Speaker 1: Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, our podcast about making
Speaker 1: better decisions. I'm Maria Kannakova.
Speaker 2: And I'm Nate Silver. Today we're talking about somebody named
Speaker 2: Anna Delvi, who I am apparently supposed to have heard of.
Speaker 1: Anna as she likes to be known, delve as I
Speaker 1: will be calling her Anna Sorokan a con artist, convicted
Speaker 1: con artist who has found her way to dancing with
Speaker 1: the stars.
Speaker 2: This week and after we talk about this kinn artist
Speaker 2: that I've never heard of, will talk about a different
Speaker 2: type of con politics.
Speaker 1: All right, let's do it. I'm excited to get started.
Speaker 1: So so first up, Nate, are you really were you
Speaker 1: just like hamming it up a tiny bit for the
Speaker 1: podcast or do you really not know who Anna Delvy is.
Speaker 2: I'm a man of a medium number of interests. Right.
Speaker 2: I know about poker. I know about several of the
Speaker 2: sports quite well. Right. I know about restaurants. I know
Speaker 2: about Curb your enthusiasm. I know a little bit about
Speaker 2: mid century modern architecture. I do not know who the
Speaker 2: fuck this person that was a curveball.
Speaker 1: I love that. I love that you just kind of
Speaker 1: threw in mid century modern architecture amazing. All right, So
Speaker 1: let's let's give a little primer on Anna, and I
Speaker 1: won't go I'm assuming that most of our listeners do
Speaker 1: know who she is, but I'll give I'll give you
Speaker 1: the rundown. So, first of all, her name is not
Speaker 1: Anna Delviy, and I'm actually really really pissed that in
Speaker 1: absolutely every single media source she's called Anna Delvy, which
Speaker 1: is her con artist name. Her actual name is Anna
Speaker 1: Sorokan bites from Moscow, not an era from Germany the
Speaker 1: way that she has always portrayed herself to be. But
Speaker 1: she is someone who is a grifter who ended up
Speaker 1: scanming New York High society out of hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of dollars, including fraudulent bank loans, and all of these
Speaker 1: things predicated on her being an heiress to this fortune.
Speaker 1: She said that she was going to start this cultural
Speaker 1: arts club that was going to be nate you know
Speaker 1: a little bit about art. So she was going to
Speaker 1: be exhibiting people like Cindy Sherman. Right, So threw she
Speaker 1: threw the big guns at it. She said, you know,
Speaker 1: I've got all this money and we're gonna we're gonna
Speaker 1: have a private member's only club. We're going to have
Speaker 1: Cindy Sherman exhibits. I mean, we're going to have the
Speaker 1: best restaurant in New York. This is going to be amazing.
Speaker 1: She weaseled her way into New York society by very
Speaker 1: very clever use of Instagram, social media, connecting herself to
Speaker 1: the highest kind of social cachet people. And she befriended
Speaker 1: this woman, Rachel Williams, who at that point was a
Speaker 1: photo editor. I believe I might be getting her title
Speaker 1: wrong at Vanity Fair, but she was a photographer, you know,
Speaker 1: photo editor person there. And Rachel was the one who
Speaker 1: ended up bringing her down because she went on a
Speaker 1: trip with her to Morocco that Anna said was part
Speaker 1: of kind of this whole thing that she was doing
Speaker 1: to raise money for the foundation, and Rachel ended up
Speaker 1: getting saddled with the bill sixty two thousand dollars, which
Speaker 1: was more than her annual salary, and she was not
Speaker 1: able to get this money back from Anna. She got pissed.
Speaker 1: She went to the police, and then Anna's house of
Speaker 1: cards unraveled. She was convicted. She served time. When she
Speaker 1: was released from Rikers, she ended up overstaying her visa
Speaker 1: was put back into jail and is now out again
Speaker 1: and back in the news because last week Dancing with
Speaker 1: the Stars to make the lovely decision of having Anna
Speaker 1: Sorokan on their show.
Speaker 2: I did that's in preparation the performance. I thought that
Speaker 2: was mediocre.
Speaker 1: But again I'm not very mediocre. It was very mediocre.
Speaker 2: I inspired. You had your moment in the fifteen minutes
Speaker 2: of fame, your fourteenth out of fifteenth minute. Use it better?
Speaker 2: Anna psoric and what's her name? And by the way,
Speaker 2: all about this decision by Dancing with the Stars, Yeah,
Speaker 2: how do I buy my employer ABC News?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's horrific. I do not think
Speaker 1: that con artists deserve to be given that sort of
Speaker 1: a platform. People are like, oh, she deserves a second chance.
Speaker 1: Absolutely fucking not. I have dealt with so many con
Speaker 1: artists over the years, and they do not go straight.
Speaker 1: She has expressed zero remorse, In fact, the opposite. She said,
Speaker 1: I am not sorry for anything I've done. She feels
Speaker 1: like she completely deserves it. She has profited off of
Speaker 1: her story, and I understand that networks are out there
Speaker 1: to make profit and to make some money, but like,
Speaker 1: give me a break. Moscow skeazy con artists, like there
Speaker 1: are better people to give your platform too. And I
Speaker 1: just I'm begging everyone listening, and I'm begging the media
Speaker 1: to stop calling her Anna Delvy. This is not respect
Speaker 1: for something that you know, Oh, this is a name
Speaker 1: that she wants to be called by. No, absolutely not.
Speaker 1: It's like calling Christian your high rights are Clark Rockefeller? Right?
Speaker 1: The dude's a murderer. He just happened to want to
Speaker 1: be known as Clark Rockefeller. Seriously are we doing that?
