WEBVTT - 2024 Election Polls

0:00:01.760 --> 0:00:08.440
<v Speaker 1>Also media, welcome back to it could happen here a

0:00:08.480 --> 0:00:12.280
<v Speaker 1>podcast where Robert Evans is lying down on a couch

0:00:12.760 --> 0:00:18.599
<v Speaker 1>because he just feels exhausted from sleeping a leven full hours. Garrison,

0:00:19.360 --> 0:00:23.280
<v Speaker 1>you were much younger than me and don't seem to

0:00:23.320 --> 0:00:27.080
<v Speaker 1>feel exhausted because you just woke up after staying up

0:00:27.120 --> 0:00:29.160
<v Speaker 1>all night, did you? Yeah?

0:00:29.320 --> 0:00:30.680
<v Speaker 2>No, not as exhausted.

0:00:31.480 --> 0:00:32.879
<v Speaker 1>I hate do not hate you?

0:00:33.240 --> 0:00:35.160
<v Speaker 2>Do you do? You know what is exhausting? Robert?

0:00:35.760 --> 0:00:36.400
<v Speaker 1>Elections?

0:00:36.840 --> 0:00:39.080
<v Speaker 2>The twenty twenty four presidential election.

0:00:39.159 --> 0:00:41.519
<v Speaker 1>The twenty twenty four presidential election. Yeah, I hate it.

0:00:41.560 --> 0:00:45.720
<v Speaker 1>I hate it, Garrison, I hate it. But also I

0:00:45.880 --> 0:00:49.519
<v Speaker 1>have made a commitment. I have made a commitment to

0:00:50.120 --> 0:00:53.280
<v Speaker 1>making a prediction about the election this year and sticking

0:00:53.320 --> 0:00:55.920
<v Speaker 1>to it even though it's going to make everybody angry.

0:00:55.960 --> 0:00:58.720
<v Speaker 1>And I have a good reason for doing so. It's

0:00:58.760 --> 0:01:01.720
<v Speaker 1>because I want to try one of the rarest drugs

0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:06.480
<v Speaker 1>that exists in the world today. That Nate Silver Shit. See,

0:01:06.920 --> 0:01:11.240
<v Speaker 1>everyone's been wondering since like twenty twenty's what's up with

0:01:11.319 --> 0:01:13.679
<v Speaker 1>that guy? Did he like lose his mind? Was he

0:01:13.760 --> 0:01:17.919
<v Speaker 1>always kind of like out there and we just didn't

0:01:17.959 --> 0:01:21.080
<v Speaker 1>notice because he he got lucky a couple of elections

0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:23.759
<v Speaker 1>in a row. And the answer to that is no,

0:01:24.160 --> 0:01:27.640
<v Speaker 1>Nate was a pretty reasonable guy. He comes out of

0:01:27.760 --> 0:01:30.520
<v Speaker 1>like not politics. He only got into politics in two

0:01:30.520 --> 0:01:34.360
<v Speaker 1>thousand and six because they banned online gambling and he

0:01:34.400 --> 0:01:37.800
<v Speaker 1>got angry about it. And then he accurately predicted the

0:01:37.800 --> 0:01:40.640
<v Speaker 1>two thousand and eight and twenty twelve elections.

0:01:40.440 --> 0:01:42.800
<v Speaker 2>Which wasn't hard to be frin, It wasn't hard.

0:01:42.880 --> 0:01:44.840
<v Speaker 1>No, it was not. I mean, he got all the

0:01:44.959 --> 0:01:48.920
<v Speaker 1>states right, but it was just a matter because people

0:01:48.960 --> 0:01:51.080
<v Speaker 1>have pointed out he didn't seem to be nearly as

0:01:51.080 --> 0:01:54.080
<v Speaker 1>accurate in twenty sixteen or twenty twenty. There's a degree

0:01:54.080 --> 0:01:57.360
<v Speaker 1>of fairness to that, but like twight and twenty twelve

0:01:57.400 --> 0:02:00.480
<v Speaker 1>were our last non smartphone elections where they're wasn't this

0:02:00.640 --> 0:02:04.720
<v Speaker 1>like big you know, demon of social media kind of

0:02:04.800 --> 0:02:09.120
<v Speaker 1>hiding behind everything and making everything a lot weirder? And

0:02:09.639 --> 0:02:11.720
<v Speaker 1>I think part of you know, I think what ultimately

0:02:11.720 --> 0:02:14.800
<v Speaker 1>caused Nate's madness, though, is that in twenty sixteen he

0:02:14.880 --> 0:02:17.800
<v Speaker 1>did pretty well. He like laid out he was a

0:02:17.800 --> 0:02:20.400
<v Speaker 1>twenty nine percent chance of Trump winning, and when he

0:02:20.520 --> 0:02:23.680
<v Speaker 1>like explained what that chance was, how Trump might sweep

0:02:24.000 --> 0:02:27.000
<v Speaker 1>the blue Firewall States and whatnot. It's basically what wound

0:02:27.080 --> 0:02:30.960
<v Speaker 1>up happening, and as like a reward for being more

0:02:31.080 --> 0:02:33.680
<v Speaker 1>or less correct. While the election was going on, all

0:02:33.680 --> 0:02:36.840
<v Speaker 1>of the Democrats hated him because the news sources they

0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:39.360
<v Speaker 1>liked said that Trump had only a two percent chance

0:02:39.400 --> 0:02:42.000
<v Speaker 1>of winning, and then when the election was over, it

0:02:42.040 --> 0:02:47.720
<v Speaker 1>became like mainstream kind of reality to just say, Yeahate,

0:02:47.800 --> 0:02:50.480
<v Speaker 1>Nate fucked that one up. He finally screwed up, And

0:02:50.520 --> 0:02:53.520
<v Speaker 1>I think that that mix of things is what's driven

0:02:53.600 --> 0:02:57.480
<v Speaker 1>him insane. So I've decided to predict that there's a

0:02:57.560 --> 0:03:01.520
<v Speaker 1>twenty nine percent chance that the election is basically the

0:03:01.560 --> 0:03:04.520
<v Speaker 1>same as twenty twenty. And now, unlike Nate, I don't

0:03:04.520 --> 0:03:06.679
<v Speaker 1>have any kind of math to back that up. It's

0:03:06.720 --> 0:03:09.480
<v Speaker 1>just a gut feeling. But I'm I'm calling that now

0:03:09.840 --> 0:03:12.520
<v Speaker 1>because I want people to get really angry at me now,

0:03:13.080 --> 0:03:16.320
<v Speaker 1>and then ideally, when I'm right, they'll get even angrier

0:03:16.400 --> 0:03:18.560
<v Speaker 1>at me, and then I can go and say it

0:03:18.639 --> 0:03:22.080
<v Speaker 1>on social media and just gradly become completely unhinged and

0:03:22.120 --> 0:03:24.320
<v Speaker 1>see what it's like to be Nate Silver, the ultimate

0:03:24.400 --> 0:03:25.200
<v Speaker 1>high Garrison.

0:03:25.880 --> 0:03:27.960
<v Speaker 2>See, I thought you were gonna say you thought there

0:03:27.960 --> 0:03:31.200
<v Speaker 2>was a twenty nine percent chance that Nate Silver would

0:03:31.240 --> 0:03:36.280
<v Speaker 2>just completely completely lose it and do some like like you.

0:03:36.440 --> 0:03:38.040
<v Speaker 1>Do a major terrorism.

0:03:38.120 --> 0:03:39.600
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, yeah, absolutely what I thought.

0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:43.080
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, he drives a double decker bus into the end

0:03:43.080 --> 0:03:47.520
<v Speaker 1>of the Lincoln Memorial. God, that's my that's my hope.

0:03:47.560 --> 0:03:49.720
<v Speaker 2>He storms the five thirty eight headquarters.

0:03:50.120 --> 0:03:55.800
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, he's gonna take it back once and for all.

0:03:57.240 --> 0:04:00.800
<v Speaker 2>Okay, so today we're going to be talking about election polling.

0:04:01.360 --> 0:04:05.320
<v Speaker 2>The debate is very very soon here in Atlanta, Georgia,

0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:09.040
<v Speaker 2>and as a little bit of a preparatory measure, we

0:04:09.080 --> 0:04:11.520
<v Speaker 2>want to go over some of the actual poll numbers

0:04:12.360 --> 0:04:15.480
<v Speaker 2>for the twenty twenty four presidential election. I like to

0:04:15.560 --> 0:04:19.800
<v Speaker 2>start with this Iowa poe from Seltzer and Co. Now,

0:04:19.839 --> 0:04:22.800
<v Speaker 2>Iowa's a weird one, right. Iowa has has gone read

0:04:22.880 --> 0:04:26.760
<v Speaker 2>pretty consistently the past two years, although twenty twenty was

0:04:26.800 --> 0:04:30.040
<v Speaker 2>closer than twenty sixteen. In twenty twenty, Trump won the

0:04:30.080 --> 0:04:33.200
<v Speaker 2>state by fifty three point one percent to Biden's forty

0:04:33.240 --> 0:04:36.160
<v Speaker 2>four point nine percent. But the numbers right now are

0:04:36.520 --> 0:04:40.880
<v Speaker 2>much much worse for Biden. Not good, No, it's it's

0:04:40.920 --> 0:04:43.200
<v Speaker 2>it's pretty bad. Trum Trump is leading Biden in the

0:04:43.200 --> 0:04:47.080
<v Speaker 2>general election in Iowa by eighteen percentage points, and third

0:04:47.120 --> 0:04:51.400
<v Speaker 2>party candidates, including Kennedy and the libertarian candidate Chase Oliver,

0:04:51.800 --> 0:04:56.520
<v Speaker 2>are receiving a combined fifteen percent support. It's it's pretty bad.

