05.844
<v Speaker 3>did matter quite a bit in a race where maybe

0:22:05.924 --> 0:22:07.684
<v Speaker 3>a third of Democrats turn out if you're lucky, maybe

0:22:07.684 --> 0:22:11.804
<v Speaker 3>twenty five percent. Then and getting people excited, being I mean,

0:22:11.884 --> 0:22:16.364
<v Speaker 3>being interesting. So many politicians are either psychopaths or boring, right,

0:22:16.764 --> 0:22:19.524
<v Speaker 3>like ninety four of one hundred US Saturday either psychopaths,

0:22:19.764 --> 0:22:20.804
<v Speaker 3>boring or both.

0:22:21.124 --> 0:22:23.924
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah, no, And a lot a lot can be

0:22:23.924 --> 0:22:29.084
<v Speaker 1>said for being nice and having energy and actually being

0:22:29.124 --> 0:22:31.244
<v Speaker 1>excited about the job you're going to do, even though

0:22:31.244 --> 0:22:33.804
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be a really really hard job, and

0:22:33.884 --> 0:22:35.924
<v Speaker 1>I think that's tough, right to show up every day

0:22:35.964 --> 0:22:38.724
<v Speaker 1>with that kind of energy. I mean, how many of

0:22:38.764 --> 0:22:42.844
<v Speaker 1>you can walk the entire length of Manhattan and tape

0:22:42.844 --> 0:22:45.364
<v Speaker 1>however many podcasts and I get.

0:22:45.924 --> 0:22:48.364
<v Speaker 2>Not in a suit though I'm a sweater, not in

0:22:48.404 --> 0:22:49.124
<v Speaker 2>a suit.

0:22:50.604 --> 0:22:51.684
<v Speaker 1>I can do it in high heels.

0:22:51.684 --> 0:22:56.644
<v Speaker 4>Now, I kid, you're.

0:22:56.524 --> 0:22:58.444
<v Speaker 2>Gonna hear a quick break and then we'll be back.

0:23:07.244 --> 0:23:10.924
<v Speaker 1>We want to play a little game with you about probabilities.

0:23:10.924 --> 0:23:13.804
<v Speaker 1>We'll play it with each other first, but then we're

0:23:13.844 --> 0:23:17.084
<v Speaker 1>going to involve you. It's a game called how likely

0:23:17.164 --> 0:23:21.924
<v Speaker 1>is it? So how likely are certain probabilities? So let's

0:23:21.924 --> 0:23:24.364
<v Speaker 1>give you just a little bit of context behind this.

0:23:25.564 --> 0:23:29.164
<v Speaker 1>So back in nineteen fifty one March of nineteen fifty one,

0:23:29.844 --> 0:23:32.444
<v Speaker 1>there was a CIA analyst whose name was Sherman Kent,

0:23:33.124 --> 0:23:36.244
<v Speaker 1>and he filed a report on the probability of an

0:23:36.284 --> 0:23:40.444
<v Speaker 1>invasion by of Yugoslavia in the year nineteen fifty one.

0:23:40.564 --> 0:23:44.364
<v Speaker 1>We all know how that turned out. So how probable

0:23:44.444 --> 0:23:47.724
<v Speaker 1>is it that the USSR is going to invade? And

0:23:48.084 --> 0:23:51.044
<v Speaker 1>he concluded in his report that it was a quote

0:23:51.564 --> 0:23:57.964
<v Speaker 1>serious possibility. So what did he mean by serious possibility?

0:23:58.164 --> 0:24:01.684
<v Speaker 1>In retrospect. When he explained this, he thought it meant well,

0:24:01.724 --> 0:24:03.404
<v Speaker 1>first of all, just think in your heads what you

0:24:03.444 --> 0:24:05.724
<v Speaker 1>think it means, Nate, what do you think it mean?

0:24:05.924 --> 0:24:08.924
<v Speaker 1>Just you don't have to answer, Okay, So he thought

0:24:08.964 --> 0:24:13.924
<v Speaker 1>it meant sixty five percent or higher. So, right, more

0:24:13.964 --> 0:24:18.164
<v Speaker 1>than sixty five percent. Unfortunately, the person to whom he

0:24:18.244 --> 0:24:21.204
<v Speaker 1>conveyed his report and his findings, who was a chairman

0:24:21.244 --> 0:24:26.324
<v Speaker 1>of the policy Planning initiative, they had understood him to

0:24:26.444 --> 0:24:29.724
<v Speaker 1>mean that it was a lot lower than that. So

0:24:29.844 --> 0:24:33.124
<v Speaker 1>in their minds, serious possibility was like, oh, twenty percent

0:24:33.484 --> 0:24:37.524
<v Speaker 1>or maybe like a range from twenty to seventy eighty percent,

0:24:37.604 --> 0:24:40.724
<v Speaker 1>certainly not sixty five percent or higher. So there was

0:24:40.804 --> 0:24:47.964
<v Speaker 1>a huge miscommunication which resulted in massive policy missteps. Right,

0:24:48.444 --> 0:24:53.324
<v Speaker 1>just because how serious a serious possibility was was not Well.

0:24:53.244 --> 0:24:56.044
<v Speaker 3>People are there were number match totobic right, you know

0:24:56.204 --> 0:24:58.524
<v Speaker 3>at former thirty eight, no silver bulletin. Right, we have

0:24:58.524 --> 0:25:02.204
<v Speaker 3>an election model where we give you know, a probability

0:25:02.244 --> 0:25:06.204
<v Speaker 3>is fundamentally defined, is a number between zero percent and

0:25:06.244 --> 0:25:07.084
<v Speaker 3>one hundred percent.

0:25:07.204 --> 0:25:09.124
<v Speaker 2>Right, And a lot of times.

0:25:08.924 --> 0:25:12.444
<v Speaker 3>People use weaseled They're like, well, Nicklint, you had Hillary

0:25:12.484 --> 0:25:13.564
<v Speaker 3>Clinton with a seventy one.

0:25:13.404 --> 0:25:15.484
<v Speaker 2>Percent chance of winning the election. So you were wrong.

0:25:15.764 --> 0:25:18.204
<v Speaker 3>We have the semantics of that, right, But like, but

0:25:18.404 --> 0:25:19.964
<v Speaker 3>you know, but you put a number there and people

0:25:19.964 --> 0:25:22.804
<v Speaker 3>think it's like, you know, understand that that represents it

0:25:22.804 --> 0:25:26.964
<v Speaker 3>bakes in the uncertainty in the model, the uncertainty in

0:25:27.004 --> 0:25:27.604
<v Speaker 3>the real world.

0:25:27.684 --> 0:25:27.764
<v Speaker 1>Right.

0:25:27.844 --> 0:25:29.204
<v Speaker 3>If I were to say, I think, by the way,

0:25:29.484 --> 0:25:32.844
<v Speaker 3>serious possibility to me implies like twenty percent. Right, if

0:25:32.884 --> 0:25:35.324
<v Speaker 3>I said that there's still a serious possibility Zaron could

0:25:35.364 --> 0:25:38.924
<v Speaker 3>lose a general election, right, because you're not saying probability,

0:25:39.324 --> 0:25:41.524
<v Speaker 3>You're saying, like, take this seriously, twenty.

0:25:41.444 --> 0:25:44.164
<v Speaker 1>Twenty se Yeah, Well, when you put it in that context, right,

0:25:44.204 --> 0:25:48.684
<v Speaker 1>a serious possibility that Zar loses the election twenty five percent? Right, Now,

0:25:48.884 --> 0:25:53.044
<v Speaker 1>that sentence makes sense, which is why So when I

0:25:53.164 --> 0:25:57.044
<v Speaker 1>was a grad student and studying decision making, one of

0:25:57.044 --> 0:25:58.684
<v Speaker 1>the things that we talked about was how do you

0:25:58.724 --> 0:26:02.444
<v Speaker 1>communicate risk? Right? How do you communicate probabilities to people?