Speaker 1: Are we calling them by their chosen con name under
Speaker 1: which they defrauded people and like completely assumed a new
Speaker 1: identity because they fucking felt like it. I have zero
Speaker 1: sympathy for her. I have zero thoughts that she's ever
Speaker 1: going to go straight. You know, do we think Billy
Speaker 1: McFarlane is going to have a really nice new venture
Speaker 1: that we should all invest in?
Speaker 2: Look? What what would you say? The cultural role of
Speaker 2: Dancing with the Stars is because they've had an on
Speaker 2: other people who have had, you know, various controversy or scandal's.
Speaker 2: Former White House Press Security Sean Spicer was a guesst.
Speaker 2: Ryan Lochte had a very minor scandal. We're involving some
Speaker 2: gas station and was on the show. Paula Dean is
Speaker 2: a Southern celebrity chef who maybe use some some racial
Speaker 2: woods that you wouldn't want to use so much, and
Speaker 2: she was on the show. So what why does ABC
Speaker 2: News feel the need to rehabilitate these people who are
Speaker 2: like not even like that interesting or note.
Speaker 1: People have been fascinated with con artists, and oftentimes especially
Speaker 1: con artists like Anna Soroken, who are people who kind
Speaker 1: of go for the upper echelons of society, right like
Speaker 1: the high society, glamour crime like Clark Rockefeller by the way,
Speaker 1: who I who I mentioned Christian. They are just media
Speaker 1: fodder because first of all, like they you know, they're charismatic,
Speaker 1: they're appealing all this stuff, but also they end up
Speaker 1: conning people who people have they victim blame them. They
Speaker 1: have less sympathy for should.
Speaker 2: Get you know, shouldn't you have something where like at
Speaker 2: any given time, like one man and one woman, con
Speaker 2: artists are permitted to just continue being con artist because
Speaker 2: they're so good at it. I want to create some incentive.
Speaker 1: I mean that has happened though, like you don't actually
Speaker 1: have to create that incentive So in The Confidence Game,
Speaker 1: which was the book I wrote about artists, Ferdinand Waldo Damara,
Speaker 1: who's known as the Great Impostor, who had ended up
Speaker 1: having this biography written about him, The Great Impostor, and
Speaker 1: then a movie made where Tony Curtis starred as him.
Speaker 1: He became ridiculously recognizable because he's like over you know,
Speaker 1: six foot I don't remember six foot four or something
Speaker 1: like that, like very massive, like huge guy, just someone
Speaker 1: who you would instantly recognize. He doesn't have. You know,
Speaker 1: there are some faces that like look like every man.
Speaker 1: He does not look like every man. And he was
Speaker 1: on every single TV outlet, you know, Johnny Carson, he
Speaker 1: went on Groucho Marxist show like he was. He was
Speaker 1: on everything, and so you would think that, you know,
Speaker 1: he would need some sort of program to be allowed
Speaker 1: to con again because everyone would know he's a con artist.
Speaker 1: Turns out he didn't need anything like that, because he
Speaker 1: ended up running and continuing to con long after that.
Speaker 1: So he had every opportunity to go straight. He was
Speaker 1: given all of this money, all of this stuff, but
Speaker 1: he just loved conning too much. So even after all
Speaker 1: this media attention, he just switched his con, and so
Speaker 1: he ended up conning multiple people for multiple decades after
Speaker 1: this saying and the con was I've gone straight. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm repentant, like you're the one person who understands me.
Speaker 1: Let's you know, I really want to like prove that
Speaker 1: I'm a good reformed person now. And then he would
Speaker 1: like take them for all they were worth. And he
Speaker 1: was so good at it that he kept doing it
Speaker 1: over and over and over. So con artists do not
Speaker 1: need any help. And the best con artists, nay, you
Speaker 1: and I have no idea who the fuck they are
Speaker 1: because unlike Anna, they have not been caught. There are
Speaker 1: probably impostors out there in the world right now. I
Speaker 1: you know, we talked briefly, I think on the show
Speaker 1: about therahos at some point, you know, there are more
Speaker 1: Elizabeth holmes is out there. There are more theraphnoses out
Speaker 1: there that are getting the millions of dollars from venture
Speaker 1: capital in Silicon Valley. Like we don't. We don't have
Speaker 1: a problem with con artists not getting a second shot
Speaker 1: at the con. Even Billy McFarland, who who I just mentioned,
Speaker 1: you know, he tried Fire Festival too, and all sorts
Speaker 1: of other lovely things, so you know, they they you
Speaker 1: can't get them down.
Speaker 2: I'm reading a little bit about PT. Barnum. Actually in
Speaker 2: this book, we read the book The forty eight Laws
Speaker 2: of Power I have. Yes, it's a very interesting book.
Speaker 2: Maybe we'll have a little mini segment on it one day.
Speaker 2: It's kind of a slightly evil, very Machabellian book. Two. Yes,
Speaker 2: but it's talking about some of the ambiguities of someone
Speaker 2: like P. T. Barnum, who you know, would reject the
Speaker 2: label of being a con artist. I hadn't read that
Speaker 2: much about him, but I've actually kind of, you know,
Speaker 2: became a member of the House of Representatives or something
Speaker 2: in Connecticut and was kind of rehabilitated into somewhat polite society,
Speaker 2: I guess. But yeah, there it is a spectrum, I guess, right,
Speaker 2: Or is that not correct?
Speaker 1: No? I mean I think there's a spectrum. But I
Speaker 1: don't think P. T. Barnam is a con artist, right
Speaker 1: like he I think that there's a very like he
Speaker 1: sold deception, right he's a circus owner who like this
Speaker 1: was everyone knew exactly what he was doing. I think
Speaker 1: that there's you know, there are people who act in
Speaker 1: good faith and in bad faith, but not all bad
Speaker 1: faith actors are con artists. And I think that there
Speaker 1: is a pretty it is a spectrum, but there's a
Speaker 1: pretty clear demarcation point between con artist and not, which
Speaker 1: is your intention to take advantage of people for your
Speaker 1: own personal benefit without their awareness. Obviously you mentioned machiavelian
Speaker 1: so it is incredibly Machupelian. And in fact, you know
Speaker 1: out of the dark triad of traits that con artists
Speaker 1: often have, So that's psychopathy, narcissism, and machubelianism. Psychopathy is
Speaker 1: the least common just because it's the least common in society.