0:04:56.560 --> 0:04:58.719
<v Speaker 2>It hasn't been this bad in a while. Now. People

0:04:58.760 --> 0:05:01.880
<v Speaker 2>like to use this specific Iowa poll as kind of

0:05:01.880 --> 0:05:05.520
<v Speaker 2>a barometer for the Midwest in general, and that's, you know,

0:05:05.720 --> 0:05:10.600
<v Speaker 2>not completely accurate all the time, but it is something

0:05:10.640 --> 0:05:13.960
<v Speaker 2>that people do consistently point to as a general barometer

0:05:14.120 --> 0:05:16.920
<v Speaker 2>for Trump's possible success in the Midwest. Now we have

0:05:17.120 --> 0:05:19.440
<v Speaker 2>Yes Minnesota.

0:05:18.880 --> 0:05:21.800
<v Speaker 1>Day because one of the most probably the most viable

0:05:21.839 --> 0:05:25.760
<v Speaker 1>path to Biden winning involves holding that quote unquote blue firewall,

0:05:25.760 --> 0:05:29.640
<v Speaker 1>which doesn't include Iowa obviously, it does include Michigan and Wisconsin,

0:05:30.400 --> 0:05:33.360
<v Speaker 1>both of which are generally within the margin of error

0:05:33.400 --> 0:05:36.400
<v Speaker 1>in most polls but looking very sketchy for Biden compared

0:05:36.400 --> 0:05:38.200
<v Speaker 1>to how he would like them to be at this point.

0:05:38.320 --> 0:05:42.599
<v Speaker 2>Wisconsin's not looking great. Minnesota, according to a Survey USA

0:05:42.720 --> 0:05:44.720
<v Speaker 2>poll from just a few days ago, Biden is up

0:05:44.760 --> 0:05:45.400
<v Speaker 2>six points.

0:05:45.640 --> 0:05:47.880
<v Speaker 1>Yes, Yes, Michigan is I think the one I was

0:05:47.920 --> 0:05:49.400
<v Speaker 1>saying is a little closer.

0:05:49.560 --> 0:05:52.720
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So that's kind of the situation with this poll.

0:05:52.760 --> 0:05:53.839
<v Speaker 2>And I'm not going to get into any of the

0:05:53.839 --> 0:05:57.520
<v Speaker 2>more specific numbers because the numbers in this Iowa poll

0:05:57.560 --> 0:06:00.120
<v Speaker 2>are going to be actually pretty reminiscent of more more

0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:02.719
<v Speaker 2>of the general election numbers which we're going to get into,

0:06:02.880 --> 0:06:05.839
<v Speaker 2>especially when we're going to start factoring in things like

0:06:05.880 --> 0:06:09.920
<v Speaker 2>the conviction and Trump's popularity among independence, which could very

0:06:09.960 --> 0:06:13.400
<v Speaker 2>well be a major deciding factor in this election. So

0:06:13.920 --> 0:06:17.680
<v Speaker 2>I'm going to quote from Forbes here. Quote. Trump leads

0:06:17.680 --> 0:06:20.120
<v Speaker 2>Biden by one point fifty to forty nine percent in

0:06:20.160 --> 0:06:22.600
<v Speaker 2>a CBS poll released Sunday that comes after a streak

0:06:22.640 --> 0:06:25.760
<v Speaker 2>of surveys found Trump's lead has slipped since his felony

0:06:25.760 --> 0:06:29.719
<v Speaker 2>conviction Manhattan last month, including a Fox News survey released Wednesday,

0:06:29.760 --> 0:06:33.159
<v Speaker 2>the nineteenth that shows Biden up by two points, a

0:06:33.200 --> 0:06:36.040
<v Speaker 2>three point swing since the network's May survey. This was

0:06:36.080 --> 0:06:38.760
<v Speaker 2>among a streak of five polls since mid June that

0:06:38.800 --> 0:06:44.080
<v Speaker 2>show Biden beating or tied with Trump unquote. So Biden

0:06:44.120 --> 0:06:46.719
<v Speaker 2>has made some considerable progress in the polls in the

0:06:46.800 --> 0:06:49.240
<v Speaker 2>past month. Biden and Trump are now tied in the

0:06:49.279 --> 0:06:51.800
<v Speaker 2>Morning Consults Weekly survey, as Biden has now been leading

0:06:51.839 --> 0:06:54.720
<v Speaker 2>Trump by a point in for two weeks in a row.

0:06:55.120 --> 0:06:58.279
<v Speaker 2>A month prior, Trump was way way ahead of Biden,

0:06:58.480 --> 0:07:01.200
<v Speaker 2>and the two are also tied in the Economist YouGov

0:07:01.320 --> 0:07:04.880
<v Speaker 2>survey released last Thursday, as well as a PBST Marrist

0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:08.200
<v Speaker 2>pull from Tuesday the eighteenth.

0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:10.240
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and there's a couple of things. I mean, like,

0:07:10.960 --> 0:07:13.440
<v Speaker 1>it's easy to say that's probably due to the conviction,

0:07:13.560 --> 0:07:16.840
<v Speaker 1>because that's the biggest thing that's happened since then. But

0:07:16.920 --> 0:07:18.960
<v Speaker 1>I also think there's a decent chance that some of

0:07:19.000 --> 0:07:21.120
<v Speaker 1>that is just the result of the fact that Trump

0:07:21.160 --> 0:07:23.360
<v Speaker 1>is now definitely the nominee, which was a little more

0:07:23.440 --> 0:07:26.240
<v Speaker 1>up in the air previously, so now people are kind

0:07:26.240 --> 0:07:29.840
<v Speaker 1>of forced to consider what that really means. But it

0:07:29.880 --> 0:07:33.080
<v Speaker 1>does seem in general like there's been motion and like

0:07:33.160 --> 0:07:36.080
<v Speaker 1>things have been moving in Biden's favor since the conviction.

0:07:36.640 --> 0:07:38.960
<v Speaker 1>So I don't think it's wrong to say that probably

0:07:39.000 --> 0:07:41.800
<v Speaker 1>overall the evidence suggests helps Biden at this point.

0:07:42.240 --> 0:07:45.080
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And the Fox News survey is really interesting because

0:07:45.120 --> 0:07:46.960
<v Speaker 2>they have this They have it on a graph here,

0:07:47.520 --> 0:07:51.640
<v Speaker 2>and you can see Biden steadily moving upwards on the

0:07:51.720 --> 0:07:58.120
<v Speaker 2>graph very consistently, and Trump has largely flatlined. If not

0:07:58.360 --> 0:08:01.360
<v Speaker 2>is actually kind of moving a little bit down. Robert F.

0:08:01.440 --> 0:08:06.040
<v Speaker 2>Kennedy Junior is also moving quite down. Yeah, not completely

0:08:06.080 --> 0:08:09.080
<v Speaker 2>surprising considering the whole brain brainworms thing.

0:08:09.720 --> 0:08:12.040
<v Speaker 1>He's going to be the most interesting thing. I mean,

0:08:12.080 --> 0:08:14.160
<v Speaker 1>not the most interesting thing, because whether or not Trump

0:08:14.240 --> 0:08:16.360
<v Speaker 1>wins could mean whether or not we are able to

0:08:16.400 --> 0:08:19.840
<v Speaker 1>continue doing what we do. But RFK is kind of

0:08:19.880 --> 0:08:21.800
<v Speaker 1>the most interesting thing for me in terms of like,

0:08:23.000 --> 0:08:25.280
<v Speaker 1>are is it going to Is there going to be

0:08:25.280 --> 0:08:27.920
<v Speaker 1>any kind of evidence that there's actually real hunger for

0:08:27.960 --> 0:08:30.480
<v Speaker 1>a third party which everyone keeps talking about. Is this

0:08:30.560 --> 0:08:36.199
<v Speaker 1>constant topic of discussion in US politics, but it never happens,

0:08:36.400 --> 0:08:39.480
<v Speaker 1>and people were getting very RFK is obviously a bad

0:08:39.480 --> 0:08:41.880
<v Speaker 1>guy to pin your hopes on a viable third party on,

0:08:42.360 --> 0:08:44.560
<v Speaker 1>but I am interested to see if if it because

0:08:44.720 --> 0:08:49.559
<v Speaker 1>there's a decent evidence that the primary chunk because when

0:08:49.600 --> 0:08:52.960
<v Speaker 1>you factor in RFK, Biden's lead doesn't go down, right,

0:08:53.200 --> 0:08:55.200
<v Speaker 1>because RFK is really popular among a lot of the

0:08:55.240 --> 0:08:58.640
<v Speaker 1>independence that Trump is already strong with. And yeah, so

0:08:59.000 --> 0:09:02.320
<v Speaker 1>the big question is like, is he going to drain

0:09:02.480 --> 0:09:05.480
<v Speaker 1>votes from Trump or just kind of fizzle out? And

0:09:05.559 --> 0:09:07.200
<v Speaker 1>I think right now the smart money is kind of

0:09:07.200 --> 0:09:09.959
<v Speaker 1>on fizzling out. But it's it's a little hard to say.

0:09:11.120 --> 0:09:12.400
<v Speaker 2>Do you know what we can say for sure?

0:09:12.400 --> 0:09:16.360
<v Speaker 1>Though, Robert that uh, Robert F. Kennedy Junior is the

0:09:16.400 --> 0:09:18.360
<v Speaker 1>primary sponsor of this podcast.