0:26:02.964 --> 0:26:07.004
<v Speaker 1>And it's really really hard, and it's hard in all

0:26:07.044 --> 0:26:10.324
<v Speaker 1>sorts of context. Right, how do you communicate probabilities when

0:26:10.324 --> 0:26:13.364
<v Speaker 1>it comes to things like global warming, right, or or

0:26:13.404 --> 0:26:16.924
<v Speaker 1>elections or something like that, And people just do not

0:26:17.284 --> 0:26:21.084
<v Speaker 1>understand probabilistic thinking. As we've talked about on the show

0:26:21.124 --> 0:26:25.284
<v Speaker 1>many many times, our brains just suck at probabilities and

0:26:25.284 --> 0:26:27.364
<v Speaker 1>at what they mean. Just by the way, why poker

0:26:27.924 --> 0:26:30.564
<v Speaker 1>is so good because it actually forces you to learn

0:26:30.604 --> 0:26:34.764
<v Speaker 1>what probability feels like viscerally, which is how the brain

0:26:34.964 --> 0:26:38.444
<v Speaker 1>learns the best. You know, I, for instance, you know

0:26:38.444 --> 0:26:41.084
<v Speaker 1>no bad beat stories on the podcast or in real life,

0:26:41.324 --> 0:26:44.564
<v Speaker 1>but I know how it feels to lose on day

0:26:44.604 --> 0:26:46.564
<v Speaker 1>four of the main event of the World Series as

0:26:46.564 --> 0:26:49.324
<v Speaker 1>a ninety eight point six percent favorite in a multi

0:26:49.364 --> 0:26:52.964
<v Speaker 1>millionship pot. It happens, right, It feels like it shouldn't

0:26:52.964 --> 0:26:54.964
<v Speaker 1>because ninety eight point six percent feels like it should

0:26:54.964 --> 0:26:59.204
<v Speaker 1>be one hundred percent. But it's not. Probabilities matter, and

0:26:59.284 --> 0:27:02.604
<v Speaker 1>we're so so bad at them. And yet something that

0:27:02.644 --> 0:27:06.164
<v Speaker 1>you just said, Nate, which is absolutely crucial, is that

0:27:06.204 --> 0:27:09.004
<v Speaker 1>we're number phobic. When you tell people, you know what,

0:27:09.044 --> 0:27:13.484
<v Speaker 1>the best way to communicate probability is, state the probability.

0:27:13.924 --> 0:27:16.804
<v Speaker 1>State the damn thing. Put a number on it. Actually

0:27:16.924 --> 0:27:20.204
<v Speaker 1>say you know it's I think the probability is between

0:27:20.684 --> 0:27:23.924
<v Speaker 1>ten percent and fifteen percent, and I am seventy five

0:27:23.964 --> 0:27:26.404
<v Speaker 1>percent sure In this estimate.

0:27:26.484 --> 0:27:30.244
<v Speaker 3>Rights, be explicit about the language that you're using it.

0:27:30.364 --> 0:27:33.644
<v Speaker 3>I believe the IPCC the Global Climate reports. Right, they

0:27:33.684 --> 0:27:36.604
<v Speaker 3>will use language like very likely a lot. But in

0:27:36.644 --> 0:27:38.764
<v Speaker 3>the appendix you look it up and they say very

0:27:38.844 --> 0:27:41.244
<v Speaker 3>likely means whatever it is ninety five percent or higher?

0:27:41.324 --> 0:27:41.884
<v Speaker 2>Right, nay?

0:27:42.004 --> 0:27:45.164
<v Speaker 1>How many people reading the report then go to the appendix.

0:27:44.684 --> 0:27:49.124
<v Speaker 3>To see see s report. My whole family once gave

0:27:49.164 --> 0:27:51.364
<v Speaker 3>each other the Iraq Study Group report for like Christmas

0:27:51.484 --> 0:27:53.524
<v Speaker 3>or something. It's that kind of that kind of family.

0:27:54.884 --> 0:27:58.444
<v Speaker 3>But no, but and then you know, look house this year,

0:28:00.244 --> 0:28:03.164
<v Speaker 3>but no, look uh, because the apsode is people use

0:28:03.164 --> 0:28:07.044
<v Speaker 3>this as weasel words. Right, They're intentionally ambiguous to say

0:28:07.124 --> 0:28:09.324
<v Speaker 3>later on, no, I was right, I was wrong, right,

0:28:09.764 --> 0:28:10.404
<v Speaker 3>which is lame.

0:28:10.484 --> 0:28:10.604
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:28:10.604 --> 0:28:13.324
<v Speaker 3>People don't get any better unless they feel the pain of,

0:28:13.404 --> 0:28:16.724
<v Speaker 3>like of putting something which is in the public record

0:28:16.764 --> 0:28:18.284
<v Speaker 3>and is accountable to some degree.

0:28:18.324 --> 0:28:19.084
<v Speaker 2>Obviously, you need like.

0:28:19.124 --> 0:28:21.324
<v Speaker 3>A large sample of predictions to be able to evaluate,

0:28:21.564 --> 0:28:24.764
<v Speaker 3>you know, do do of your seventy percent probabilities? Do

0:28:24.804 --> 0:28:27.284
<v Speaker 3>seven out of ten come true in the long run? Right,

0:28:28.124 --> 0:28:29.724
<v Speaker 3>But you want to play a little bit of the

0:28:29.764 --> 0:28:31.084
<v Speaker 3>game here, how likely is it?

0:28:31.324 --> 0:28:34.764
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, let's absolutely do it? So the way that this

0:28:34.844 --> 0:28:37.364
<v Speaker 1>game is going to work at first is I am

0:28:37.444 --> 0:28:41.044
<v Speaker 1>going to tell you a phrase, Nate, and then you

0:28:41.084 --> 0:28:44.964
<v Speaker 1>will tell me what percent probability you think that that

0:28:45.004 --> 0:28:48.124
<v Speaker 1>phrase represents, and then I'll think of my answer as well,

0:28:48.364 --> 0:28:51.164
<v Speaker 1>and if you guys want to play along, feel free

0:28:51.164 --> 0:28:54.884
<v Speaker 1>to think of yours. All right, So if I tell

0:28:54.924 --> 0:28:58.684
<v Speaker 1>you almost certainly, what are you thinking?

0:28:59.684 --> 0:29:01.564
<v Speaker 2>Ninety five percent plus?

0:29:01.884 --> 0:29:04.764
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so almost certainly ninety five percent plus. I was

0:29:04.804 --> 0:29:07.284
<v Speaker 1>actually going to go a little bit lower and say

0:29:07.404 --> 0:29:11.284
<v Speaker 1>ninety percent plus, just knowing that in this world basically

0:29:11.324 --> 0:29:14.964
<v Speaker 1>nothing is certain. And if we're at above ninety percent probability,

0:29:15.084 --> 0:29:17.804
<v Speaker 1>like holy shit. You know, as a gambler or as

0:29:17.804 --> 0:29:19.524
<v Speaker 1>an investor, if I told you that you had an

0:29:19.564 --> 0:29:23.444
<v Speaker 1>investment that had a ninety percent probability of succeeding, how

0:29:23.444 --> 0:29:25.964
<v Speaker 1>many of you would take that investment? And I hope,

0:29:26.244 --> 0:29:29.284
<v Speaker 1>I hope most of you. But and if I told

0:29:29.364 --> 0:29:31.124
<v Speaker 1>you that you could take a gamble with a ninety

0:29:31.124 --> 0:29:33.724
<v Speaker 1>percent probability of success.

0:29:33.644 --> 0:29:35.364
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, people are there gambling, right.

0:29:35.564 --> 0:29:36.924
<v Speaker 3>I mean, you'll learn in poke if you can get

0:29:36.964 --> 0:29:41.204
<v Speaker 3>like a fifty four percent edge, yeah, it's pretty good.