Speaker 1: Narcissism is kind of this not just this sense of
Speaker 1: a grandized self, but also this sense of I deserve right,
Speaker 1: So like I deserve all of this, so I'm not
Speaker 1: doing anything wrong, like I'm just taking what is mine,
Speaker 1: what I deserve. And then there's the one that con
Speaker 1: artists most commonly have. In fact, I would argue that
Speaker 1: you cannot be a successful con artist without this, and
Speaker 1: that's machiavellianism, which is the ability to get people to
Speaker 1: do what you want them to do, but they think
Speaker 1: it's their own idea, right, So you're very good at
Speaker 1: kind of planting the seeds in their mind that they think, oh,
Speaker 1: this is what I should do, but really it's coming
Speaker 1: from you. So you manipulate them. But you're not seen
Speaker 1: as manipulative. You're seen as charismatic, which is Machiavelli's whole thing.
Speaker 1: And so that intent to knowingly deceive, to take advantage
Speaker 1: of other people's confidence in you, is what makes a
Speaker 1: con artist.
Speaker 2: What about a politician?
Speaker 1: So it depends. So within every single profession you'll find
Speaker 1: con artists. But to say that all politicians are con
Speaker 1: artists is to completely dilute the term so that it's meaningless.
Speaker 1: So if you're a politician who does normal politician things,
Speaker 1: which is you know, you might exaggerate, right, like you
Speaker 1: know that like you probably won't be able to deliver
Speaker 1: on all these promises. You kind of give the strongest
Speaker 1: case argument for all of them. But you truly believe
Speaker 1: that you're going to make the world a better place, Right,
Speaker 1: that's why you got into politics. Your heart's in the
Speaker 1: right place. Like you're not trying to completely deceive someone,
Speaker 1: and you're not saying something like, oh, like I promise
Speaker 1: to you know, to protect abortion at all costs, and
Speaker 1: then secretly you're anti abortion and trying to stack the
Speaker 1: court to reverse Ruby Wade, you're not a con artist
Speaker 1: because you actually kind of you're trying to make the
Speaker 1: world a better place. You're believe that you're doing it,
Speaker 1: you know, to the best of your ability. You're kind
Speaker 1: of advancing that message. Now if you actually, like, if
Speaker 1: there's a mismatch between your beliefs and what you're doing,
Speaker 1: if you're doing it in a cynical way, if you're misleading,
Speaker 1: knowingly misleading, saying one thing while you know you're gonna
Speaker 1: do another, or you don't fucking care because you don't
Speaker 1: care if abortion is protected or not protected as long
Speaker 1: as you remain in power. Right, you're motivated by control.
Speaker 1: You're motivated by power, which, by the way, is the
Speaker 1: single biggest motivation of all con artists. It's not money,
Speaker 1: it's control, it's power. It's affecting other people and influencing
Speaker 1: other people. If you're that, then you're a politician who
Speaker 1: also happens to be a con artist. And they are
Speaker 1: both right, and I think that there is a big difference,
Speaker 1: and you have a spectrum by the way of you know,
Speaker 1: true believer politicians, right, Like You've got the Bernie Sanderses
Speaker 1: of the world, who I think is probably pretty far
Speaker 1: on the true believer spectrum. And then you have the
Speaker 1: people who are you know, much more pragmatic, who are
Speaker 1: who do what needs to be done, who kind of
Speaker 1: get down and dirty, but they still kind of believe
Speaker 1: what you want. On the other side, I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: say his name, that you've got the Donald Trump who've
Speaker 1: been convicted of fraud. Like I used to have to
Speaker 1: say that he was an alleged con artist, I don't
Speaker 1: have to say alleged anymore. Like shit's been proven in court.
Speaker 1: He is an artist.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I don't know they sure the election case.
Speaker 1: I'm not even talking about the I'm not even talking
Speaker 1: about the election case. I'm talking about real estate fraud.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's all you need. All you need is someone
Speaker 2: to what extent. Do people feel like they're in on
Speaker 2: the joke with the con artists?
Speaker 1: They're not, so I think that well.
Speaker 2: With Trump though, you're pushing with Trump. I think people
Speaker 2: feel like he's on my side and you take him.
Speaker 1: No. No, that's the thing though, But they don't think
Speaker 1: they're in on the joke like they actually believe right,
Speaker 1: Like they don't understand that they're victims of con artists.