0:09:18.520 --> 0:09:20.760
<v Speaker 2>God, I hope, so, I hope, I really hope we

0:09:20.800 --> 0:09:22.600
<v Speaker 2>start getting some RFK ads on here.

0:09:22.960 --> 0:09:25.079
<v Speaker 1>Look, folks, if you if you're not sure whether or

0:09:25.080 --> 0:09:27.000
<v Speaker 1>not you want to vote for RFK, we get it.

0:09:27.040 --> 0:09:29.080
<v Speaker 1>You know, obviously it's a this is a big choice.

0:09:29.080 --> 0:09:31.440
<v Speaker 1>But our recommendation is head down to the Gulf of

0:09:31.480 --> 0:09:35.360
<v Speaker 1>Galveston and shove your head in that in that Texas

0:09:35.600 --> 0:09:39.000
<v Speaker 1>coast water, get a couple of amibas rattling around on

0:09:39.040 --> 0:09:41.080
<v Speaker 1>that brainy ores, and then see how you feel about

0:09:41.080 --> 0:09:54.760
<v Speaker 1>our FK Junior. You know, all right, we are back.

0:09:55.480 --> 0:09:58.079
<v Speaker 2>Let's talk a little bit about independence, because this voting

0:09:58.120 --> 0:10:02.760
<v Speaker 2>block will basically be the deciding factor in this whole election.

0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:07.400
<v Speaker 2>So that PBS Marrist poll that found Trump and Biden

0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:11.880
<v Speaker 2>tied also found that Trump has lost six points with

0:10:11.920 --> 0:10:15.160
<v Speaker 2>independence compared to their poll taken just before his conviction

0:10:15.440 --> 0:10:19.680
<v Speaker 2>last May, and Biden has gained eight points with independence

0:10:19.720 --> 0:10:22.760
<v Speaker 2>and now leads Trump by two points in that category.

0:10:22.800 --> 0:10:25.959
<v Speaker 2>And Similarly, the Fox poll also shows Biden leading by

0:10:26.240 --> 0:10:28.360
<v Speaker 2>nine points among Independence.

0:10:29.320 --> 0:10:32.480
<v Speaker 1>And that's a massive, like shift. That's enough of a

0:10:32.520 --> 0:10:35.920
<v Speaker 1>shift that I wonder how much polling methodology maybe to

0:10:36.040 --> 0:10:38.320
<v Speaker 1>explain for it, Like were they just pulling these people?

0:10:38.600 --> 0:10:40.920
<v Speaker 1>Were they pulling them badly before? Or are they pulling

0:10:40.920 --> 0:10:44.600
<v Speaker 1>them badly now? Because that's that's quite a lot of movement.

0:10:45.160 --> 0:10:47.440
<v Speaker 2>We'll talk a little bit about pulling methodology here at

0:10:47.440 --> 0:10:50.400
<v Speaker 2>the end, because it might. Yeah, it is, certainly the

0:10:50.400 --> 0:10:54.280
<v Speaker 2>polling methodology produces a large degree of the numbers. A

0:10:54.320 --> 0:10:55.920
<v Speaker 2>lot of these polls have a margin of error of

0:10:56.000 --> 0:10:59.920
<v Speaker 2>about three point five percent, but this this finding is

0:11:00.080 --> 0:11:03.600
<v Speaker 2>consistent across almost every single poll being done right now.

0:11:04.240 --> 0:11:08.960
<v Speaker 2>A political Ipsos poll from mid June found that thirty

0:11:08.960 --> 0:11:11.320
<v Speaker 2>two percent of Independence say they are now less likely

0:11:11.400 --> 0:11:14.360
<v Speaker 2>to support Trump after his conviction, with twenty one percent

0:11:14.400 --> 0:11:17.320
<v Speaker 2>saying it would be an important factor in their vote.

0:11:17.960 --> 0:11:20.760
<v Speaker 1>Yep, and I did. This is the kind when we

0:11:20.760 --> 0:11:23.480
<v Speaker 1>were taught would talk in the group chat before the conviction.

0:11:23.600 --> 0:11:25.640
<v Speaker 1>I would. I made a note a couple of times

0:11:25.679 --> 0:11:27.920
<v Speaker 1>of the fact that there's a sizeable number of Americans

0:11:27.920 --> 0:11:30.920
<v Speaker 1>who are not what you'd call high information voters but

0:11:31.080 --> 0:11:34.520
<v Speaker 1>just feel really gross about voting for a felon. And

0:11:34.559 --> 0:11:36.800
<v Speaker 1>I think these are the kind of people who are

0:11:36.840 --> 0:11:39.040
<v Speaker 1>independence a lot of the times. They're not people who

0:11:39.040 --> 0:11:41.199
<v Speaker 1>think much about politics. They're people who make.

0:11:41.320 --> 0:11:43.960
<v Speaker 2>The most part of him typically yeah.

0:11:43.520 --> 0:11:45.480
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah, And they can kind of make a swing,

0:11:45.520 --> 0:11:48.280
<v Speaker 1>gut decision on either of these guys in a moment.

0:11:48.320 --> 0:11:51.319
<v Speaker 1>And if you tell well, he's a felon, that matters

0:11:51.320 --> 0:11:55.600
<v Speaker 1>to some people. There's like the this frustrates a lot

0:11:55.640 --> 0:11:59.080
<v Speaker 1>of like high information political analysts, the fact that so

0:11:59.120 --> 0:12:03.080
<v Speaker 1>many Americans kind of like make almost random decisions like

0:12:03.200 --> 0:12:05.679
<v Speaker 1>the slip of a coid calls about what to do, but.

0:12:06.160 --> 0:12:10.000
<v Speaker 2>Which is also what makes polling very hard. Is right,

0:12:10.400 --> 0:12:13.640
<v Speaker 2>But all polls also indicate that this will probably be

0:12:13.679 --> 0:12:16.719
<v Speaker 2>a much closer election than twenty twenties, and in an

0:12:16.760 --> 0:12:20.920
<v Speaker 2>election this close, small shifts among independents could very well

0:12:20.960 --> 0:12:23.160
<v Speaker 2>determine the outcome. Now, I'm going to quote from that

0:12:23.160 --> 0:12:27.760
<v Speaker 2>Political Episos report on their own poll quote quote a

0:12:27.800 --> 0:12:30.400
<v Speaker 2>plurality respondence. In our poll, thirty eight percent reported that

0:12:30.440 --> 0:12:32.839
<v Speaker 2>Trump's conviction would have no impact on their likelihood to

0:12:32.840 --> 0:12:35.200
<v Speaker 2>support Trump for president. Thirty three percent of respondent said

0:12:35.200 --> 0:12:37.000
<v Speaker 2>that the conviction made them less likely to support Trump,

0:12:37.240 --> 0:12:40.520
<v Speaker 2>while only seventeen percent said it made them more likely.

0:12:41.120 --> 0:12:44.160
<v Speaker 2>These results were worse for Trunk. Among respondents who said

0:12:44.160 --> 0:12:47.199
<v Speaker 2>they were political independents, thirty two percent said that the

0:12:47.200 --> 0:12:49.720
<v Speaker 2>conviction made them less likely to support and only twelve

0:12:49.880 --> 0:12:53.840
<v Speaker 2>said that it made them more likely to support Trump unquote.

0:12:53.880 --> 0:12:56.520
<v Speaker 2>And that same poll also found that nine percent of

0:12:56.559 --> 0:12:59.160
<v Speaker 2>Republicans say they're now less likely to support Trump.

0:12:59.720 --> 0:13:02.760
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, which is massive, and that that actually makes me

0:13:02.800 --> 0:13:04.680
<v Speaker 1>want to bring up one of the guys the analysts

0:13:04.720 --> 0:13:09.360
<v Speaker 1>I've been reading, because this is actually the extent that

0:13:09.400 --> 0:13:12.240
<v Speaker 1>there's any real basis behind my twenty nine percent chance

0:13:12.360 --> 0:13:16.559
<v Speaker 1>things work out. Basically, like twenty twenty one, it's this this,

0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:21.040
<v Speaker 1>this fucking dude Helmet Norpoth norpoth Is. He's one of

0:13:21.040 --> 0:13:24.040
<v Speaker 1>these guys who's built a model, Like you get these

0:13:24.040 --> 0:13:27.560
<v Speaker 1>every now and then, like because they're great content for

0:13:27.720 --> 0:13:29.880
<v Speaker 1>TV news. Dudes like, oh, this guy's got a model

0:13:29.880 --> 0:13:33.880
<v Speaker 1>predict the election. His model predicted the last forty elections properly,

0:13:33.920 --> 0:13:35.760
<v Speaker 1>even though they like ran them through after we knew

0:13:35.800 --> 0:13:37.960
<v Speaker 1>how the elections were going to go. And I don't

0:13:38.000 --> 0:13:41.400
<v Speaker 1>know how fair that is. Helmet actually did accurately predict

0:13:42.040 --> 0:13:44.200
<v Speaker 1>a couple of like the last he's had his model

0:13:44.240 --> 0:13:47.040
<v Speaker 1>going the primary model for like the last seven elections,

0:13:47.080 --> 0:13:49.640
<v Speaker 1>and it predicted five of them correctly. Now, one it

0:13:49.679 --> 0:13:54.040
<v Speaker 1>got right was twenty sixteen, although it predicted how Trump

0:13:54.120 --> 0:13:56.400
<v Speaker 1>was going to win wrong, it got that he was

0:13:56.480 --> 0:13:58.760
<v Speaker 1>going to win right. I don't know how much credence

0:13:58.760 --> 0:14:00.200
<v Speaker 1>you want to give that. And he fucked up in

0:14:00.200 --> 0:14:02.360
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty, although you know the fact that there was

0:14:02.360 --> 0:14:04.520
<v Speaker 1>a pandemic, then I'll give him a little bit of grace.