0:29:41.044 --> 0:29:44.564
<v Speaker 1>It's amazing. But I'm not saying that that means almost certain,

0:29:44.804 --> 0:29:48.564
<v Speaker 1>but to me, like above ninety percent, given how much

0:29:48.644 --> 0:29:51.924
<v Speaker 1>uncertainty and ambiguity there are in the world, so those

0:29:51.924 --> 0:29:54.924
<v Speaker 1>are two different things, right. Uncertainty is we're not quite

0:29:54.924 --> 0:29:57.684
<v Speaker 1>sure what the probabilities are. Ambiguity is we're not even

0:29:57.724 --> 0:29:59.764
<v Speaker 1>quite sure kind of what the factors are. We're not

0:29:59.804 --> 0:30:02.524
<v Speaker 1>sure if our model is one hundred percent correct and

0:30:02.644 --> 0:30:05.204
<v Speaker 1>is accounting for everything. So given all of that, I

0:30:05.204 --> 0:30:09.404
<v Speaker 1>would actually say, like above ninety percent would be almost certainly.

0:30:09.524 --> 0:30:11.924
<v Speaker 1>Do you I don't know if that makes you rethink

0:30:11.964 --> 0:30:12.684
<v Speaker 1>your answer or not.

0:30:12.804 --> 0:30:15.164
<v Speaker 3>You know, I watched en f NBA playoff games where

0:30:15.204 --> 0:30:17.844
<v Speaker 3>teams blue seventeen point leads and things like that in

0:30:17.884 --> 0:30:20.084
<v Speaker 3>the fourth quarter, So like, I'm feeling I want the

0:30:20.084 --> 0:30:21.324
<v Speaker 3>security of ninety five percent.

0:30:21.404 --> 0:30:23.044
<v Speaker 1>All right, you want the security of.

0:30:23.044 --> 0:30:25.044
<v Speaker 3>After playing poker for a few weeks. Yeah, We're nothing

0:30:25.044 --> 0:30:26.844
<v Speaker 3>is certain that I'm like, I want my almost certainly

0:30:26.884 --> 0:30:28.124
<v Speaker 3>s at ninety five Right.

0:30:28.124 --> 0:30:30.524
<v Speaker 1>That makes that makes sense? So what would you would

0:30:30.564 --> 0:30:33.404
<v Speaker 1>you actually like what would you say for like a

0:30:33.524 --> 0:30:36.044
<v Speaker 1>ninety plus or an eight? Is there something that you

0:30:36.564 --> 0:30:40.444
<v Speaker 1>is there a phrase that you would think more accurately.

0:30:39.884 --> 0:30:42.124
<v Speaker 2>Represents that very likely highly likely.

0:30:42.764 --> 0:30:45.124
<v Speaker 1>Huh interesting because I would think that very likely would

0:30:45.124 --> 0:30:48.204
<v Speaker 1>be below ninety percent. See, this is this is how,

0:30:48.324 --> 0:30:50.164
<v Speaker 1>this is why this is ambiguous.

0:30:50.404 --> 0:30:50.764
<v Speaker 2>All right?

0:30:51.204 --> 0:30:54.004
<v Speaker 1>So I am going to give you another phrase. If

0:30:54.044 --> 0:30:58.284
<v Speaker 1>I said that something was unlikely to happen.

0:30:58.204 --> 0:31:01.524
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I'd say unlikely or for that matter of the counterpart.

0:31:02.284 --> 0:31:05.204
<v Speaker 3>Likely is one of the worst and most ambiguous terms

0:31:05.204 --> 0:31:07.844
<v Speaker 3>to use in that context, right, because literally it can

0:31:07.924 --> 0:31:10.124
<v Speaker 3>mean depending on the context. Anythink from like zero point

0:31:10.204 --> 0:31:13.684
<v Speaker 3>zero zero zero percent one percent zero zero zero one

0:31:13.724 --> 0:31:15.404
<v Speaker 3>to like forty nine percent.

0:31:15.524 --> 0:31:16.924
<v Speaker 2>Right, it's very ambiguous.

0:31:16.964 --> 0:31:19.644
<v Speaker 3>I would tend to think unlikely means twenty five or

0:31:19.644 --> 0:31:22.044
<v Speaker 3>thirty percent, somewhere in the middle of the below fifty

0:31:22.044 --> 0:31:22.604
<v Speaker 3>percent range.

0:31:22.604 --> 0:31:24.244
<v Speaker 2>What about you, Yeah, I was.

0:31:24.164 --> 0:31:27.604
<v Speaker 1>Going to be at around twenty five percent or below. Right,

0:31:27.684 --> 0:31:30.004
<v Speaker 1>Any of that is unlikely, and you know, we can

0:31:30.404 --> 0:31:33.484
<v Speaker 1>start we can start kind of playing around with it

0:31:33.524 --> 0:31:36.124
<v Speaker 1>a little bit with adjectives. But I totally agree with

0:31:36.164 --> 0:31:39.044
<v Speaker 1>you that likely. What about likely? By the way, would

0:31:39.164 --> 0:31:43.764
<v Speaker 1>would you say likely is above above what percentage is likely?

0:31:44.124 --> 0:31:44.924
<v Speaker 1>Is it above fifty?

0:31:44.964 --> 0:31:47.164
<v Speaker 3>If feel like you're a little asymmetric like likely, I

0:31:47.164 --> 0:31:49.524
<v Speaker 3>think you have to be sixty or so.

0:31:49.724 --> 0:31:51.964
<v Speaker 2>Right, Yeah, it is.

0:31:51.924 --> 0:31:55.404
<v Speaker 3>Asymmetric, possible or probable. These ones are pretty bad, right,

0:31:56.644 --> 0:31:57.244
<v Speaker 3>You want to do one more?

0:31:57.724 --> 0:32:00.724
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, let me let's do it all right? So, how

0:32:00.724 --> 0:32:03.564
<v Speaker 1>about if I actually add an adjective to unlikely and

0:32:03.604 --> 0:32:07.724
<v Speaker 1>say highly unlikely. Now, what are we talking now?

0:32:07.884 --> 0:32:09.924
<v Speaker 3>Ten percent or below? I think it's kind of the

0:32:09.924 --> 0:32:11.644
<v Speaker 3>counterpart to I don't know why. I think it's in

0:32:11.724 --> 0:32:13.284
<v Speaker 3>percent of blowing. There was like ninety five percent.

0:32:13.524 --> 0:32:15.684
<v Speaker 1>I was about to say, why they asymmetry, so you said,

0:32:15.804 --> 0:32:18.644
<v Speaker 1>you know, the just highly likely was ninety five I

0:32:18.644 --> 0:32:19.164
<v Speaker 1>have still.

0:32:18.964 --> 0:32:21.484
<v Speaker 3>A large language model teasing out implicit contexts from the

0:32:21.524 --> 0:32:23.724
<v Speaker 3>way these phrases are used in the real world.

0:32:24.164 --> 0:32:25.764
<v Speaker 2>I don't know what checchiput would say.

0:32:26.564 --> 0:32:32.524
<v Speaker 1>So highly unlikely, I would say it is interesting because

0:32:32.564 --> 0:32:34.564
<v Speaker 1>I might actually be lower than you. I might say,

0:32:34.644 --> 0:32:37.764
<v Speaker 1>like below if it's highly unlikely, like below five percent,

0:32:37.924 --> 0:32:41.844
<v Speaker 1>Like it's just you're telling me that it's almost certainly

0:32:42.004 --> 0:32:45.684
<v Speaker 1>not going to happen to me. Right, that like highly

0:32:45.764 --> 0:32:49.244
<v Speaker 1>unlikely and almost certainly kind of go hand in hand.

0:32:50.364 --> 0:32:53.604
<v Speaker 1>But let's if you actually kind of go out in

0:32:53.764 --> 0:32:59.044
<v Speaker 1>context a little bit with that. Think about weather reports,

0:32:59.084 --> 0:33:02.644
<v Speaker 1>which is something where we experience kind of that's one

0:33:02.684 --> 0:33:05.044
<v Speaker 1>of these things where we do get probabilities, where we

0:33:05.124 --> 0:33:10.724
<v Speaker 1>do get percentages, and we experience those on a daily basis. Right, you,

0:33:11.244 --> 0:33:13.844
<v Speaker 1>what what is your threshold, Nate for bringing an umbrella?

0:33:14.324 --> 0:33:14.364
<v Speaker 5>Like?