Speaker 1: I think that people who are Trump supporters are victims
Speaker 1: of a con artist, and they just really you don't
Speaker 1: see that. They see Trump as on their side, they
Speaker 1: see him as a true believer, and so they're willing
Speaker 1: to discount Red Flag's evidence. It doesn't matter. And this
Speaker 1: happens over and over and over. Let's put Trump aside
Speaker 1: for a second and just look at a pattern that
Speaker 1: happens within con artists throughout history, which is that when
Speaker 1: you have and this is rare, by the way, because
Speaker 1: so many con artists can kind of skirt the laws
Speaker 1: get away with it, but in those cases when there's
Speaker 1: incontrovertible evidence, when they're actually tried in court and proven guilty,
Speaker 1: you often have the case where their biggest victims don't
Speaker 1: believe it and think it's a big government conspiracy, legal
Speaker 1: conspiracy whatnot against them, and it's just mind boggling. And
Speaker 1: then you talk to them. I've talked to hundreds of
Speaker 1: victims of con artists. I can give them all the receipts, right,
Speaker 1: I can show them everything. I can be like, hey,
Speaker 1: this pastor who you think is the second coming of
Speaker 1: the Lord, Like the best thing that has ever happened
Speaker 1: to your community, the money that you donated for a
Speaker 1: new church he spent gambling away in Las Vegas. This
Speaker 1: is not a hypothetical, This actually happened. And the person
Speaker 1: will be like, no, I you're you know this is
Speaker 1: a fake receipt. This is not true. He didn't take
Speaker 1: this flight. He's not a gambler, Like, he doesn't believe
Speaker 1: in it. And even if he did, and then it
Speaker 1: was for a reason, and he like the Good Lord
Speaker 1: told him that he was going to make more money
Speaker 1: for our church. Right, so they can just run. They
Speaker 1: just do all these mental jumping jacks. The cognitive dissonance
Speaker 1: is so large that the dissonance reduction, which is what
Speaker 1: we do to kind of bring down that cognitive dissonance
Speaker 1: and bring our internal thoughts about what reality should be
Speaker 1: like in line with what we're seeing, is just so
Speaker 1: huge that basically these people are beyond reach. This is
Speaker 1: why the single best victim of a con artist is
Speaker 1: someone who's been conned before, because they are so good
Speaker 1: at rationalizing away the fact that they been conned that
Speaker 1: they're very easy to take advantage of again, because that's
Speaker 1: easier to them than admitting that they've been the victim
Speaker 1: of this horrible long.
Speaker 2: Con Marie, you want to talk some politics.
Speaker 1: I think we started talking politics without without meaning to Nate.
Speaker 1: So yes, let's take a break from Anna Sarokan, and
Speaker 1: after the break we will talk about Donald Trump, the
Speaker 1: con artist and Kamala Harris in a non con artist
Speaker 1: setting or maybe a con artist setting, who knows.
Speaker 2: Let me just push. I think Trump's a tricky case, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, because, for one thing, the biggest Karne's trying
Speaker 2: to pull off is a stolen election claims right. On
Speaker 2: the other hand, isn't he just promising to deliver cultural
Speaker 2: bash to progressive elites and lower taxes for wealthy business owners.
Speaker 2: I think that if we actually he actually delivered those things, I.
Speaker 1: Don't think so. And I think if we parse his
Speaker 1: different messages to different groups of people, we will see
Speaker 1: that he has said and I actually believe that there
Speaker 1: are YouTube compilations of this. He's given the absolute polar
Speaker 1: opposite message to different groups of people, depending on who
Speaker 1: he's trying to appeal to at the moment. So he's
Speaker 1: been He's been both pro and anti abortion depending on
Speaker 1: the day that you get him, even one day apart.
Speaker 1: So like, let's just leave it at that. This is
Speaker 1: not someone who you can trust to have a single opinion.
Speaker 2: Politics tour event. I'll do some concern, you know, with
Speaker 2: Ben Shapiro. I'm I'm messaging the book very differently than
Speaker 2: when I'm at the Liberal book fair in Seattle. I'll
Speaker 2: tell you that much.
Speaker 1: That's fine, you can use different messaging, but do you
Speaker 1: fundamentally change your meaning and say, actually, you know what
Speaker 1: the river sucks and the village is where all the
Speaker 1: smartest things are.
Speaker 2: I mean, Kamal wild are Kamala Harris uh a very
Speaker 2: left of center platform in twenty nineteen, was that a
Speaker 2: co matters?
Speaker 1: There are matters of degree and then there are complete
Speaker 1: just saying polar opposite things one day apart. And I
Speaker 1: think you're being a little disingenuous just to push back
Speaker 1: a little bit.
Speaker 2: But I think that way, I know more about what
Speaker 2: I get in the Trump administration than a Harris administration.
Speaker 2: It might not exactly match what Trump says, but like, but.
Speaker 1: That's that's but that's also that's the key, right, This
Speaker 1: is what we were going back to with con artists.
Speaker 1: Do they believe what they're saying or are they using
Speaker 1: it as a means to a personal end to take
Speaker 1: advantage of other people to gain power for themselves, and
Speaker 1: that is all they care about in the end is
Speaker 1: power and control to give a fuck about other people
Speaker 1: or about the world. I do not believe that is
Speaker 1: true of all politicians. I absolutely believe that that is
Speaker 1: true of Donald Trump. We have good evidence for it.
Speaker 1: And with your book, yeah, sure, you're going to change messaging.
Speaker 1: You're going to not push on certain points to certain audiences,
Speaker 1: but you're not going to change your thesis like your book.
Speaker 1: But Nate, let me ask you a question if I
Speaker 1: were to, you know, when you're talking to different audiences
Speaker 1: about what your polls say, do you manipulate your polls?
Speaker 1: Do you take certain do you take certain do you
Speaker 1: take certain surveys out? Do you waight them differently so
Speaker 1: that your message changes so that you're more appealing to
Speaker 1: your audience? And you say, Kamala is ahead, and then
Speaker 1: two hours later, without you know, without any new polls
Speaker 1: coming out, you say, oh, no, you know, I think
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is going to win. Do you do that?
Speaker 2: I do not do that.
Speaker 1: No Donald Trump would do that. That is the difference
Speaker 1: between a con artist and a non con artist. I
Speaker 1: rest my case.
Speaker 2: We are going to think. I think, out of all
Speaker 2: the dimensions by what you can criticize Trump, and there
Speaker 2: are many, I'm not sure that's a to mention where
Speaker 2: where he stands out, particularly relative to the ability to
Speaker 2: tell groups slightly contradictory things.
Speaker 1: It's not slightly contradictory. This is not a question of degree.
Speaker 1: This is just this is just.
Speaker 2: A question of inher so she wanted to ban tracking,
Speaker 2: and now she does it anymore and has offered no
Speaker 2: reason for that change from political expedience.