0:14:04.600 --> 0:14:07.480
<v Speaker 1>The other one he fucked up was twenty was two thousand,

0:14:07.960 --> 0:14:11.600
<v Speaker 1>but he called it. He called it for Gore. So yeah, Well,

0:14:11.880 --> 0:14:14.480
<v Speaker 1>and I'll read from his website describing like how this

0:14:14.559 --> 0:14:16.400
<v Speaker 1>works because it's relevant to what you're talking about in

0:14:16.480 --> 0:14:19.200
<v Speaker 1>terms of independent voters, and it's also relevant to what

0:14:19.280 --> 0:14:22.280
<v Speaker 1>I think is another major factor and who's going to

0:14:22.320 --> 0:14:26.200
<v Speaker 1>ultimately when, which is likely voters versus like correct If

0:14:26.200 --> 0:14:29.400
<v Speaker 1>I feel like it, I'll vote because Biden's lead jumps

0:14:29.480 --> 0:14:33.760
<v Speaker 1>substantially when you consider likely voters correct, whereas Trump does

0:14:33.880 --> 0:14:37.320
<v Speaker 1>very well with like maybe voters. And I kind of

0:14:37.360 --> 0:14:38.720
<v Speaker 1>don't feel like this is going to be a high

0:14:38.760 --> 0:14:41.680
<v Speaker 1>turnout election, right, That's that's what I am seeing.

0:14:41.920 --> 0:14:43.920
<v Speaker 2>We have some data on this that I'll talk about later.

0:14:44.000 --> 0:14:46.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah, and Helmet's model works that way. So quote,

0:14:47.080 --> 0:14:49.680
<v Speaker 1>the primary model gives President Joe Biden a seventy five

0:14:49.720 --> 0:14:52.760
<v Speaker 1>percent chance to defeat Donald Trump in November. This forecast

0:14:52.760 --> 0:14:54.840
<v Speaker 1>takes account of the performance of the two candidates in

0:14:54.920 --> 0:14:58.320
<v Speaker 1>the early primaries. Biden won the Democratic contest in those

0:14:58.360 --> 0:15:01.240
<v Speaker 1>states by far larger margins than tru in Republican once.

0:15:01.440 --> 0:15:03.680
<v Speaker 1>What also benefits Biden and the general election is an

0:15:03.720 --> 0:15:07.000
<v Speaker 1>electoral cycle that fits the sitting president in a nutshell.

0:15:07.080 --> 0:15:10.040
<v Speaker 1>A White House incumbent facing no significant challenge in primaries

0:15:10.080 --> 0:15:13.200
<v Speaker 1>almost always wins reelection. As for the electoral college, the

0:15:13.200 --> 0:15:16.080
<v Speaker 1>most likely outcome of the twenty twenty four election predicted

0:15:16.120 --> 0:15:18.040
<v Speaker 1>by the model is that Biden will get three fifteen

0:15:18.160 --> 0:15:21.000
<v Speaker 1>and Trump two two three And basically, so part of

0:15:21.040 --> 0:15:23.920
<v Speaker 1>why I think this guy's probably a hack, but it's

0:15:24.000 --> 0:15:26.960
<v Speaker 1>kind of interesting is he's looking at how they performed

0:15:27.000 --> 0:15:30.840
<v Speaker 1>relative to each other in their primaries and could there's

0:15:30.880 --> 0:15:33.080
<v Speaker 1>a degree to which you can say, like, well, primaries

0:15:33.120 --> 0:15:36.560
<v Speaker 1>are absolutely not general elections. But what it does show

0:15:36.720 --> 0:15:41.240
<v Speaker 1>is relative how much Trump's support has faded from Republicans,

0:15:41.320 --> 0:15:45.920
<v Speaker 1>and Trump actually did considerably less well in the primaries

0:15:46.200 --> 0:15:48.400
<v Speaker 1>than he did in twenty twenty. Right totally, there was

0:15:48.440 --> 0:15:54.480
<v Speaker 1>a degree of actual like hunger to vote for Kerry Lake,

0:15:54.760 --> 0:15:59.480
<v Speaker 1>whom I think is the Arizona right candidate who was

0:15:59.520 --> 0:16:03.320
<v Speaker 1>running a gagainst him, and he showed weakness in a

0:16:03.400 --> 0:16:06.640
<v Speaker 1>number of primary states that was not there in twenty twenty,

0:16:06.680 --> 0:16:09.200
<v Speaker 1>which suggests, along with the polling you showed, you know

0:16:09.240 --> 0:16:11.360
<v Speaker 1>that like nine percent of Republicans are less likely to

0:16:11.440 --> 0:16:13.880
<v Speaker 1>vote from after the conviction, an amount of weakness in

0:16:13.960 --> 0:16:18.640
<v Speaker 1>his base that could be pretty meaningful when we get

0:16:18.640 --> 0:16:20.480
<v Speaker 1>to the election. And I don't think it's been taken

0:16:20.480 --> 0:16:23.240
<v Speaker 1>into account enough by, for example, folks on the left

0:16:23.240 --> 0:16:26.280
<v Speaker 1>looking at how much everybody hates Joe Biden, which is

0:16:26.320 --> 0:16:28.760
<v Speaker 1>also a very real factor. But I think that people

0:16:28.800 --> 0:16:31.400
<v Speaker 1>are kind of denying the degree to which a lot

0:16:31.400 --> 0:16:34.000
<v Speaker 1>of folks who should be his base don't like Trump anymore.

0:16:34.480 --> 0:16:36.520
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and this is one of the weird things. Post

0:16:36.520 --> 0:16:38.960
<v Speaker 2>to conviction, there were some pundits who were trying to

0:16:38.960 --> 0:16:42.080
<v Speaker 2>make an argument that somehow the conviction would actually make

0:16:42.360 --> 0:16:47.000
<v Speaker 2>Trump a more popular choice, which maybe works if you're

0:16:47.040 --> 0:16:49.960
<v Speaker 2>like a contrarian, but it doesn't really make much sense.

0:16:50.320 --> 0:16:52.640
<v Speaker 2>And if you look at like the approval ratings for

0:16:53.240 --> 0:16:56.600
<v Speaker 2>the conviction and the verdict, they fall pretty pretty well

0:16:56.640 --> 0:17:00.000
<v Speaker 2>on party lines. It's really going to come down to independence.

0:17:01.040 --> 0:17:03.800
<v Speaker 2>And like everyone who's going to vote for Trump, who

0:17:03.880 --> 0:17:06.080
<v Speaker 2>like really really really want to vote for Trump, are

0:17:06.080 --> 0:17:08.280
<v Speaker 2>still going to vote for Trump, right, Like that's that's

0:17:08.280 --> 0:17:09.160
<v Speaker 2>that's how it goes.

0:17:09.520 --> 0:17:12.159
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely not, and they will buy the I'm voting for

0:17:12.200 --> 0:17:14.720
<v Speaker 1>a felon hats that Facebook keeps trying to sell.

0:17:14.560 --> 0:17:16.720
<v Speaker 2>Mate absolutely right, Like, those are not the people that

0:17:16.760 --> 0:17:19.080
<v Speaker 2>are in question, but there is a large number of

0:17:19.119 --> 0:17:21.400
<v Speaker 2>other people who do not own a mega hat who

0:17:21.400 --> 0:17:24.679
<v Speaker 2>are actually, you know, questionable in who they're going to

0:17:24.720 --> 0:17:26.440
<v Speaker 2>vote for. On this note, I'd like to like to

0:17:26.520 --> 0:17:29.800
<v Speaker 2>quote again from Forbes quote. Polls consistently show the conviction

0:17:29.960 --> 0:17:32.520
<v Speaker 2>is a low priority for most voters in deciding who

0:17:32.520 --> 0:17:35.400
<v Speaker 2>to actually cast their ballot for. The political Ipsos poll

0:17:35.400 --> 0:17:37.280
<v Speaker 2>found that fifty three percent said it's not important, so

0:17:37.400 --> 0:17:39.359
<v Speaker 2>that it's not important to their voting decision, while sixty

0:17:39.359 --> 0:17:42.680
<v Speaker 2>one percent in a Reuter's full released last week said

0:17:42.680 --> 0:17:45.480
<v Speaker 2>it won't impact their vote unquote. Now, one of the

0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:48.040
<v Speaker 2>clearer shifts that we have seen post verdict is a

0:17:48.080 --> 0:17:52.000
<v Speaker 2>sizable increase in Biden voters who list stopping Trump as

0:17:52.040 --> 0:17:54.679
<v Speaker 2>one of their main reasons to do so. This we

0:17:54.760 --> 0:17:57.760
<v Speaker 2>have numbers from March to now, is that the main

0:17:57.800 --> 0:18:00.880
<v Speaker 2>reason for supporting Biden. In March, we had forty seven

0:18:00.880 --> 0:18:04.040
<v Speaker 2>percent saying it's to oppose Trump. Now it's fifty four

0:18:04.080 --> 0:18:06.720
<v Speaker 2>percent saying it's to oppost Trump. Which I think that

0:18:06.800 --> 0:18:09.880
<v Speaker 2>number will only increase the closer we get to the election,

0:18:10.040 --> 0:18:13.240
<v Speaker 2>because people don't want Trump to be president again, even

0:18:13.280 --> 0:18:14.520
<v Speaker 2>though they don't like Biden.

0:18:15.000 --> 0:18:15.119
<v Speaker 3>Like.