0:33:14.524 --> 0:33:16.524
<v Speaker 1>What's your an umbrella?

0:33:16.564 --> 0:33:17.364
<v Speaker 2>I find umbrella?

0:33:17.884 --> 0:33:20.684
<v Speaker 1>Okay, that was about this is true?

0:33:20.724 --> 0:33:22.604
<v Speaker 2>Why is umbrella technology not improved more?

0:33:23.644 --> 0:33:26.204
<v Speaker 1>Nate and I have walked together in New York City

0:33:26.604 --> 0:33:29.724
<v Speaker 1>rainstorms where I'm like, do you want to share my umbrella?

0:33:29.764 --> 0:33:33.444
<v Speaker 1>He's like, I got my baseball cap. I'm good. But

0:33:34.044 --> 0:33:36.804
<v Speaker 1>but you know, for people who are not like you

0:33:36.924 --> 0:33:39.684
<v Speaker 1>and who actually care about rain, like, what's your threshold

0:33:39.764 --> 0:33:42.524
<v Speaker 1>for bringing an umbrella? Like for me, if it's like

0:33:42.644 --> 0:33:44.564
<v Speaker 1>fifty percent chance of rain, I'm probably not going to

0:33:44.644 --> 0:33:47.044
<v Speaker 1>bring it. You know, if it's like above sixty, I'll

0:33:47.044 --> 0:33:50.164
<v Speaker 1>probably probably bring an umbrella. You know, it just it

0:33:50.324 --> 0:33:52.484
<v Speaker 1>really just depends on what I'm doing. And so you

0:33:53.044 --> 0:33:55.844
<v Speaker 1>know that's but you think about those days when it

0:33:55.964 --> 0:33:58.124
<v Speaker 1>was ninety percent chance of rain and it didn't rain.

0:33:58.324 --> 0:33:59.764
<v Speaker 2>Okay's great, let's get the audience.

0:34:01.844 --> 0:34:04.284
<v Speaker 1>Let's do it all right, one last one. We're going

0:34:04.364 --> 0:34:05.844
<v Speaker 1>to do it with you guys, and I'm gonna So

0:34:05.924 --> 0:34:07.484
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to ask you to raise your hands.

0:34:07.764 --> 0:34:13.084
<v Speaker 3>So if I say something is possible, that's a secret password, right, yeah, possible,

0:34:13.644 --> 0:34:15.844
<v Speaker 3>and you have to take one of the following ranges

0:34:16.524 --> 0:34:18.404
<v Speaker 3>zero twenty five percent, twenty about to fifty fifteen, seventy

0:34:18.404 --> 0:34:20.364
<v Speaker 3>five pcent five one hundred. Right, if I have something

0:34:20.484 --> 0:34:22.604
<v Speaker 3>is possible, raise your hand. If you interpret that as

0:34:22.684 --> 0:34:26.724
<v Speaker 3>zero to twenty five percent, okay, we have about a

0:34:26.804 --> 0:34:28.844
<v Speaker 3>quarter about z you're just twenty percent the hands up

0:34:28.844 --> 0:34:31.404
<v Speaker 3>in the audience, right, yeah, quite a few hands. I

0:34:31.444 --> 0:34:35.684
<v Speaker 3>will say twenty five to fifty percent a little bit more,

0:34:35.844 --> 0:34:36.724
<v Speaker 3>kind of solid.

0:34:36.484 --> 0:34:39.084
<v Speaker 1>It's kind of similar, but probably a little more. Okay,

0:34:39.164 --> 0:34:42.124
<v Speaker 1>how about fifty to seventy five and.

0:34:42.244 --> 0:34:44.604
<v Speaker 3>There are a handful of hands hands possible, that could

0:34:44.644 --> 0:34:48.004
<v Speaker 3>be And how about seventy five percent or more one day?

0:34:48.684 --> 0:34:50.844
<v Speaker 3>So the way to average is like thirty six or

0:34:50.884 --> 0:34:54.004
<v Speaker 3>something percent. We're like doing we're doing science here, yeah,

0:34:54.284 --> 0:34:57.884
<v Speaker 3>doing it on the fly. Yeah, but people think it

0:34:57.924 --> 0:35:01.604
<v Speaker 3>means anything from five percent to eighty percent, right if

0:35:01.644 --> 0:35:03.324
<v Speaker 3>you ask people to write down individual guesses so like,

0:35:03.524 --> 0:35:05.164
<v Speaker 3>so not very useful to have that, to have.

0:35:05.244 --> 0:35:07.764
<v Speaker 1>That for you. No, No, it's really not because what

0:35:07.964 --> 0:35:10.484
<v Speaker 1>you know, what do you even mean probbable likely? Like

0:35:10.964 --> 0:35:13.804
<v Speaker 1>it is? You know, it's such a hedgeword. And what

0:35:14.004 --> 0:35:16.364
<v Speaker 1>we're trying to do is actually force you to be

0:35:16.564 --> 0:35:20.964
<v Speaker 1>more precise in your probabilistic judgments, because precision matters, right,

0:35:21.124 --> 0:35:27.004
<v Speaker 1>whether it's the precision of the USSR invading Yugoslavia or

0:35:27.604 --> 0:35:31.204
<v Speaker 1>a gamble that you're taking out the poker table right out.

0:35:32.004 --> 0:35:34.444
<v Speaker 3>When it comes to like politics and things like that,

0:35:34.604 --> 0:35:38.244
<v Speaker 3>political questions, like, people are also just often interpreting stuff

0:35:38.284 --> 0:35:41.404
<v Speaker 3>in bad faith, right, Like I think that I think

0:35:41.484 --> 0:35:43.764
<v Speaker 3>that when you say there's a third chance of rain

0:35:44.284 --> 0:35:47.124
<v Speaker 3>and doesn't rain, people don't get as mad as when

0:35:47.164 --> 0:35:49.404
<v Speaker 3>there's a third chance of Donald Trump winning and he wins,

0:35:49.764 --> 0:35:52.084
<v Speaker 3>or things like that for example. But like, but you know,

0:35:52.684 --> 0:35:58.124
<v Speaker 3>politics makes people's brains misfire in various ways absolutely well.

0:35:58.204 --> 0:36:01.484
<v Speaker 1>As soon as there's personal motivation there, right, as soon

0:36:01.524 --> 0:36:03.844
<v Speaker 1>as your identity is tied up in something like politics,

0:36:04.324 --> 0:36:06.964
<v Speaker 1>all of a sudden, your ability to parse these things.

0:36:07.044 --> 0:36:09.524
<v Speaker 1>You start thinking in absolutes, which is how are our

0:36:09.564 --> 0:36:13.364
<v Speaker 1>brains are programmed to think? Right? Ninety percent basically one

0:36:13.444 --> 0:36:16.484
<v Speaker 1>hundred seventy is basically one hundred sixty five basically one

0:36:16.524 --> 0:36:17.884
<v Speaker 1>hundred thirty basically zero.

0:36:18.484 --> 0:36:20.484
<v Speaker 2>Right. We just let's at least.

0:36:20.364 --> 0:36:23.844
<v Speaker 3>Get sixty five, right, is certainly either fifty fifty zero,

0:36:23.884 --> 0:36:26.084
<v Speaker 3>one hundred. Let's at least get those middle zones right

0:36:26.164 --> 0:36:28.964
<v Speaker 3>as a stepping stone to some more PI.

0:36:29.204 --> 0:36:31.164
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and I think I think that the bottom line

0:36:31.364 --> 0:36:35.284
<v Speaker 1>is that it's very difficult to communicate probabilities in plain language,

0:36:35.604 --> 0:36:39.564
<v Speaker 1>and you do need to get people accustomed to having

0:36:40.044 --> 0:36:43.044
<v Speaker 1>numbers associated with them, and one of the best ways

0:36:43.044 --> 0:36:44.844
<v Speaker 1>of doing that is to try to figure out, Okay,

0:36:44.964 --> 0:36:48.044
<v Speaker 1>what experience can I tie that to in their life

0:36:48.124 --> 0:36:50.884
<v Speaker 1>that makes them understand what this actually means?