Speaker 1: Sure that that happens, and that happens with all politicians.
Speaker 1: But like I said, if we just label all politicians
Speaker 1: con artists, that label loses all meaning. So we need
Speaker 1: to have it as a continuum. As we started off
Speaker 1: this segment by saying, right, it's shades of gray. It's
Speaker 1: not black and white, but there are you know, there
Speaker 1: are dividing lines. And unless you want to label every
Speaker 1: single politician in history, by the way, including Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: as a con artist, then then.
Speaker 2: We have to least Connie politicians.
Speaker 1: Exactly That's why I said, But then we include him
Speaker 1: because he's done connie things in the past. But unless
Speaker 1: we do that, in which case the word con artist
Speaker 1: completely gets deprived of all meaning. We have to start
Speaker 1: making certain kind of certain distinctions along that continuum.
Speaker 2: Forty of the country is going to vote for Trump.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to explain, they're.
Speaker 1: Victims of a con artist, and they will never be
Speaker 1: persuaded otherwise because victims of con artists will stay victims
Speaker 1: and will always think that the person that they're following
Speaker 1: is not a con artist. For me, are true believers.
Speaker 2: It's their narrow self interest to vote for Trump. Sure.
Speaker 1: And then there are those people who are their positions
Speaker 1: elevated in absolutely absolutely. Then there are those cynical piece
Speaker 1: of shit human beings. Yeah that I'm just gonna who
Speaker 1: vote for Trump just because of cynical self interest and
Speaker 1: don't give a fuck what happens to the rest of
Speaker 1: the world and the rest of the country. Those people also,
Speaker 1: Sorry listener.
Speaker 2: First of all, I hope we have some Trump listeners. No, like,
Speaker 2: I disagree with that. I think I don't think it's
Speaker 2: a bad thing if people vote in terms of their
Speaker 2: narrow self interest I think that's that's a part of
Speaker 2: a political economy that can be healthy. I think sometimes
Speaker 2: Trump understands that you do want to appeal to people's
Speaker 2: sense of identity and people aren't doing some Cartesian expected
Speaker 2: value calculation right about the impact of climate change or whatnot.
Speaker 1: No, I think that that's right. But I think that
Speaker 1: there are people who are completely cynical and who have
Speaker 1: this sort of very narrow lens of what's better for
Speaker 1: my bottom line. I don't give a fuck what happens
Speaker 1: to anyone else in the world except for me, and
Speaker 1: I'm going to vote for the person who makes that better.
Speaker 1: And that there's certainly you know, that's fine. There are
Speaker 1: psychopaths in the world. Do I think that makes them
Speaker 1: good people? Do I think that that makes them some?
Speaker 1: You know? No? I don't.
Speaker 2: I Actually, if campaigned on a platform to ban poker,
Speaker 2: would you vote for Trump?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: I would. I would.
Speaker 1: I absolutely would not.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I would.
Speaker 1: I would absolutely still vote for Family because in my mind, sure,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm a poker player. But like if we're
Speaker 1: talking about one person says they're going to ban online poker,
Speaker 1: and the other person says they're going to do a
Speaker 1: lot worse to the world. Like, all right, you know,
Speaker 1: if you want to play online poker, you can go
Speaker 1: to Canada.
Speaker 2: I think. I mean, there's a long discussion about this
Speaker 2: in my book, right. I think if you're not protecting
Speaker 2: your self interest, you wind up getting stumped on in
Speaker 2: the long run. I think that's what the game theory
Speaker 2: equilibrium is, is that if you're not willing to defend
Speaker 2: your self interest, then you get trampled.
Speaker 1: But it's not black and white, right, Like, I think
Speaker 1: being a single issue voter, like poker is a really
Speaker 1: stupid single issue to vote on, just like it would
Speaker 1: be a really stupid single issue, you know, to vote on,
Speaker 1: like on crypto or something like where only one thing
Speaker 1: matters to you, because the world is much more complicated,
Speaker 1: and so you have to actually just try to figure
Speaker 1: out out of this constellation of policies, which future is
Speaker 1: going to be a better future for me and for
Speaker 1: everyone else. And unless, like unless you think that you
Speaker 1: are you know, wealthy enough and insulated enough that you'll
Speaker 1: be kind of okay no matter what, like if the
Speaker 1: world burns, you'll still be fine, which I think is
Speaker 1: also kind of delutible.
Speaker 2: I would just say that if Kamala Harris were to
Speaker 2: say I want a ban poker, I would feel targeted
Speaker 2: as a poker player. And clearly this is a community
Speaker 2: that wouldn't be interested in the votes of people like me,
Speaker 2: So why would I want to be in their coalition?
Speaker 1: But you wouldn't then go and vote for Trump?
Speaker 2: I'm trying to Yes, I would if Kamala Harris campaign
Speaker 2: on a platform to ban all forms of poker, I
Speaker 2: would vote for Donald Trump or maybe a vote libertarian
Speaker 2: or something.
Speaker 1: Well those are two very different.
Speaker 2: Things sort of but like, but yeah, I would want
Speaker 2: Harris to lose, right, Like, I think a lot of
Speaker 2: people have it in there. Rational Maybe perhaps.
Speaker 1: That's what I was trying to say. I don't actually
Speaker 1: think it's rational, because if the payoff matrix is such
Speaker 1: that okay, no poker, but end of the world poker,
Speaker 1: you know, no poker, you know, no poker, but world
Speaker 1: is fine or poker and kind of end of the
Speaker 1: world in a lot of different ways a civil war,
Speaker 1: then your ev matrix is completely different, and that one
Speaker 1: that one reason why you voted for the other candidate
Speaker 1: is completely invalidated. If your rational the rational thing is
Speaker 1: you have to look at the total of the payoff matrix,
Speaker 1: and then you vote for the one with the highest total.