0:18:15.400 --> 0:18:18.600
<v Speaker 2>The other thing with these numbers is that the percent

0:18:18.600 --> 0:18:20.960
<v Speaker 2>of people who say I like Biden as reason for

0:18:21.160 --> 0:18:25.840
<v Speaker 2>supporting him has decreased since March. Yes, yes, it's decreased

0:18:26.000 --> 0:18:26.960
<v Speaker 2>by four percent.

0:18:27.600 --> 0:18:30.680
<v Speaker 1>Of course, because he's not likable and he's he shouldn't

0:18:30.680 --> 0:18:34.840
<v Speaker 1>be president still. But Trump is even like and people

0:18:34.880 --> 0:18:38.440
<v Speaker 1>understand like I that is the number one thing. When

0:18:38.480 --> 0:18:41.359
<v Speaker 1>I go out of like my the bubble of my

0:18:41.400 --> 0:18:44.159
<v Speaker 1>friends and whatnot and talk to family members or just

0:18:44.240 --> 0:18:47.679
<v Speaker 1>like have conversations with right like uber drivers or whatnot

0:18:47.760 --> 0:18:51.280
<v Speaker 1>about politics, I have not heard a single person state

0:18:51.400 --> 0:18:53.760
<v Speaker 1>a reason for vote. They want to vote for Biden.

0:18:53.960 --> 0:18:56.080
<v Speaker 1>That is more important than I don't want Trump to

0:18:56.080 --> 0:18:59.560
<v Speaker 1>be president. That is everyone that I encounter basically like

0:18:59.560 --> 0:19:03.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm I'm obviously you have other people, but it is

0:19:03.160 --> 0:19:06.200
<v Speaker 1>weird to the extent to which that's what this election

0:19:06.320 --> 0:19:08.439
<v Speaker 1>is going to come down on. And I kind of

0:19:08.480 --> 0:19:12.840
<v Speaker 1>think it's evidence that of a failure and strategy in

0:19:12.880 --> 0:19:16.119
<v Speaker 1>Trump's part, because I think he probably could do better

0:19:16.640 --> 0:19:19.560
<v Speaker 1>if he were to focus on allaying those fears that

0:19:19.600 --> 0:19:23.080
<v Speaker 1>he wants to become a dictator as opposed to harping

0:19:23.080 --> 0:19:24.960
<v Speaker 1>on like one of the things that's interesting to me.

0:19:25.040 --> 0:19:28.480
<v Speaker 1>He's campaigning very heavily in Wisconsin right now. He's already

0:19:28.480 --> 0:19:30.720
<v Speaker 1>made like two visits just to southeast Wisconsin in the

0:19:30.840 --> 0:19:33.960
<v Speaker 1>last two months. Because Wisconsin is up for grabs right

0:19:34.040 --> 0:19:36.320
<v Speaker 1>Every poll I've seen basically is within margin of air.

0:19:36.400 --> 0:19:39.280
<v Speaker 1>It's either guy's game, and it's a critical state. And

0:19:39.480 --> 0:19:43.919
<v Speaker 1>Trump is hammering Biden on crime in Wisconsin right like,

0:19:44.600 --> 0:19:46.320
<v Speaker 1>look at how your dims have done, look at how

0:19:46.359 --> 0:19:49.320
<v Speaker 1>much more violent this city's become. And about one percent

0:19:49.359 --> 0:19:53.320
<v Speaker 1>of registered voters in Wisconsin consider crime a major concern

0:19:53.440 --> 0:19:56.080
<v Speaker 1>and a presidential election. And part of that's because, like,

0:19:56.160 --> 0:20:00.200
<v Speaker 1>violent crime has dropped and like massively in Wisconsin and

0:20:00.240 --> 0:20:03.800
<v Speaker 1>wide over the last year. And I do wonder the

0:20:03.880 --> 0:20:06.760
<v Speaker 1>extent to which, because Americans views on crime are not

0:20:06.800 --> 0:20:09.320
<v Speaker 1>based on how bad crime actually is. But I also

0:20:09.359 --> 0:20:13.760
<v Speaker 1>wonder if people are start like the degree to which

0:20:13.760 --> 0:20:16.359
<v Speaker 1>that's a voting concern for people is fading because it

0:20:16.400 --> 0:20:19.480
<v Speaker 1>has dropped so much. And I'll be curious to see

0:20:19.480 --> 0:20:22.760
<v Speaker 1>if kind of Trump's strategy of hammering the Democrats because

0:20:22.760 --> 0:20:25.119
<v Speaker 1>they're bad on crime is going to prove to be

0:20:25.680 --> 0:20:26.840
<v Speaker 1>a serious misstep.

0:20:27.080 --> 0:20:30.080
<v Speaker 2>Well, even Fox News has had to do recent segments

0:20:30.119 --> 0:20:32.439
<v Speaker 2>talking about how there actually has been a drop in crime,

0:20:32.800 --> 0:20:36.399
<v Speaker 2>even though Americans feel like it hasn't, which is a

0:20:36.480 --> 0:20:40.760
<v Speaker 2>quite funny little tidbit. We're all looking for the guy

0:20:40.760 --> 0:20:43.160
<v Speaker 2>who did this moment. Now, I do want to get

0:20:43.160 --> 0:20:45.200
<v Speaker 2>through a few more conviction numbers. I'm going to quote

0:20:45.200 --> 0:20:48.600
<v Speaker 2>from Politicalist report on their own poll regarding the importance

0:20:48.640 --> 0:20:51.400
<v Speaker 2>of the conviction and people's vote. Quote, twenty two percent

0:20:51.440 --> 0:20:54.159
<v Speaker 2>of respondents said the conviction is important to how they

0:20:54.200 --> 0:20:56.640
<v Speaker 2>will vote and that it will make them less likely

0:20:56.680 --> 0:20:59.639
<v Speaker 2>to support Trump. Only six percent of respondents took the

0:20:59.680 --> 0:21:02.080
<v Speaker 2>other out of the question, saying they are more likely

0:21:02.119 --> 0:21:05.399
<v Speaker 2>to support a nearly identical net negative effect showed up

0:21:05.400 --> 0:21:08.160
<v Speaker 2>among independents, with twenty one percent saying they are less

0:21:08.200 --> 0:21:10.680
<v Speaker 2>likely to support and five percent saying they are more

0:21:10.800 --> 0:21:13.760
<v Speaker 2>likely unquote now. Of those who say the conviction is

0:21:13.760 --> 0:21:17.000
<v Speaker 2>important to how they will vote, seven percent of Republicans

0:21:17.040 --> 0:21:20.160
<v Speaker 2>say they are less likely to support Trump. So that's

0:21:20.200 --> 0:21:23.879
<v Speaker 2>an interesting number, and only thirteen percent say they are

0:21:23.880 --> 0:21:25.760
<v Speaker 2>more likely, and like, come on, those people were always

0:21:25.760 --> 0:21:28.639
<v Speaker 2>going to vote for Trump anyway. Forty percent of Democrats,

0:21:28.680 --> 0:21:31.679
<v Speaker 2>of course, say that they are less likely now. Twenty

0:21:31.760 --> 0:21:34.600
<v Speaker 2>eight percent of Republicans say that the conviction makes them

0:21:34.680 --> 0:21:37.400
<v Speaker 2>more likely to support Trump, but it won't affect their vote,

0:21:37.520 --> 0:21:39.560
<v Speaker 2>and among those who said the conviction isn't important to

0:21:39.560 --> 0:21:42.240
<v Speaker 2>how they will vote, forty percent said that it has

0:21:42.359 --> 0:21:44.840
<v Speaker 2>basically no impact on their support of Trump. Most those

0:21:44.880 --> 0:21:48.439
<v Speaker 2>people are independents now. Political also asked respondents if they

0:21:48.440 --> 0:21:51.520
<v Speaker 2>thought the prosecution was brought to help Joe Biden, and

0:21:52.040 --> 0:21:55.000
<v Speaker 2>most around fifty one percent disagree with the claim, but

0:21:55.040 --> 0:21:57.760
<v Speaker 2>forty three percent agreed and said that the case had

0:21:57.840 --> 0:22:01.600
<v Speaker 2>probably been been brought to help Biden, and these results

0:22:01.600 --> 0:22:05.520
<v Speaker 2>are roughly similar among Independence, so still most people don't

0:22:05.600 --> 0:22:08.680
<v Speaker 2>think so, and there's people who have, you know, suspicions,

0:22:09.119 --> 0:22:10.200
<v Speaker 2>not not super surprising.

0:22:10.600 --> 0:22:10.800
<v Speaker 3>Now.

0:22:10.880 --> 0:22:14.000
<v Speaker 2>Political notes that these figures might be movable, though these

0:22:14.000 --> 0:22:18.600
<v Speaker 2>are not necessarily locked down opinions as quote roughly a

0:22:18.720 --> 0:22:22.880
<v Speaker 2>third of all responders and Independence said that they still

0:22:22.920 --> 0:22:25.440
<v Speaker 2>do not understand the details of the case well unquote,

0:22:25.800 --> 0:22:29.760
<v Speaker 2>so glorious that those are not really set in stone.

0:22:30.080 --> 0:22:33.040
<v Speaker 2>And Political also notes that there's a number of upcoming

0:22:33.040 --> 0:22:35.840
<v Speaker 2>events and variables that could change of the public's opinion

0:22:35.920 --> 0:22:38.880
<v Speaker 2>before November, you know, including all of the ongoing efforts

0:22:38.880 --> 0:22:42.919
<v Speaker 2>by political operatives to influence people, the public perception of

0:22:43.040 --> 0:22:46.160
<v Speaker 2>both the conviction and just you know, the election in general.