0:36:51.044 --> 0:36:51.164
<v Speaker 2>Right?

0:36:51.404 --> 0:36:53.004
<v Speaker 1>That percent is not zero?

0:36:53.084 --> 0:36:53.844
<v Speaker 2>I'm not way serious.

0:36:53.964 --> 0:36:56.404
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, no, teacher, kids, poker. I've actually talked about this

0:36:56.484 --> 0:36:59.124
<v Speaker 1>many times, and I actually think that that is one

0:36:59.164 --> 0:37:01.844
<v Speaker 1>of the best ways that you can combat this.

0:37:04.684 --> 0:37:06.524
<v Speaker 2>And we'll be right back after this break.

0:37:20.124 --> 0:37:21.364
<v Speaker 1>Do you want to open it up to questions?

0:37:21.404 --> 0:37:24.404
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I say it's extraordinarily likely that we're going to

0:37:24.444 --> 0:37:26.564
<v Speaker 3>open it up to Q and A at this point.

0:37:27.644 --> 0:37:30.444
<v Speaker 2>So there are mic runners. We can also point and shop,

0:37:30.484 --> 0:37:31.044
<v Speaker 2>but yeah.

0:37:30.964 --> 0:37:33.324
<v Speaker 1>Okay, yeah, there are mic runners in the audience. So

0:37:33.484 --> 0:37:35.204
<v Speaker 1>raise your hand if you have a question. Yep, there's

0:37:35.284 --> 0:37:37.284
<v Speaker 1>one coming to you. Thanks.

0:37:38.484 --> 0:37:43.164
<v Speaker 6>I studied statistics in graduate school and ended up in communications,

0:37:43.164 --> 0:37:45.004
<v Speaker 6>and I think one of the things that confounds this

0:37:45.204 --> 0:37:49.324
<v Speaker 6>problem is if somebody says to me, for example, climate

0:37:49.844 --> 0:37:54.364
<v Speaker 6>change isn't caused by us, I would say, not believing

0:37:54.484 --> 0:37:56.684
<v Speaker 6>myself that that's possible.

0:37:57.124 --> 0:37:57.844
<v Speaker 4>That's my opinion.

0:37:57.924 --> 0:38:00.964
<v Speaker 6>I know other people disagree, but in order to have

0:38:01.124 --> 0:38:04.604
<v Speaker 6>a conversation, I validate their opinion and move on. And

0:38:04.684 --> 0:38:08.164
<v Speaker 6>that's standard operating procedure when you're trying to actually change

0:38:08.244 --> 0:38:13.244
<v Speaker 6>minds of what you're saying is we're inaccurate and communicating.

0:38:12.724 --> 0:38:13.844
<v Speaker 4>The real probabilities.

0:38:14.444 --> 0:38:16.284
<v Speaker 6>But part of what's going on is that most of

0:38:16.364 --> 0:38:19.364
<v Speaker 6>the conversation is about trying to find some middle ground.

0:38:21.044 --> 0:38:24.444
<v Speaker 1>So how do you separate those two uses?

0:38:24.844 --> 0:38:26.284
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, it just and this kind of gets into the

0:38:26.324 --> 0:38:29.684
<v Speaker 3>conversation about Zoran earlier, right where he's going on podcasts

0:38:29.724 --> 0:38:31.444
<v Speaker 3>where the audience might not be favably inclined to him.

0:38:31.444 --> 0:38:33.284
<v Speaker 3>And I've done this too, Like marketing my book, I

0:38:33.324 --> 0:38:36.084
<v Speaker 3>talked to conserative audiences, liberal audiences, everything in between. Right,

0:38:36.084 --> 0:38:38.404
<v Speaker 3>And you're basically a politician, right, You're like you're trying

0:38:38.444 --> 0:38:40.604
<v Speaker 3>to code switch back and forth. You're trying to be

0:38:40.684 --> 0:38:43.244
<v Speaker 3>empathetic to your audience, You're trying to find points of

0:38:43.284 --> 0:38:46.924
<v Speaker 3>agreement in that disagreement. Maybe more politicians should take that lesson.

0:38:47.044 --> 0:38:52.844
<v Speaker 3>I mean, look, I generally think that when scientific communicators

0:38:54.404 --> 0:38:58.204
<v Speaker 3>try to like dumb things down too much, it's like

0:38:58.244 --> 0:39:01.164
<v Speaker 3>quite the right term. There's empathy, and there's there's empathy,

0:39:01.644 --> 0:39:04.324
<v Speaker 3>there's dumbing down, and there's like kind of like skipping

0:39:04.404 --> 0:39:07.724
<v Speaker 3>over the rough patches of the argument in a way.

0:39:07.764 --> 0:39:11.004
<v Speaker 3>They create like false certainty times, right, Like I generally

0:39:11.044 --> 0:39:16.124
<v Speaker 3>believe that like treat the audience as being reasonably smart

0:39:16.644 --> 0:39:19.364
<v Speaker 3>and sophisticated, right, I mean as poker players too, you know,

0:39:20.364 --> 0:39:23.764
<v Speaker 3>I think we are naturally suspicious, right, And I think

0:39:23.764 --> 0:39:27.564
<v Speaker 3>people can like people can tell I think when a

0:39:27.724 --> 0:39:32.044
<v Speaker 3>politician is being inauthentic or when they're not being kind

0:39:32.044 --> 0:39:34.844
<v Speaker 3>of communicated with fully forthrightly. Right, Like I thought this

0:39:34.924 --> 0:39:37.804
<v Speaker 3>was an issue at the beginning of the COVID pandemic.

0:39:37.884 --> 0:39:41.604
<v Speaker 3>We're changing advice about like masks and things like that, Right.

0:39:42.764 --> 0:39:46.284
<v Speaker 3>I think whenever people kind of like say, oh, the

0:39:46.324 --> 0:39:48.444
<v Speaker 3>science has settled on this question, well, on some questions,

0:39:48.444 --> 0:39:50.324
<v Speaker 3>it's settled on some questions that isn't right, and it's

0:39:50.364 --> 0:39:53.004
<v Speaker 3>like often used as a cudgel where there is genuine

0:39:53.444 --> 0:39:57.044
<v Speaker 3>uncertainty and so so yeah, I mean it's it's look,

0:39:57.204 --> 0:39:59.204
<v Speaker 3>we wrestle with this every day journalists too. But like,

0:39:59.284 --> 0:40:02.364
<v Speaker 3>I'm air more on the side of like, you know,

0:40:02.604 --> 0:40:05.484
<v Speaker 3>you can be empathetic in how you present something, and obviously,

0:40:05.484 --> 0:40:07.124
<v Speaker 3>if you're in a kind of question like not everything

0:40:07.164 --> 0:40:09.364
<v Speaker 3>you say in response, you're not going to correct any way.

0:40:09.724 --> 0:40:11.844
<v Speaker 3>Oh literally, you're wrong, you're wrong, but let me tell

0:40:11.844 --> 0:40:14.964
<v Speaker 3>you something else. Right, So I'm yeah, empathetic, but when

0:40:15.004 --> 0:40:17.404
<v Speaker 3>it official sign of a communication, I think should aim

0:40:17.444 --> 0:40:18.564
<v Speaker 3>more in the side of precision.

0:40:18.764 --> 0:40:22.004
<v Speaker 1>I think that I think that we are also not

0:40:23.324 --> 0:40:30.484
<v Speaker 1>tolerant of ambiguity. Right that it's much easier to win elections.