Speaker 1: And unless poker outweighs everything else, and pokers waited at
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand, and if there's no poker, then nothing
Speaker 1: else matters. Then I don't actually see that that payoff
Speaker 1: matrix is necessarily going to the EV for EV, for me,
Speaker 1: for you, I understand, And variety goes to hell and
Speaker 1: the world burns down and there's a civil war and
Speaker 1: you Nate get murdered because you know you were right
Speaker 1: You're like, then you don't care if you were playing
Speaker 1: poker when you got murdered, right like?
Speaker 2: I think we to as those risks then, right like,
Speaker 2: So let me make a distinction. So Trump recently, I
Speaker 2: guess changed his stance or flip flop because you passed
Speaker 2: a policy in during his tenure to limit the State
Speaker 2: and Local tax deduction SALT. If you live and own
Speaker 2: property in New York State, you probably play a lot
Speaker 2: of combined taxes between the city and the state and
Speaker 2: property bills. So Trump has said that he's interested in
Speaker 2: unlocking this deduction where you can claim unlimited amounts and
Speaker 2: not just ten k. Trump broy the way was responsible
Speaker 2: for the bill that introduced this deduction in the first place,
Speaker 2: so he might not be trustworthy there. But if I
Speaker 2: believed him and narrowly had self interest, then the salt
Speaker 2: cap would be something that affected my bottom line a
Speaker 2: fair bit. So if I were voting purely selfishly, that's
Speaker 2: probably pretty tangible, right, something that affects me directly. Now,
Speaker 2: I would not one for Harris. I would not vote
Speaker 2: for Trump on that basis because whatever probably I wait,
Speaker 2: things that happened to me at like some multiple of
Speaker 2: good for the world, right, But that wouldn't outweigh if
Speaker 2: Harris and Democrats were to outlaw poker, my response would be,
Speaker 2: fuck you. You know, I am clearly not a person
Speaker 2: that you care about. I'm clearly not a person. You know.
Speaker 2: You don't see the world in a way that I
Speaker 2: see the world. And if you think this thing is bad,
Speaker 2: then and that I think that's more obligation to vote
Speaker 2: against people who want to band poker.
Speaker 1: I think if you actually listen to yourself out of context,
Speaker 1: you will see that that is such an emotional response.
Speaker 1: You are doing something. Now's a response no completely emotional.
Speaker 2: Reciprocity are important in in game theory.
Speaker 1: Sure, but fuck you because you did this is not
Speaker 1: is not an appropriate response.
Speaker 2: You would look at the emotional response because.
Speaker 1: Of course, of course, however, I think that you just
Speaker 1: need to realize that rational cannot be based on an
Speaker 1: issue like poker, right, because you need to have I know,
Speaker 1: you're trying to make a very strong case for a point,
Speaker 1: and you're you're kind of pushing it to.
Speaker 2: The extreme, but it's not.
Speaker 1: But that's not a rational.
Speaker 2: Extreme complete expecting value calculation of Harris versus Trump.
Speaker 1: No, I haven't okay, and I never said I have
Speaker 1: I have no, I don't know. I would need Yeah,
Speaker 1: i'd go, I could go down the line. But there
Speaker 1: are certain things and certain risks that I actually believe
Speaker 1: are very big risks that I know are much higher
Speaker 1: with Trump, And so I don't feel like I actually
Speaker 1: have to sit down and do an expected value calculation
Speaker 1: because there are certain existential risks like AI, by the way,
Speaker 1: that I think would be much higher under Trump. And
Speaker 1: you are the person a by the way, who convinced
Speaker 1: me that I should be much more worried about AI
Speaker 1: than I was, so europe doom was much higher than mine.
Speaker 1: I think that what Trump does to the environment is worrisome.
Speaker 1: Trump as an existential risk to females who are facing
Speaker 1: pregnancies that might not be viable. We know multiple women
Speaker 1: who have lost their lives because they couldn't get abortion.
Speaker 1: We see kind of it on an individual level. I
Speaker 1: think there are many more existential risks when you have
Speaker 1: a candidate like Donald Trump and with Kamala Harskin.
Speaker 2: So if you consulted let's say that you had a
Speaker 2: super intelligent chat GPT, right, that was possessed of all
Speaker 2: the knowledge that we're capable of having. We can't control
Speaker 2: every contingency, but on a probabilistic basis, right, And I
Speaker 2: asked it, what are the chances that the world there's
Speaker 2: more in net utility created considering all these things with Harris?
Speaker 2: Then under Trump, right, I would not be a Harris voter.
Speaker 2: I would not be one hundred percent confident. I have
Speaker 2: no able say Harris maybe seventy thirty. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, there are a lot of complicated factors here, right,
Speaker 2: There's a big margin of error. You know, they're also
Speaker 2: knockoff effects on what happens to future elections and things
Speaker 2: like that. Absolutely, I do know that if you're fucking
Speaker 2: me over with some of this hypothetical poker example that
Speaker 2: I that I know, right, and I think it's like
Speaker 2: a reasonable heuristic to weigh things that clearly indicate that
Speaker 2: you're part of the out group. And this is part
Speaker 2: of big part of democrats problem is that if if
Speaker 2: you know, this is declined versus four years ago, but
Speaker 2: you know, Democrats have this thing particularly progressive where if
Speaker 2: you're not aligned with them on everything, then you are
Speaker 2: created like some deplorable months. Absolutely absolutely and a lot
Speaker 2: of you know.
Speaker 1: By the way, that should absolutely not be the case.
Speaker 2: I think Democrats under rate how many votes they lose
Speaker 2: because they're annoying.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and they are annoying, And I hate the holier
Speaker 1: than now attitude, and I hate the people who have
Speaker 1: this whole blanket like if you disagree with me on X,
Speaker 1: then you know, then that's it, Like I'm done, I
Speaker 1: completely agree with you, and the good news is nowhere.
Speaker 1: Has Kamala Harris even suggested that she was going to
Speaker 1: ban poker, so poker players, you can be happy. I'm happy.
Speaker 1: I would be. I would obviously be completely miserable and
Speaker 1: really upset if that were to ever happen because I,
Speaker 1: as I said, I love poker and I think it's
Speaker 1: such a force for good in society. But luckily this
Speaker 1: was all a hypothetical example, and poker is in no
Speaker 1: danger of getting banned, so let's be grateful for that.
Speaker 1: We'll be back in a minute to talk about politics
Speaker 1: and more conventional framework and talk about some polling and
Speaker 1: what's happened since we spoke last week. Nate, you want
Speaker 1: to give us a little bit of an update of
Speaker 1: what has happened since we spoke last Tuesday. Have there
Speaker 1: been new polls, new data? What's on your mind? What
Speaker 1: are you seeing? How's the race looking?
Speaker 2: So, Kamala Harris has gained in the neighborhood of one
Speaker 2: percentage point since the debate, which might not seem like
Speaker 2: a big deal, but it actually is, given that last
Speaker 2: two elections basically came down to one point or so,
Speaker 2: and moreover, it's been a little bit more than that
Speaker 2: in Pennsylvania, which is the most important tipping point state.
Speaker 2: So as a result, if you may remember, this little
Speaker 2: built model had Trump a little bit ahead for a bit.
Speaker 2: Now it's fifty to fifty. You know, Look, you're poker
Speaker 2: players today it's fifty four forty six Harris, if you
Speaker 2: want it, if you want to be on the pocket
Speaker 2: Jacks versus Ace King student, you'd rather have the Jacks,
Speaker 2: which win more than half the time. But about the
Speaker 2: closest election that we've seen, you know, polls within one, two, three, four, five, six,
Speaker 2: seven swing states are within two and a half points.
Speaker 2: If you have the election today, then Harris is ahead
Speaker 2: in states totaling two hundred and seventy six electoral.
Speaker 1: That's crazy, Yeah, like that is that's incredibly close. And
Speaker 1: you said seven and a half by the way, and
Speaker 1: you're in your update because you have.
Speaker 2: So Florida is this is this high risk, high rewards
Speaker 2: state where if you're in Florida, it's thirty electoral votes
Speaker 2: and you're probably in. That's game over for Trump. But
Speaker 2: it's probably a little closer. But it's Florida's little bit
Speaker 2: quite up.
Speaker 1: Unlikely, right, but no, so.
Speaker 2: Two seventies as if she holds Harris holds the blue
Speaker 2: Wall states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania plus Nevada.
Speaker 1: Congratulations.
Speaker 2: Now she doesn't win Nevada, she's at two seventy and
Speaker 2: you need two hundred and sixty nine to win.
Speaker 1: Okay, even without even without Nevada, she win by one. Okay, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's insane, that's insane.
Speaker 2: If she wins the second congressional district in Nebraska, which
Speaker 2: is why I'm long winded they getting into this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's talk about that, because how many states are
Speaker 1: there that split electoral roads. Is it just Maine? In Nebraska?
Speaker 2: There are two states. So in Maine there is one district,
Speaker 2: the rural second district, home to Acadian National Park and
Speaker 2: some of the most beautiful coastline in America's but also
Speaker 2: home to logging industry.
Speaker 1: And sponsored by the state of.
Speaker 2: Maine, sponsored by Main second district, but also home to
Speaker 2: logging communities. Weird French, American Acadian shit. I even know
Speaker 2: what goes on up there. They're speaking France parts of Maine, right, fishermen,
Speaker 2: I don't know little. It kind of mains an interesting state, right,
Speaker 2: It's not very religious, but you can still get some
Speaker 2: kind of kind of rednecky behavior. For sure. I love
Speaker 2: Main but it's an interesting state. So Trump is expected
Speaker 2: to win that one district in Maine, that rural one,
Speaker 2: whereas Kamala Harris is expected to win Omaha, Nebraska, Basically
Speaker 2: that's the Correschi DiscT for Omaha and its suburbs. So
Speaker 2: those offset the GFP wanted to change this law in Nebraska.
Speaker 2: They've been trying, which was kind of sleazy because the
Speaker 2: campaign's already begun strategy has already been involved for campaigning
Speaker 2: in Omaha and running ads there and things like that. It's,
Speaker 2: by the way, too late for Democrats to reciprocate in Maine.
Speaker 2: So and they but they lacked the votes to do this,
Speaker 2: so they were trying to change the rules in a
Speaker 2: way that I thought was very dirty. Pool But as
Speaker 2: a result of not doing that, this two seventy to
Speaker 2: sixty eight map still works for Harris, provided she actually
Speaker 2: does win the Nebraska district. And by the way, there's
Speaker 2: also this thing with faithless electors where some years some
Speaker 2: electors in the electoral colleges actually a group of people
Speaker 2: don't vote for the candidate they're pledged to vote for.
Speaker 1: How many times has that happened in history?
Speaker 2: It hasn't swung an election, But like in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: some people were so fed up with the Trump Clinton
Speaker 2: election that there were quite a few faithleus electors, not
Speaker 2: enough to like cost Uh Trump the election, but like,
Speaker 2: but there were some defectors for sure, have.
Speaker 1: There is that the only election I'm genuinely asking, I
Speaker 1: actually don't know.
Speaker 2: There was somebody who voted for John Edwards instead of
Speaker 2: John Kerry in two thousand and four.
Speaker 1: So it's often, it's rare, but it happens, and it's
Speaker 1: never been decisive, is what your No.
Speaker 2: But if it's two seventy, then if any comes bound right,
Speaker 2: but it's to seventy, then in some states are cracking
Speaker 2: down on this. If it's two seventy, then it means
Speaker 2: there are two hundred and sixty nine or two so
Speaker 2: tenty people that could change history by by by refusing
Speaker 2: to cast their vote as their as their pledge. So
Speaker 2: it's a little bit of a you know, we use
Speaker 2: the term existential risk of this episode, but it can.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, I think I think that makes sense
Speaker 1: though in this particular case, if we're looking at an
Speaker 1: election that could be that close, that could you know,
Speaker 1: could come down to two seventy versus two sixty eight,
Speaker 1: then than we are talking about about that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: By the way, I'm kind of curious to hear your
Speaker 1: take on this. Do you think that the main Nebraska
Speaker 1: model is a good one. Do you think that like?
Speaker 1: And do you think it's good to split the electoral votes?
Speaker 1: And do you see any other states potentially going that direction.
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm just curious.
Speaker 2: I think it's more likely that what will happen is
Speaker 2: that because Nebraska threatened to rescind this, it wouldn't surprise
Speaker 2: me if main prem deive ly rescinds their system. And
Speaker 2: then look, these are weird cases where they kind of
Speaker 2: offset one another. In general, No, I think it's bad
Speaker 2: for I think it's bad when you have different states
Speaker 2: with different rules. I think it's a slippery slope too.
Speaker 2: You know, for a while Pennsylvania want to allocate it's
Speaker 2: just delegates proportionately for example, I think I think you
Speaker 2: want consistent rules. The main Nebraska thing is pretty unikely
Speaker 2: swing election because they offset. But yeah, I and by
Speaker 2: the way, it's also giving more power to redistricting, which
Speaker 2: is how districts are drawn, which in many states is
Speaker 2: a very partisan process. Yeah, puts huge steaks into this
Speaker 2: once every ten year process. The Supreme Court has ruled
Speaker 2: that partisan jerry mandering is legal within certain boundaries. Probably
Speaker 2: will not change the Roberts Court, and so yeah, I
Speaker 2: would not want to give the redistrict pros this even
Speaker 2: more power.
Speaker 1: By the way, since you keep saying that they're balancing
Speaker 1: each other, let me bring our episode full circle. We
Speaker 1: started off talking about Anna Sarokan, and you said you'd
Speaker 1: never heard of her. However, you know there are certain
Speaker 1: things that you have heard of, like Curb your enthusiasm,
Speaker 1: So let's I just want to bring kurb back here.
Speaker 1: There was an episode last season where Larry David is
Speaker 1: standing in line to vote, and it's a really long
Speaker 1: line and it's hot outside, and he asks the gentleman
Speaker 1: in front of him who he's voting for. They're voting
Speaker 1: for the opposite party's candidates, and he asks if he
Speaker 1: wants to leave the line with him so that they
Speaker 1: both do not vote, and they offset each other and
Speaker 1: you know, they don't have to wait in line. The
Speaker 1: guy agrees, they both leave. Larry David's candidate ends up
Speaker 1: losing the election by one vote, and then it comes
Speaker 1: out that someone saw him leaving the line and not voting.
Speaker 1: And so I just wanted to bring this into our
Speaker 1: discussion because it's what I keep thinking about when you
Speaker 1: say they offset each other because, by the way, there
Speaker 1: is kind of that logic, and some people do kind
Speaker 1: of do that and they don't vote, and they find
Speaker 1: someone else who agrees not to vote, who's voting in
Speaker 1: the opposite to right.
Speaker 2: Like two thousand and four, there was some Nator thing
Speaker 2: where you trade your Nator vote in a safe state
Speaker 2: for a carry vote in a swing state or something.
Speaker 2: A memory hold all this stuff.
Speaker 1: Anyway, curb your enthusiasm taught us that you should be
Speaker 1: very wary of doing this because you are a candidate
Speaker 1: my loose by one.
Speaker 2: I sway to waction for like nineteen votes. Actually really, yeah,
Speaker 2: so I am because I am strategic with my voting.
Speaker 2: I'm a registered Republican because you have a lot of
Speaker 2: influence if you're a registered Republican in Chelsea, Manhattan, which
Speaker 2: is a very blue place. So twenty sixteen, I register
Speaker 2: as a Republican to vote against Donald Trump. The cann
Speaker 2: who was most viable at that point was John Kasick.
Speaker 2: So I voted for Kasik, and Kasik won my congressional
Speaker 2: district by I think nineteen votes or something, and therefore
Speaker 2: won an extra delegate to the Republican Convention. So you
Speaker 2: know me and nineteen other Chelsea Heights cost Trumpet a delegate.
Speaker 1: All right, well it is, it is. It is a
Speaker 1: lot of fun mileage. I think that's how strategic voting
Speaker 1: should be done.
Speaker 2: Kudos, Yeah, Maria. I think let's leave it there. I mean,
Speaker 2: we've which wound up being a lot of politics, a
Speaker 2: lot of politics.
Speaker 1: It did it?
Speaker 2: Did I need anythink I needed?
Speaker 1: I need a decompression politics break. I love you and
Speaker 1: I respect all of your opinions. Let's let's go grab
Speaker 1: a drink and not talk politics.
Speaker 2: Risky Business is hosted by me Nate Silper and me
Speaker 2: Maria Kannakova. The show was a coproduction of Pushkin Industries
Speaker 2: and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced by Isabel Carter. Our
Speaker 2: associate producer is Gabriel Hunter Chang. Our engineer is Sarah Bruger.
Speaker 2: Our executive producer is Jacob Goldstein.
Speaker 1: If you want to listen to an ad free version,
Speaker 1: sign up for Pushkin Plus For six ninety nine a month.
Speaker 1: You get access to ad free listening. Thanks for tuning in.