0:22:46.359 --> 0:22:48.120
<v Speaker 1>The debates obviously too.

0:22:48.280 --> 0:22:51.240
<v Speaker 2>The debates as well as Trump's sentencing in Manhattan on

0:22:51.320 --> 0:22:54.359
<v Speaker 2>July eleventh, which could possibly you know, entail a period

0:22:54.400 --> 0:22:58.960
<v Speaker 2>of incarceration. Probably not, but if it did, would that

0:22:59.000 --> 0:23:02.800
<v Speaker 2>would certainly impact impact these numbers. And also Manhattan Dish

0:23:02.800 --> 0:23:06.800
<v Speaker 2>Attorney Alvin Bragg's testimony before Congress on July twelfth, This

0:23:07.400 --> 0:23:10.040
<v Speaker 2>could impact the numbers you know regarding you know, how

0:23:10.040 --> 0:23:12.120
<v Speaker 2>many people think this case is legit versus how much

0:23:12.160 --> 0:23:14.760
<v Speaker 2>people think is just purely like a political move. But

0:23:14.880 --> 0:23:18.000
<v Speaker 2>still about half of adults do approve of Trump's conviction.

0:23:18.400 --> 0:23:20.960
<v Speaker 2>The AP did a poll with the NORC a week

0:23:21.280 --> 0:23:24.760
<v Speaker 2>after Trump's conviction, but before Hunter Biden was convicted on

0:23:24.760 --> 0:23:27.479
<v Speaker 2>that federal gun case, and US also seems more likely

0:23:27.520 --> 0:23:30.359
<v Speaker 2>to support Trump's conviction than they are to disapprove, with

0:23:30.400 --> 0:23:33.199
<v Speaker 2>at least forty eight percent saying they approve and just

0:23:33.359 --> 0:23:37.800
<v Speaker 2>twenty nine somewhat or strongly disapproving and twenty one you know,

0:23:38.680 --> 0:23:42.600
<v Speaker 2>not approving or disapproving, to quote from the AP, Republicans

0:23:42.640 --> 0:23:45.720
<v Speaker 2>are less united on the verdict than Democrats, Roughly six

0:23:45.760 --> 0:23:49.760
<v Speaker 2>and ten Republicans disapprove, while fifteen percent approve. The other

0:23:49.800 --> 0:23:52.960
<v Speaker 2>two and ten and neither approve nor disapprove. Overall, opinions

0:23:52.960 --> 0:23:55.920
<v Speaker 2>on Trump have barely budged. About six and ten US

0:23:55.960 --> 0:23:59.120
<v Speaker 2>adults have an unfavorable opinion of Trump, just in line

0:23:59.400 --> 0:24:02.920
<v Speaker 2>from our fine In a poll conducted last February, four

0:24:02.920 --> 0:24:05.480
<v Speaker 2>in ten have a favorable view of Trump when also

0:24:05.640 --> 0:24:09.280
<v Speaker 2>largely unchanged since February. The numbers are equally poor for Biden.

0:24:09.480 --> 0:24:12.399
<v Speaker 2>For in ten US adults have a favorable view of

0:24:12.440 --> 0:24:15.280
<v Speaker 2>the Democratic president, while six and ten have a negative

0:24:15.320 --> 0:24:16.120
<v Speaker 2>one unquote.

0:24:16.720 --> 0:24:20.720
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, this is very much unique in races that I

0:24:20.760 --> 0:24:23.400
<v Speaker 1>can recall a race to the bottom, like who can

0:24:23.440 --> 0:24:26.040
<v Speaker 1>alienate who will alienate less of the base?

0:24:26.520 --> 0:24:31.160
<v Speaker 2>Right, yeah, no, we polls consistently are showing that there

0:24:31.200 --> 0:24:36.120
<v Speaker 2>will be historically that there is historically low voter enthusiasm.

0:24:36.359 --> 0:24:40.359
<v Speaker 2>Both candidates have very low favorability ratings, and an NBC

0:24:40.560 --> 0:24:43.480
<v Speaker 2>poll found that sixty four percent of voters say that

0:24:43.560 --> 0:24:45.879
<v Speaker 2>they are very interested in this year's election, which is

0:24:45.920 --> 0:24:50.120
<v Speaker 2>a twenty year low, so, you know, not great numbers.

0:24:50.359 --> 0:24:53.520
<v Speaker 2>And a new CBS poll found that among young Americans

0:24:53.520 --> 0:24:56.200
<v Speaker 2>who did vote in twenty twenty, only three quarters to

0:24:56.240 --> 0:24:58.919
<v Speaker 2>say that they'll definitely do so again. Now this this

0:24:58.960 --> 0:25:03.120
<v Speaker 2>poll also does know that Trump's support among young voters

0:25:03.359 --> 0:25:05.399
<v Speaker 2>has been almost unchanged since twenty twenty.

0:25:05.560 --> 0:25:08.760
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, he's got done about two percent better, which is

0:25:09.160 --> 0:25:12.440
<v Speaker 1>fairly minimal considering how much Biden's lead is among that group.

0:25:12.800 --> 0:25:17.720
<v Speaker 2>But overall, young voters do believe generally progressive values pretty consistently,

0:25:18.320 --> 0:25:19.720
<v Speaker 2>including support for a ceasefire.

0:25:20.280 --> 0:25:21.960
<v Speaker 1>And that's I mean, part of the reason why we

0:25:22.000 --> 0:25:25.480
<v Speaker 1>may not see which you could be catastrophic for Biden

0:25:25.600 --> 0:25:28.560
<v Speaker 1>because twenty twenty, a lot of his win came in

0:25:28.600 --> 0:25:30.920
<v Speaker 1>the fact that he did deliver so much of that,

0:25:31.119 --> 0:25:34.000
<v Speaker 1>like so many young voters came out, turnout was so high,

0:25:34.359 --> 0:25:38.479
<v Speaker 1>and they overwhelmingly supported Biden. There is also, i mean,

0:25:38.600 --> 0:25:41.520
<v Speaker 1>kind of a reason why that might not wind up mattering,

0:25:41.560 --> 0:25:45.400
<v Speaker 1>which is where Biden I mentioned earlier. Biden does really

0:25:45.440 --> 0:25:48.480
<v Speaker 1>well among likely voters, much better than he does among

0:25:48.520 --> 0:25:51.400
<v Speaker 1>the general electorate. And this is part of a shift

0:25:51.600 --> 0:25:56.120
<v Speaker 1>among white voters with degrees that has been We get

0:25:56.119 --> 0:25:58.600
<v Speaker 1>a lot of talk and this has been significant, especially

0:25:58.600 --> 0:26:01.719
<v Speaker 1>like Latino voters shifting to ourswards. The GOP has been

0:26:01.760 --> 0:26:04.560
<v Speaker 1>a really important story too, but this one does not

0:26:04.640 --> 0:26:07.040
<v Speaker 1>get talked about as much. In the four years since

0:26:07.080 --> 0:26:10.520
<v Speaker 1>Biden took office, white men with degrees have shifted twenty

0:26:10.600 --> 0:26:14.280
<v Speaker 1>four points towards Biden, and he has gained nineteen points

0:26:14.760 --> 0:26:17.800
<v Speaker 1>among white women with degrees, which is like a huge

0:26:17.840 --> 0:26:20.320
<v Speaker 1>amount of his support. And also that's one of the

0:26:20.359 --> 0:26:23.840
<v Speaker 1>groups that's likeliest to vote. Like the strength that Biden

0:26:23.920 --> 0:26:28.639
<v Speaker 1>has gained among kind of middle of the road leaning

0:26:28.720 --> 0:26:32.480
<v Speaker 1>conservative suburban voters is potentially going to be a de

0:26:32.520 --> 0:26:33.399
<v Speaker 1>sider in this election.

0:26:34.080 --> 0:26:36.560
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and according to The New York Times and Sienna,

0:26:36.760 --> 0:26:39.919
<v Speaker 2>the polls do seem slightly skewed in Trump's favor actually

0:26:39.960 --> 0:26:43.240
<v Speaker 2>this year, mostly by disenfranchised voters who may not participate

0:26:43.280 --> 0:26:45.879
<v Speaker 2>in the upcoming election. And analysis they did found that

0:26:45.920 --> 0:26:48.560
<v Speaker 2>Biden had led the last three of their polls among

0:26:48.600 --> 0:26:53.200
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty voters, but trailed among registered voters overall, which

0:26:53.240 --> 0:26:54.960
<v Speaker 2>is basically exactly what you're.

0:26:54.840 --> 0:27:02.479
<v Speaker 1>Saying, you know, Garrison, speaking of likely voters are I

0:27:02.480 --> 0:27:05.120
<v Speaker 1>don't know, that doesn't really lead in here's the fucking ads. Look,

0:27:05.119 --> 0:27:06.760
<v Speaker 1>you don't get you don't get a good one. Every

0:27:06.760 --> 0:27:08.280
<v Speaker 1>time we do this, folks, there's too.

0:27:08.119 --> 0:27:20.200
<v Speaker 2>Many more are likely to listen to these ads. They're fine,

0:27:22.080 --> 0:27:26.919
<v Speaker 2>So we are back. Is polling actually useful? Is this

0:27:27.119 --> 0:27:30.760
<v Speaker 2>actually useful anymore? The answer is kinda. But you know,

0:27:30.800 --> 0:27:33.800
<v Speaker 2>people have gotten really really anti polling in recent years.