0:40:30.644 --> 0:40:34.044
<v Speaker 1>It's much easier to win over a crowd if you

0:40:34.244 --> 0:40:38.164
<v Speaker 1>speak in absolutes, if you speak in certainties, and the

0:40:38.284 --> 0:40:41.644
<v Speaker 1>person who says, you know, I'm really not sure about this,

0:40:42.004 --> 0:40:43.884
<v Speaker 1>you know, they're here are the pros, here are the

0:40:44.004 --> 0:40:47.284
<v Speaker 1>cons And who gives the more nuanced response is not

0:40:47.524 --> 0:40:50.644
<v Speaker 1>the person who ends up getting ahead. And so there's

0:40:50.964 --> 0:40:56.684
<v Speaker 1>a fundamental mismatch between the need to communicate ambiguity and

0:40:56.924 --> 0:40:59.124
<v Speaker 1>uncertainty and the fact that you know some things we

0:40:59.324 --> 0:41:01.724
<v Speaker 1>just don't know, and that there are these kind of

0:41:01.804 --> 0:41:06.284
<v Speaker 1>confidence intervals there, and the need to tell a story

0:41:07.084 --> 0:41:09.124
<v Speaker 1>and tell a compelling story. And this is something that

0:41:09.524 --> 0:41:11.404
<v Speaker 1>you know, Nate, You and I have to struggle with

0:41:11.524 --> 0:41:15.204
<v Speaker 1>us storytellers too. I mean, we're communicators, we're journalists. We

0:41:15.324 --> 0:41:18.884
<v Speaker 1>make choices all the time when we write an article,

0:41:19.004 --> 0:41:21.444
<v Speaker 1>when we write a book, how do we tell the story?

0:41:21.604 --> 0:41:24.564
<v Speaker 1>What story do we tell? And you can't constantly. I

0:41:24.644 --> 0:41:28.724
<v Speaker 1>mean a book will be absolutely unreadable if every single

0:41:28.884 --> 0:41:32.364
<v Speaker 1>paragraph is a caveat where you know, well, you know,

0:41:32.564 --> 0:41:34.684
<v Speaker 1>you can also interpret it this way and this way

0:41:34.684 --> 0:41:36.924
<v Speaker 1>and I'm not quite sure about this, right, you can't.

0:41:37.084 --> 0:41:39.604
<v Speaker 1>You can't work that way, and so you make choices

0:41:39.684 --> 0:41:40.164
<v Speaker 1>all the time.

0:41:40.364 --> 0:41:43.004
<v Speaker 3>Of course, sometimes ambiguity is strategic, right, Like let's say

0:41:43.004 --> 0:41:46.084
<v Speaker 3>Marie and I are on a double date with our

0:41:46.124 --> 0:41:49.284
<v Speaker 3>respective spouses and then a third couple that we don't know,

0:41:49.644 --> 0:41:50.884
<v Speaker 3>that a friend kind of set us with for a

0:41:50.884 --> 0:41:53.284
<v Speaker 3>friend's day, and they're super fucking annoying and we hate

0:41:53.284 --> 0:41:56.044
<v Speaker 3>their guts. Right, you know, if I say something like Marie,

0:41:56.084 --> 0:41:57.884
<v Speaker 3>what time did you say your flight was tomorrow morning?

0:41:57.964 --> 0:41:58.044
<v Speaker 2>Right?

0:41:58.124 --> 0:42:00.164
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, that's ambiguous. What it really means is that let's

0:42:00.164 --> 0:42:01.684
<v Speaker 3>gett's great.

0:42:02.324 --> 0:42:03.964
<v Speaker 1>And Nate and I have known each other for long

0:42:04.044 --> 0:42:05.644
<v Speaker 1>enough that I would say, you know, it's at seven am,

0:42:05.724 --> 0:42:10.284
<v Speaker 1>we really really have to go. Yeah, so there are

0:42:10.284 --> 0:42:12.724
<v Speaker 1>strategic uses of it. Yeah, there are more questions back there.

0:42:13.204 --> 0:42:15.404
<v Speaker 4>I am a longtime listener, first time caller.

0:42:16.844 --> 0:42:17.724
<v Speaker 1>Wellco to the show.

0:42:17.844 --> 0:42:18.404
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, yes.

0:42:18.844 --> 0:42:21.644
<v Speaker 4>My question is how much do we do we think

0:42:21.724 --> 0:42:24.564
<v Speaker 4>Zauron's win is the inter syncracies in New York City

0:42:24.684 --> 0:42:27.004
<v Speaker 4>and him being a great candidate and Cuomo sucking, and

0:42:27.124 --> 0:42:29.404
<v Speaker 4>how much is the political climate has changed in some

0:42:29.564 --> 0:42:31.164
<v Speaker 4>way since the last election?

0:42:31.964 --> 0:42:34.004
<v Speaker 1>That is, I mean, that is such a good question,

0:42:34.204 --> 0:42:37.124
<v Speaker 1>because the Cuomo sucking part of it is actually huge.

0:42:37.924 --> 0:42:41.324
<v Speaker 1>That sounds like that sounds like a silly statement, but

0:42:41.844 --> 0:42:45.084
<v Speaker 1>I actually think that that is an idiosyncrasy of this

0:42:46.044 --> 0:42:52.084
<v Speaker 1>election from a psychological standpoint, because never underestimate the power

0:42:52.324 --> 0:42:55.884
<v Speaker 1>of people to band together and coalitions to actually stick

0:42:55.964 --> 0:42:59.324
<v Speaker 1>together when there's one enemy, right, when there's a clear

0:42:59.644 --> 0:43:02.164
<v Speaker 1>someone who no one wants to see, When all of

0:43:02.204 --> 0:43:05.644
<v Speaker 1>a sudden, people who would never vote together, who would

0:43:05.764 --> 0:43:09.564
<v Speaker 1>never kind of partners partner up. And this is from

0:43:09.604 --> 0:43:10.524
<v Speaker 1>a psychological stamp.

0:43:10.524 --> 0:43:12.964
<v Speaker 3>What you see that he both ran a bad campaign

0:43:13.004 --> 0:43:15.524
<v Speaker 3>and kind of, to us an informal term, kind of

0:43:15.564 --> 0:43:18.804
<v Speaker 3>like cock blocked all the other candidates in the field,

0:43:18.964 --> 0:43:21.044
<v Speaker 3>right where all the money from hedge funders and people

0:43:21.164 --> 0:43:23.764
<v Speaker 3>like that went to Cuomo. And you saw a quotes

0:43:23.884 --> 0:43:25.724
<v Speaker 3>when people were like big Cemo donors like I didn't

0:43:25.764 --> 0:43:27.844
<v Speaker 3>really care about that much, but it seemed like that's

0:43:27.884 --> 0:43:29.644
<v Speaker 3>what everyone was backing. I'm not going to back the

0:43:29.764 --> 0:43:32.564
<v Speaker 3>socialist right and so therefore and so yeah, you know,

0:43:32.964 --> 0:43:36.084
<v Speaker 3>if you'd had a fully fledged campaign between Zoran and

0:43:36.204 --> 0:43:38.684
<v Speaker 3>Brad Lander or something, or Adrian Adams, it might have

0:43:38.804 --> 0:43:39.244
<v Speaker 3>been closer.

0:43:39.284 --> 0:43:39.884
<v Speaker 2>But he's a good can.

0:43:39.924 --> 0:43:42.404
<v Speaker 3>I mean, look a lot of times political analysts like

0:43:42.524 --> 0:43:44.764
<v Speaker 3>me are left saying, yeah, the wins and losses are

0:43:44.804 --> 0:43:48.404
<v Speaker 3>what matter, but for analyzing trends and close counts, right

0:43:48.844 --> 0:43:51.044
<v Speaker 3>you know. So you know, look, if he had lost

0:43:51.564 --> 0:43:54.204
<v Speaker 3>seven point instead of won by seven points, I'd still

0:43:54.204 --> 0:43:55.324
<v Speaker 3>say that was pretty impressive.

0:43:55.404 --> 0:43:55.484
<v Speaker 5>Right.

0:43:55.564 --> 0:43:57.084
<v Speaker 2>It might be a sign of change here.

0:43:57.164 --> 0:44:01.524
<v Speaker 3>It's a cleaner story, I think, But usually surprising outcomes

0:44:01.724 --> 0:44:04.164
<v Speaker 3>are overdetermined, right, you know, it has to do with

0:44:04.244 --> 0:44:07.284
<v Speaker 3>the changing of the guard generationally. It has to do

0:44:07.444 --> 0:44:10.004
<v Speaker 3>with like he kind of figured out the right formula

0:44:10.244 --> 0:44:13.564
<v Speaker 3>for more left wing ideas. It's not wilk culture stuff, right,

0:44:13.604 --> 0:44:16.204
<v Speaker 3>it's affordability, it's working class people, things like that.

0:44:16.484 --> 0:44:16.604
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:44:17.124 --> 0:44:21.164
<v Speaker 3>He's a very well presenting guy, right, who's very New York.

0:44:21.244 --> 0:44:24.724
<v Speaker 3>I think in some ways his mom was a filmmaker,

0:44:24.764 --> 0:44:28.564
<v Speaker 3>and his visuals are all quite stunning and beautiful and cuomo.

0:44:28.724 --> 0:44:30.084
<v Speaker 2>So it's like four things coming together.

0:44:31.604 --> 0:44:33.564
<v Speaker 3>But he also won by enough margin where maybe only

0:44:33.604 --> 0:44:34.724
<v Speaker 3>three of those things or two, and to have it

0:44:34.764 --> 0:44:36.524
<v Speaker 3>to come together, we still have one probably.

0:44:36.924 --> 0:44:39.204
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. And when things are over determined, by the way,

0:44:39.244 --> 0:44:42.564
<v Speaker 1>we can't answer your question right, When things are over determined,

0:44:42.604 --> 0:44:46.684
<v Speaker 1>you can't quite know what the crucial factors were. So

0:44:46.804 --> 0:44:49.124
<v Speaker 1>I think that the real answer to your question remains

0:44:49.164 --> 0:44:52.644
<v Speaker 1>to be seen. But it's a really interesting thing to

0:44:52.724 --> 0:44:56.084
<v Speaker 1>try to disambiguate and try to see kind of how

0:44:56.124 --> 0:44:58.164
<v Speaker 1>did we end up here? And I think that this

0:44:58.284 --> 0:45:01.164
<v Speaker 1>is an election that people will be looking back and

0:45:01.324 --> 0:45:03.124
<v Speaker 1>doing some commentary on for many years.

0:45:04.324 --> 0:45:07.884
<v Speaker 7>So I want to ask political polls, so I think

0:45:07.924 --> 0:45:11.604
<v Speaker 7>you know something about it. So now I've heard the

0:45:11.804 --> 0:45:17.404
<v Speaker 7>lecture on words. And so if I see that one

0:45:17.524 --> 0:45:21.204
<v Speaker 7>candidate has a forty two percent chance of winning and

0:45:21.284 --> 0:45:24.764
<v Speaker 7>another candidate has a forty six percent chance, should I

0:45:24.884 --> 0:45:29.004
<v Speaker 7>interpret that to say they both have low probability? Or

0:45:29.124 --> 0:45:32.164
<v Speaker 7>they have or I mean I guess, or is it

0:45:32.284 --> 0:45:34.124
<v Speaker 7>so close? Really doesn't matter?

0:45:35.124 --> 0:45:38.244
<v Speaker 3>Well, for one thing, people who work in polling or

0:45:38.244 --> 0:45:39.764
<v Speaker 3>who report on pulling need to be clear about a

0:45:39.804 --> 0:45:43.284
<v Speaker 3>probability versus a percent of the vote. Right, If it's

0:45:43.604 --> 0:45:48.644
<v Speaker 3>Trump forty six percent in say Texas, Harris forty two

0:45:48.684 --> 0:45:52.204
<v Speaker 3>percent undecided, third party is the remaining whatever eighteen percent?

0:45:52.324 --> 0:45:54.924
<v Speaker 2>Right, like a four point lead. How often does that

0:45:55.004 --> 0:45:56.004
<v Speaker 2>translate into a win?

0:45:56.524 --> 0:45:59.164
<v Speaker 3>That's an empirical question, right, The answer might be something

0:45:59.244 --> 0:46:00.724
<v Speaker 3>like seventy percent of the time.

0:46:01.164 --> 0:46:03.964
<v Speaker 2>Russia, And in New York, what were the polls saying before?

0:46:04.284 --> 0:46:04.844
<v Speaker 2>In New York?

0:46:05.084 --> 0:46:08.004
<v Speaker 3>No, the polls underestimated, I mean, had they had shown

0:46:08.044 --> 0:46:11.564
<v Speaker 3>the race tightening a lot. Some of the polls showed

0:46:11.644 --> 0:46:15.844
<v Speaker 3>Zoran pulling ahead after ranked choice voting. Almost none Maybee,

0:46:15.964 --> 0:46:19.644
<v Speaker 3>with one exception, had him winning the first round outright,

0:46:20.004 --> 0:46:21.884
<v Speaker 3>and none of them had him winning by like that

0:46:22.124 --> 0:46:25.244
<v Speaker 3>wide margin. Right, So this is what happens with polls

0:46:25.364 --> 0:46:27.524
<v Speaker 3>is like in a New York race, they assume turnouts

0:46:27.524 --> 0:46:31.564
<v Speaker 3>fairly low. They're surveying the people that like always turn

0:46:31.644 --> 0:46:34.764
<v Speaker 3>out in New York MARYORL races, who consideringly unlikely voters

0:46:34.764 --> 0:46:35.924
<v Speaker 3>are twenty percent of electorate.

0:46:36.044 --> 0:46:36.124
<v Speaker 1>Right.

0:46:36.564 --> 0:46:39.844
<v Speaker 3>Cuomo got his numbers among that twenty percent, but then

0:46:39.924 --> 0:46:42.604
<v Speaker 3>Zoran turned out people that never vote in mayoral elections

0:46:42.764 --> 0:46:43.684
<v Speaker 3>in e York. By the way, a lot of New

0:46:43.764 --> 0:46:46.404
<v Speaker 3>York's are transplants from around the country, all around.

0:46:46.084 --> 0:46:49.004
<v Speaker 2>The world, right, so we don't have that like tie

0:46:49.124 --> 0:46:51.084
<v Speaker 2>to local politics. Right.

0:46:51.364 --> 0:46:53.684
<v Speaker 3>I'm a person covers politics, listen to New York. I

0:46:53.724 --> 0:46:56.124
<v Speaker 3>don't know that much about like New York politics, right,

0:46:56.164 --> 0:46:58.284
<v Speaker 3>and it's very typical in some ways. But he he

0:46:58.444 --> 0:47:02.004
<v Speaker 3>broke through and became its cliche, but became viral in

0:47:02.084 --> 0:47:04.644
<v Speaker 3>a way that you know, I guess pollsters were too

0:47:04.684 --> 0:47:08.004
<v Speaker 3>conservative in their in their methods and missing and missing

0:47:08.044 --> 0:47:08.564
<v Speaker 3>these voters.

0:47:09.404 --> 0:47:11.284
<v Speaker 1>We have time for one more question, hi.

0:47:11.364 --> 0:47:15.764
<v Speaker 5>Things I was just curious. I know this is probably annoying,

0:47:15.884 --> 0:47:17.804
<v Speaker 5>like too long in the future kind of question, but

0:47:18.284 --> 0:47:22.804
<v Speaker 5>does Zorin's win at all change the probabilities that you

0:47:22.884 --> 0:47:26.284
<v Speaker 5>think about candidates in twenty twenty eight for Democratic primary

0:47:26.364 --> 0:47:26.844
<v Speaker 5>or I guess.

0:47:26.724 --> 0:47:27.764
<v Speaker 1>The general election too.

0:47:28.404 --> 0:47:31.084
<v Speaker 3>So with actually my former colleague at five thirty eight,

0:47:31.524 --> 0:47:35.484
<v Speaker 3>Galen Druke, we did a Democratic twenty twenty eight primary draft,

0:47:36.004 --> 0:47:37.484
<v Speaker 3>right or do it so it's like a draft, like

0:47:37.524 --> 0:47:42.204
<v Speaker 3>a fancy football draft or something. Galen got the first

0:47:42.244 --> 0:47:45.164
<v Speaker 3>pick and the first candidate on my list was AOC.

0:47:45.884 --> 0:47:47.924
<v Speaker 3>I thought he'd take Josh Shapiro or someone and said

0:47:47.924 --> 0:47:50.604
<v Speaker 3>he took AOC too, So it was mad about that.