0:27:33.880 --> 0:27:36.280
<v Speaker 2>You know, it's the twenty sixteen elections certainly contributed to that,

0:27:36.760 --> 0:27:38.919
<v Speaker 2>although if you look at the actual twenty sixteen polls,

0:27:38.920 --> 0:27:41.440
<v Speaker 2>it's kind of it's kind of interesting. In twenty sixteen,

0:27:41.560 --> 0:27:45.200
<v Speaker 2>Clinton generally pulled much higher than Trump for the duration

0:27:45.280 --> 0:27:47.680
<v Speaker 2>of the race. Though in late July the two were

0:27:47.800 --> 0:27:50.280
<v Speaker 2>neck and neck, with the with the gap closing once

0:27:50.359 --> 0:27:53.240
<v Speaker 2>again in late September and the week of the election,

0:27:53.560 --> 0:27:56.680
<v Speaker 2>Trump was on average trailing by less than three point

0:27:56.760 --> 0:28:00.000
<v Speaker 2>five percent behind, which is often in the margin of

0:28:00.040 --> 0:28:03.720
<v Speaker 2>they are for these polls and posters usually consider something

0:28:03.840 --> 0:28:06.040
<v Speaker 2>under three percent being a toss up. Now this is

0:28:06.040 --> 0:28:08.879
<v Speaker 2>three point five percent, so still is it was trending

0:28:08.880 --> 0:28:11.560
<v Speaker 2>towards Clinton, and there is reasons why in terms of

0:28:11.560 --> 0:28:15.040
<v Speaker 2>their polling methodology that was flawed. But the polls were

0:28:15.080 --> 0:28:17.480
<v Speaker 2>actually a bit closer than I think what public perception

0:28:17.960 --> 0:28:20.280
<v Speaker 2>seems to remember of the twenty sixteen polls.

0:28:21.480 --> 0:28:25.840
<v Speaker 1>Yes, and this is a part of why the public

0:28:26.000 --> 0:28:29.800
<v Speaker 1>memory of twenty sixteen and to an extent, twenty twenty

0:28:29.880 --> 0:28:32.520
<v Speaker 1>and to an extent every election is so bad. Is

0:28:33.000 --> 0:28:36.800
<v Speaker 1>you can't emphasize this enough. People are dogshit and understanding

0:28:36.840 --> 0:28:41.320
<v Speaker 1>what poles say, right. They are really bad at understanding uncertainty.

0:28:41.600 --> 0:28:43.400
<v Speaker 1>One of the things that I hate to keep going

0:28:43.440 --> 0:28:45.880
<v Speaker 1>back to the Nate silver Well, but I think he's

0:28:45.960 --> 0:28:48.680
<v Speaker 1>a fascinating case study. And one of the things he

0:28:48.760 --> 0:28:51.880
<v Speaker 1>pointed out after twenty sixteen the minute you have a

0:28:51.920 --> 0:28:54.440
<v Speaker 1>forecast where there's less certainty. People don't like that. The

0:28:54.480 --> 0:28:56.800
<v Speaker 1>minute you have a forecast that doesn't have a Democrat winning,

0:28:56.840 --> 0:28:59.320
<v Speaker 1>they don't like that very much. And it's to point out,

0:28:59.400 --> 0:29:02.960
<v Speaker 1>like his he kind of started to become a heel

0:29:03.120 --> 0:29:06.400
<v Speaker 1>as soon as he started showing that like Trump had

0:29:06.440 --> 0:29:10.760
<v Speaker 1>a real shot at winning, and as his forecast continue

0:29:10.760 --> 0:29:13.960
<v Speaker 1>to show kind of weakness among Democrats, it got people

0:29:14.000 --> 0:29:16.560
<v Speaker 1>angrier and angrier. And that's most of what makes people

0:29:16.640 --> 0:29:19.920
<v Speaker 1>determine whether or not something is a credible source on

0:29:20.000 --> 0:29:22.680
<v Speaker 1>the election. And that's kind of why a lot of

0:29:22.720 --> 0:29:26.480
<v Speaker 1>this is like a doomed effort, is because people consider,

0:29:27.440 --> 0:29:30.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, an expert credible if they are saying something

0:29:30.280 --> 0:29:32.400
<v Speaker 1>they want to hear, because most of what people want

0:29:32.760 --> 0:29:35.680
<v Speaker 1>in terms of election polling is to feel reassured that

0:29:35.720 --> 0:29:39.160
<v Speaker 1>things are going to be okay, right, and that's that's

0:29:39.960 --> 0:29:43.320
<v Speaker 1>your kind of It's always like a confirmation bias game.

0:29:43.760 --> 0:29:46.240
<v Speaker 1>And it's also one of those things where like the

0:29:46.320 --> 0:29:49.640
<v Speaker 1>instant you do well, if you are legitimately a rigorous,

0:29:49.720 --> 0:29:53.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, expert, and you predict things correctly, you're going

0:29:53.320 --> 0:29:56.040
<v Speaker 1>to suddenly be this focus of so much media attention

0:29:56.160 --> 0:29:58.239
<v Speaker 1>and have so much money and job offers thrown your

0:29:58.240 --> 0:30:00.920
<v Speaker 1>way that it will inherently drive you mad, which is

0:30:00.960 --> 0:30:03.640
<v Speaker 1>part of why again, I am predicting a twenty nine

0:30:03.680 --> 0:30:05.920
<v Speaker 1>percent chance that things are basically the way they were

0:30:05.920 --> 0:30:08.000
<v Speaker 1>in twenty twenty, so I can get all that sweet,

0:30:08.040 --> 0:30:10.920
<v Speaker 1>sweet CNN money, you know, if I wind up being right.

0:30:11.560 --> 0:30:14.680
<v Speaker 1>I am curious Garrison kind of in that line, because

0:30:15.240 --> 0:30:19.120
<v Speaker 1>as our official poll expert, you kind of came into this,

0:30:19.680 --> 0:30:22.160
<v Speaker 1>I don't think with a strong set of biases about

0:30:22.200 --> 0:30:24.920
<v Speaker 1>what would happen when you actually started drilling down into

0:30:24.960 --> 0:30:27.280
<v Speaker 1>the numbers. Did that change it all your impression of

0:30:27.320 --> 0:30:28.719
<v Speaker 1>what was going on this election?

0:30:29.440 --> 0:30:33.280
<v Speaker 2>I think I thought that the numbers for Biden would

0:30:33.320 --> 0:30:36.720
<v Speaker 2>be slightly worse. I think that's kind of the general feeling,

0:30:36.800 --> 0:30:38.200
<v Speaker 2>and that has been you know, what the numbers have

0:30:38.280 --> 0:30:40.120
<v Speaker 2>kind of looked like in my cursory glances the past

0:30:40.120 --> 0:30:43.840
<v Speaker 2>few months. But looking more into kind of polling science,

0:30:43.880 --> 0:30:48.440
<v Speaker 2>what these pollsters are are saying the gap is usually

0:30:48.480 --> 0:30:50.880
<v Speaker 2>within this three percent, that it feels like it's going

0:30:50.920 --> 0:30:53.600
<v Speaker 2>to be a very close election. It'll be much closer

0:30:53.640 --> 0:30:56.760
<v Speaker 2>than it was in twenty twenty. Poles thought that twenty

0:30:56.800 --> 0:30:59.920
<v Speaker 2>twenty would be a much, much more obvious win for Biden.

0:31:00.200 --> 0:31:02.040
<v Speaker 2>It was, it was it was a closer election than

0:31:02.080 --> 0:31:04.600
<v Speaker 2>what people thought. But this I think will be even

0:31:04.800 --> 0:31:08.120
<v Speaker 2>even closer. So gonna it's gonna be a tricky one.

0:31:08.320 --> 0:31:09.600
<v Speaker 2>We're going to be kind of on the edge of

0:31:09.600 --> 0:31:12.720
<v Speaker 2>our seat come from election night, which is what no

0:31:12.760 --> 0:31:16.520
<v Speaker 2>one wants to hear, right, No, especially since you have this,

0:31:16.560 --> 0:31:18.080
<v Speaker 2>You have a lot of people who want to hear

0:31:18.240 --> 0:31:22.280
<v Speaker 2>Biden is doomed because they have, for generally good reasons,

0:31:22.360 --> 0:31:25.080
<v Speaker 2>come to despise Biden over the last totally years, and

0:31:25.120 --> 0:31:27.800
<v Speaker 2>they just want to know that like the things they're

0:31:27.800 --> 0:31:28.800
<v Speaker 2>angry about matter.

0:31:29.240 --> 0:31:31.880
<v Speaker 1>And the thing that I all I can say to

0:31:31.920 --> 0:31:35.000
<v Speaker 1>those people is like, I don't know that anything matters,

0:31:35.160 --> 0:31:37.480
<v Speaker 1>and I do think there's a really good chance. I

0:31:37.480 --> 0:31:39.120
<v Speaker 1>think this is basically a coin flip.

0:31:40.040 --> 0:31:43.719
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And I think you know, polling is is going

0:31:43.760 --> 0:31:45.920
<v Speaker 2>to look very different this year because Trump is not

0:31:46.080 --> 0:31:48.680
<v Speaker 2>the incumbent. I think there's a lot of other factors

0:31:48.720 --> 0:31:52.000
<v Speaker 2>that are contributing to the polls, and pollsters have adjusted

0:31:52.120 --> 0:31:55.280
<v Speaker 2>a lot since twenty sixteen to make sure that more

0:31:55.320 --> 0:31:58.920
<v Speaker 2>Trump support is accounted for both in twenty twenty and

0:31:59.000 --> 0:32:03.160
<v Speaker 2>in twenty sixteen. The error did not come from overestimating

0:32:03.280 --> 0:32:06.520
<v Speaker 2>the support of Clinton and Biden. It came from underestimating

0:32:06.560 --> 0:32:10.640
<v Speaker 2>Trump's support. And this has been fixed fixed for via

0:32:10.960 --> 0:32:14.440
<v Speaker 2>a number a number of methods. You know, there's certain

0:32:14.640 --> 0:32:17.520
<v Speaker 2>theories people have had, like the quote unquote shy Trump

0:32:17.640 --> 0:32:21.040
<v Speaker 2>voter theory, which is kind of largely disputed, saying that

0:32:21.120 --> 0:32:21.440
<v Speaker 2>you know.