0:47:50.724 --> 0:47:52.764
<v Speaker 3>But like we both thought, and this is before Zoran,

0:47:53.524 --> 0:47:57.444
<v Speaker 3>that she was let me put this carefully, from talking

0:47:57.444 --> 0:47:59.884
<v Speaker 3>about probabilities, right to say the most likely candidate might

0:47:59.924 --> 0:48:01.404
<v Speaker 3>mean a fifteen percent chance.

0:48:01.884 --> 0:48:03.884
<v Speaker 2>Right, there's nobody in the field who is a clear

0:48:03.964 --> 0:48:04.484
<v Speaker 2>front runner.

0:48:04.684 --> 0:48:06.284
<v Speaker 3>But we both thought that she was more luckily than

0:48:06.284 --> 0:48:09.644
<v Speaker 3>any other candidate to become the nominee in twenty twenty eight,

0:48:10.084 --> 0:48:14.924
<v Speaker 3>before before Mom Donnay came along, right, And again it's

0:48:14.964 --> 0:48:18.324
<v Speaker 3>probably because like look Democrats, of all these retreads, right,

0:48:18.364 --> 0:48:22.244
<v Speaker 3>the Clinton family, the Cuomo family, the Biden family. I

0:48:22.324 --> 0:48:25.444
<v Speaker 3>bet Jill will probably fantasize sometimes what if I become president? Right,

0:48:26.404 --> 0:48:29.484
<v Speaker 3>like House of Cards or something. Right, I'm I think

0:48:29.524 --> 0:48:31.964
<v Speaker 3>people are tired of all these families.

0:48:32.084 --> 0:48:32.204
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:48:32.324 --> 0:48:35.684
<v Speaker 3>I remember seeing in twenty sixteen, I was in New

0:48:35.724 --> 0:48:38.964
<v Speaker 3>Hampshire covering the race for five thirty eight in ABC News, Right,

0:48:39.124 --> 0:48:43.164
<v Speaker 3>and like Hillary Clinton spoke to a group of like

0:48:43.364 --> 0:48:46.404
<v Speaker 3>then at college, right, Franklin Pierce College or something like that.

0:48:46.564 --> 0:48:48.684
<v Speaker 2>Right, you know, the average age is twenty or something.

0:48:48.764 --> 0:48:51.364
<v Speaker 3>She's talking about like the Cold War, and like the

0:48:51.404 --> 0:48:55.084
<v Speaker 3>students size are gleazing over they don't remember the Cold War, right,

0:48:55.364 --> 0:48:58.764
<v Speaker 3>And now that was you know, was eight nine years

0:48:58.804 --> 0:49:02.964
<v Speaker 3>ago now, right, And so like, look, I think I

0:49:03.004 --> 0:49:04.924
<v Speaker 3>think it's a good thing to see. I mean, Zaraan

0:49:05.044 --> 0:49:08.524
<v Speaker 3>was literally half of like Cuomo's age. Right, I think

0:49:08.604 --> 0:49:10.564
<v Speaker 3>it's a good thing. Mcrat parties about present and was

0:49:10.564 --> 0:49:12.444
<v Speaker 3>how can everyone's so freaking old? Right, I think it's

0:49:12.484 --> 0:49:15.244
<v Speaker 3>a good thing. Is is to you know, have cannates

0:49:15.244 --> 0:49:18.124
<v Speaker 3>that are good on social media, are substantive. I think

0:49:18.164 --> 0:49:21.804
<v Speaker 3>she's a pretty canny and smart politician and shows some

0:49:21.964 --> 0:49:23.444
<v Speaker 3>restraint at times.

0:49:23.804 --> 0:49:26.004
<v Speaker 2>So yeah, it does change my views a little bit. Maria,

0:49:26.084 --> 0:49:27.404
<v Speaker 2>do you have a take now?

0:49:27.484 --> 0:49:28.964
<v Speaker 1>I mean, this is one of the things that I

0:49:29.124 --> 0:49:31.084
<v Speaker 1>was talking about when I was talking about some of

0:49:31.164 --> 0:49:34.884
<v Speaker 1>the long term consequences of this election, right, And I

0:49:34.964 --> 0:49:37.724
<v Speaker 1>think a lot of it will depend on what ends

0:49:37.804 --> 0:49:41.444
<v Speaker 1>up happening once Zorn takes power, right, if he's elected,

0:49:41.844 --> 0:49:45.764
<v Speaker 1>how he actually handles himself in office, how popular he is.

0:49:46.164 --> 0:49:49.444
<v Speaker 1>I think that that will actually have a large bearing

0:49:49.524 --> 0:49:52.324
<v Speaker 1>on your question in terms of, you know, what does

0:49:52.364 --> 0:49:55.044
<v Speaker 1>the Democratic Party end up taking from this, because they

0:49:55.084 --> 0:49:59.004
<v Speaker 1>could take two very different lessons one AOC Two if

0:49:59.124 --> 0:50:02.604
<v Speaker 1>Zorn tanks for some reason right and becomes incredibly unpopular

0:50:02.724 --> 0:50:05.684
<v Speaker 1>and like the you know, we don't know, we can't

0:50:05.844 --> 0:50:07.684
<v Speaker 1>we don't have a crystal ball. But if something like

0:50:07.764 --> 0:50:09.804
<v Speaker 1>that were to happen, I think they'd be like, see,

0:50:09.884 --> 0:50:12.084
<v Speaker 1>we told you so right, we need to go back

0:50:12.164 --> 0:50:15.844
<v Speaker 1>to so I think you could see either thing working out,

0:50:16.084 --> 0:50:18.364
<v Speaker 1>so you can a lot rest on his shoulders.

0:50:18.684 --> 0:50:18.924
<v Speaker 2>I guess.

0:50:19.884 --> 0:50:23.084
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. That was our first Risky Business Live and we're

0:50:23.324 --> 0:50:30.964
<v Speaker 1>so happy you were here. That was our show from

0:50:31.004 --> 0:50:34.364
<v Speaker 1>the Aspen Ideas Festival. By the way, our segment on

0:50:34.484 --> 0:50:40.244
<v Speaker 1>probabilities was inspired by Adam Kucharski's newsletter Understanding the Unseen.

0:50:40.724 --> 0:50:42.884
<v Speaker 1>We'll have a link to that post in the show notes.

0:50:43.084 --> 0:50:46.964
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening. Let us know what you think of

0:50:47.044 --> 0:50:49.804
<v Speaker 1>the show. Reach out to us at Risky Business at

0:50:49.884 --> 0:50:53.204
<v Speaker 1>pushkin dot fm. And by the way, if you're a

0:50:53.204 --> 0:50:55.804
<v Speaker 1>Pushkin Plus subscriber, we have some bonus content for you

0:50:56.324 --> 0:50:58.084
<v Speaker 1>that's coming up right after the credits.

0:50:58.484 --> 0:51:01.724
<v Speaker 3>And if you're not subscribing yet, consider signing up for

0:51:01.924 --> 0:51:04.084
<v Speaker 3>just six ninety nine a month. What a nice price

0:51:04.444 --> 0:51:07.084
<v Speaker 3>you get access to all that premium content and and

0:51:07.284 --> 0:51:09.844
<v Speaker 3>we're listening across Pushkin's entire network shows.

0:51:10.124 --> 0:51:13.164
<v Speaker 1>Risky Business is hosted by me Maria Kanikova.

0:51:12.924 --> 0:51:14.244
<v Speaker 2>And by me Nate Silver.

0:51:14.644 --> 0:51:17.724
<v Speaker 3>The show is a co production of Pushkin Industries and iHeartMedia.

0:51:18.404 --> 0:51:21.764
<v Speaker 3>This episode was produced by Isabelle Carter. Our associate producer

0:51:21.844 --> 0:51:24.804
<v Speaker 3>is Sonia Gerwin. Sally Helm is our editor, and our

0:51:24.804 --> 0:51:28.364
<v Speaker 3>executive producer is Jacob Boldstein. Mixing by Sarah Bruguier.

0:51:29.044 --> 0:51:30.204
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for tuning in.