0:32:21.960 --> 0:32:25.000
<v Speaker 1>People certainly by this fucking point.

0:32:24.560 --> 0:32:27.480
<v Speaker 2>Yes, no, saying that people who like support Trump are

0:32:27.480 --> 0:32:30.560
<v Speaker 2>too scared to tell polsters that they support Trump. Quite

0:32:30.800 --> 0:32:35.040
<v Speaker 2>quite silly. It's essentially it's essentially blaming, blaming, like pull

0:32:35.160 --> 0:32:38.920
<v Speaker 2>errors on people just lying to pollsters because they're too nervous. So,

0:32:39.080 --> 0:32:41.400
<v Speaker 2>I don't know. There's a lot of other stuff we have.

0:32:41.640 --> 0:32:45.959
<v Speaker 2>We have adjusted for white, non college educated voters, you know,

0:32:46.040 --> 0:32:48.480
<v Speaker 2>because people who have a college degree are more likely

0:32:48.520 --> 0:32:51.240
<v Speaker 2>to respond to polls. So all this does get adjusted for,

0:32:51.360 --> 0:32:53.760
<v Speaker 2>especially since twenty sixteen, because that was the main cause

0:32:54.120 --> 0:32:56.000
<v Speaker 2>of the polls kind of being fucked up that year.

0:32:56.360 --> 0:32:59.640
<v Speaker 2>So what exactly happened in twenty twenty Then if these

0:32:59.640 --> 0:33:03.800
<v Speaker 2>things like the non college vote and the shy Trump

0:33:03.960 --> 0:33:07.960
<v Speaker 2>voter theory were sort of adjusted for, well, a few

0:33:07.960 --> 0:33:11.480
<v Speaker 2>things happened. The pandemic one, you know, made certain pulling

0:33:12.040 --> 0:33:15.280
<v Speaker 2>figures a little bit unique. The election also featured the

0:33:15.360 --> 0:33:17.920
<v Speaker 2>highest number of voter turnout in decades, something that we're

0:33:17.960 --> 0:33:21.280
<v Speaker 2>probably not expected to see in twenty twenty four. In

0:33:21.280 --> 0:33:23.800
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty, the national polls were too favorable to Biden

0:33:23.880 --> 0:33:27.800
<v Speaker 2>by three point nine points, state polls by four point

0:33:27.880 --> 0:33:30.880
<v Speaker 2>three I'm going to read a report from the American

0:33:30.880 --> 0:33:36.680
<v Speaker 2>Association for Public Opinion Research analyzing twenty twenty election poll errors. Quote.

0:33:37.040 --> 0:33:39.920
<v Speaker 2>If the voter's most supportive of Trump were least likely

0:33:39.960 --> 0:33:42.640
<v Speaker 2>to participate in polls, then the polling error may be

0:33:42.720 --> 0:33:46.840
<v Speaker 2>explained as follows. Self identified Republicans who choose to respond

0:33:46.880 --> 0:33:50.040
<v Speaker 2>to polls are more likely to support Democrats, and those

0:33:50.080 --> 0:33:53.000
<v Speaker 2>who choose not to respond to polls are more likely

0:33:53.040 --> 0:33:56.920
<v Speaker 2>to support Republicans. Even if the correct percentage of self

0:33:56.960 --> 0:34:00.960
<v Speaker 2>identified Republicans were pulled, differences in their publicans who did

0:34:01.000 --> 0:34:06.480
<v Speaker 2>and did not respond could produce the observed polling error unquote.

0:34:06.520 --> 0:34:08.560
<v Speaker 2>If this was indeed the issue, it was probably made

0:34:08.560 --> 0:34:12.080
<v Speaker 2>worse by Trump and twenty twenty by being very disparaging

0:34:12.160 --> 0:34:16.040
<v Speaker 2>to polls, making his base probably less likely to honestly

0:34:16.120 --> 0:34:19.719
<v Speaker 2>engage with polling metrics, and both in twenty sixteen and

0:34:19.800 --> 0:34:23.160
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty there was large, large post mortems among the

0:34:23.200 --> 0:34:26.719
<v Speaker 2>polling community trying to figure out how to improve, and

0:34:27.480 --> 0:34:31.640
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty two's polls were more accurate than any election

0:34:31.960 --> 0:34:36.320
<v Speaker 2>since nineteen ninety eight, with almost no bias towards either party.

0:34:36.760 --> 0:34:40.040
<v Speaker 2>So that is a good side in terms of the

0:34:40.080 --> 0:34:41.960
<v Speaker 2>accuracy of polls.

0:34:42.040 --> 0:34:43.480
<v Speaker 1>This not being nonsense.

0:34:43.560 --> 0:34:48.440
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, correct, So a poster named Nathaniel Rackitch said, quote,

0:34:48.600 --> 0:34:51.239
<v Speaker 2>pollsterry utility isn't telling us who will win, but rather

0:34:51.360 --> 0:34:53.759
<v Speaker 2>in roughly how close a race is and therefore how

0:34:53.760 --> 0:34:57.200
<v Speaker 2>confident we should be in the outcome. Historically, candidate's leading

0:34:57.200 --> 0:34:59.040
<v Speaker 2>polls by at least twenty points have won in ninety

0:34:59.080 --> 0:35:01.400
<v Speaker 2>nine percent of the time, but candidate's leading polls made

0:35:01.480 --> 0:35:03.720
<v Speaker 2>less than three points have won just fifty five percent

0:35:03.760 --> 0:35:06.840
<v Speaker 2>of the time unquote, And that kind of lines up

0:35:06.880 --> 0:35:09.640
<v Speaker 2>with our current situation, right. Biden was even though the

0:35:09.680 --> 0:35:12.239
<v Speaker 2>polls were slightly skewed towards Biden in twenty twenty, he

0:35:12.400 --> 0:35:15.279
<v Speaker 2>was so far ahead that most of the polls in

0:35:15.360 --> 0:35:17.439
<v Speaker 2>terms of saying who would win, we're still correct because

0:35:17.440 --> 0:35:19.600
<v Speaker 2>Biden was just so far ahead this time. That will

0:35:19.600 --> 0:35:21.279
<v Speaker 2>not be the case. That's not that's not what the

0:35:21.320 --> 0:35:22.920
<v Speaker 2>poles are going to say. The polls are going to

0:35:22.960 --> 0:35:25.640
<v Speaker 2>show this being a much closer race, and that I

0:35:25.640 --> 0:35:27.920
<v Speaker 2>think that is what it's going to be come come November.

0:35:27.960 --> 0:35:30.040
<v Speaker 2>So yeah, that's kind of that's kind of the low

0:35:30.080 --> 0:35:34.560
<v Speaker 2>down of the current the current polling situation. I'll be

0:35:34.600 --> 0:35:36.360
<v Speaker 2>curious to see, you know, what the numbers are post

0:35:36.360 --> 0:35:39.360
<v Speaker 2>debate and especially after the sentencing in July.

0:35:40.040 --> 0:35:43.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, we'll see. And I should note that Nate Silver

0:35:43.400 --> 0:35:47.920
<v Speaker 1>just released his official forecast today and it's it's almost

0:35:47.960 --> 0:35:51.000
<v Speaker 1>the opposite of that weird German man who gave Biden

0:35:51.000 --> 0:35:54.120
<v Speaker 1>a seventy five percent chance of winning. Nate gives Trump

0:35:54.120 --> 0:35:56.839
<v Speaker 1>a sixty five percent chance of winning. So we are

0:35:56.880 --> 0:35:59.960
<v Speaker 1>going to see which of the election pundits who make

0:36:00.120 --> 0:36:03.920
<v Speaker 1>their entire living off of gambling on elections winds up

0:36:03.960 --> 0:36:06.360
<v Speaker 1>getting to be feted on all of the talk shows

0:36:06.560 --> 0:36:08.799
<v Speaker 1>in like January of twenty twenty five.

0:36:08.920 --> 0:36:09.279
<v Speaker 3>That'll be.

0:36:09.280 --> 0:36:10.239
<v Speaker 2>That's so you'll toss up.

0:36:10.239 --> 0:36:13.840
<v Speaker 1>Honestly, that's thereal'll toss up. It's Helmet versus Nate, Baby,

0:36:14.040 --> 0:36:16.560
<v Speaker 1>who's gonna win? I kind of think they both might

0:36:16.640 --> 0:36:17.240
<v Speaker 1>be common.

0:36:25.080 --> 0:36:27.440
<v Speaker 3>It could Happen here as a production of cool Zone Media.

0:36:27.680 --> 0:36:30.360
<v Speaker 3>For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website

0:36:30.400 --> 0:36:33.520
<v Speaker 3>coolzonemedia dot com or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,

0:36:33.520 --> 0:36:36.719
<v Speaker 3>Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can

0:36:36.719 --> 0:36:39.440
<v Speaker 3>find sources for It could Happen here, updated monthly at

0:36:39.440 --> 0:36:42.720
<v Speaker 3>coolzonemedia dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening.