Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Ethos and what Ethos does is it helps you
Speaker 1: find life insurance. Let me tell you why life insurance
Speaker 1: bailed me out. My father died when I was sixteen.
Speaker 1: We didn't have a lot of money when it happened,
Speaker 1: and we were in a pretty tough financial spot after
Speaker 1: it happened. I'm an only child. Suddenly my mother's single,
Speaker 1: single mother. She had a job, suddenly lost a job,
Speaker 1: looking for another job, and we were struggling. You know,
Speaker 1: my dad didn't leave us in the best financial situation,
Speaker 1: but he did make one purchase. He bought a life
Speaker 1: insurance policy. Wasn't a huge chunk of change, but it
Speaker 1: was enough when we found it. And when I say
Speaker 1: we found it, meaning we went through his desk and
Speaker 1: we found, oh, look at this, let's see if there's
Speaker 1: anything here. And it helped us out at a time
Speaker 1: that we really needed it. And that's why I think
Speaker 1: it's important that if you can, especially if you have
Speaker 1: young children, if you can get life insurance, you should
Speaker 1: get it. Life is full of unexpected emergencies, unexpected things happen.
Speaker 1: It is an extra bit of security, something you can
Speaker 1: leave and help out at a time when you're you're
Speaker 1: not there to help. So what does Ethos do well?
Speaker 1: Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy, and it's
Speaker 1: one hundred percent online. You can get a quote in seconds,
Speaker 1: you can apply in minutes, and you can get same
Speaker 1: day coverage. They will find you the right fit. There's
Speaker 1: no medical exam. You just answer a few simple health
Speaker 1: questions online. You can get up to three million dollars
Speaker 1: in coverage and some policies are as low as thirty
Speaker 1: dollars a month, and you'll get your lowest rate from
Speaker 1: their network of trusted carriers. So take ten minutes to
Speaker 1: get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your
Speaker 1: free quote at ethos dot com slash chuck. That is
Speaker 1: ETOs dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary and
Speaker 1: rates may vary.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: Coming back for a return engagement, as we'd like to
Speaker 1: do regularly, I think we're almost doing this quarterly. It's
Speaker 1: my my pal, Mike Pesca of the Just List and
Speaker 1: all sorts of his his world. We were just talking
Speaker 1: about each other's each other's digital world, and we like
Speaker 1: to have our worlds collide.
Speaker 3: Mike, it's good to see.
Speaker 2: You, Hey, thanks for having me. Speaking of quarterly what
Speaker 2: happened to the Trump proposal to do away with quarterly
Speaker 2: reports and only do by anyal I guess it would
Speaker 2: be Actually just so there's that's still moving its way.
Speaker 3: Through the SEC. I think I actually just saw an
Speaker 3: update on that.
Speaker 2: There is I think which I've talked.
Speaker 3: Oh, it's a good idea. I talked to you.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a so Jack Welch is considered
Speaker 1: the got the the sort of the godfather of that idea, right,
Speaker 1: the quarterly reports to goose stock prices. Back in his
Speaker 1: old ge days and towards the end of his life
Speaker 1: he started expressing like he admitted, I probably that the
Speaker 1: quarterly report idea.
Speaker 2: Was it is past.
Speaker 1: He wouldn't, you know, because no person of his ego
Speaker 1: will ever admit they were wrong. He just sort of
Speaker 1: admitted that they were. It was no longer useful and
Speaker 1: so was probably hurting companies. He was he was pre right, Yes, yeah, exactly, you.
Speaker 3: Know the way somebody with a huge ego like his.
Speaker 2: So the down yeah, the downside to that that I've
Speaker 2: heard is that back when Jack Welsh was pioneering that
Speaker 2: things were a little more stable and now quarterly reports
Speaker 2: at least give some visibility into possible meltdowns. But also
Speaker 2: the Ft. There's an FT podcast I know you like
Speaker 2: the Ft, and they were having a debate where I
Speaker 2: think they said, just financially good idea, but what you
Speaker 2: don't want to do is give Donald Trump any wins. Ever,
Speaker 2: and these were FT journalists right now, but they were
Speaker 2: embracing I guess their activism, which is once he comes
Speaker 2: up with a good idea, that's the most dangerous thing
Speaker 2: of all. And I was contrasting that. I did a
Speaker 2: thing on the Gist my show with The Dispatch where
Speaker 2: viewed Emily Auster, who was saying, you know, some of
Speaker 2: this MAGA stuff, not the vaccines, but the meat and
Speaker 2: the food pyramid, that is a good idea. And then
Speaker 2: she got blowback, how are you giving Trump credit? So
Speaker 2: even journalistically, it's interesting the Dispatch, you know, these former
Speaker 2: Republicans are maybe still identified conservatives. They're saying we have
Speaker 2: to be honest, that if we need to give Trump
Speaker 2: a win, we give them a win. And the Financial Times,
Speaker 2: which definitely sees themselves outside the activism continuum, said no,
Speaker 2: we can never give Donald Trump a win.
Speaker 3: No, this.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, this is at the core of the
Speaker 1: redistricting fight in Virginia. This is a bad idea, This
Speaker 1: is bad for democracy. But the but the counter argument
Speaker 1: from people that even admit, yeah, this is not a
Speaker 1: good idea long term, you got to fight fire with fire.
Speaker 1: And it's the whole, this whole mentality. And I just think,
Speaker 1: look what we've turned into is I think both parties
Speaker 1: have become reactionary parties. Right, they don't really right, they
Speaker 1: define themselves right own the Libs and Trump resistance is
Speaker 1: really the same ideology, don't you think.
Speaker 2: Yes, And all we're doing in Yvone, Levine writes about this,
Speaker 2: we're just in this era of going back and forth
Speaker 2: and to and fro, and I don't see how we
Speaker 2: get out of it now, as far as the redition, I.
Speaker 1: Do, but we got out of this before. I obsessed
Speaker 1: over this. This is actually the I'm going to pull
Speaker 1: a muscle padding my promoting something I'm doing here, but
Speaker 1: on my substack this week, I sort of go through
Speaker 1: I'm obsessed with the period between Jackson and Lincoln in
Speaker 1: American history because it was this we had technically eight
Speaker 1: presidents in twenty four years, because of deaths.
Speaker 3: But it was really seven.
Speaker 1: Presidencies in twenty four years because you had the thirty
Speaker 1: one day president and each one of them, and essentially
Speaker 1: it was like each president was elected claiming they were
Speaker 1: going to solve it, they were going to bring the
Speaker 1: country together, they were going to quote solve this problem, right,
Speaker 1: but not necessarily solve the problem, meaning.
Speaker 3: At that time it's slavery.
Speaker 1: But it would be all these papering over ideas, right,
Speaker 1: So you had whether it was the Democrats nominating a
Speaker 1: northern or at one point in Franklin Pierce, or the
Speaker 1: joint Tickets, which was Harrison and what's it the dough face, right, yeah,
Speaker 1: the few the signing of the Fugitive Slave Act that
Speaker 1: Millard Fillmore thought was going to finally, you know, to
Speaker 1: break some peace, right, it was, but it was a
Speaker 1: It was just a series of presidents that were trying
Speaker 1: to paper over, right. And then finally the Whigs were
Speaker 1: just too weak to deal with the issue. And then
Speaker 1: finally we got a new party in the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: So it led me to think, which party is going
Speaker 1: to be the Whigs, because I'm convinced one of them
Speaker 1: is going away in the next decade or so big
Speaker 1: out of frustration by there bye by like you can't,
Speaker 1: you're not you're not accomplishing. You know, there's going to
Speaker 1: be a moment, and I think, you know.
Speaker 3: Trump won.
Speaker 1: Everybody thought it'd be the Republicans. I'm not thinking, well,
Speaker 1: it could very easily be the Democrats, right, because they're
Speaker 1: in some ways performing like the Whigs. At the moment
Speaker 1: where there's a divide inside the party, do you go
Speaker 1: full resistance or do you try to persuade those, you know,
Speaker 1: a few more from the other side to try to
Speaker 1: have a more durable majoritarianism. And I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: bottom line is we're not We're not done yet with
Speaker 1: this back and forth we had. We went through six
Speaker 1: presidencies between Jackson and Lincoln. Nobody got re elected, no
Speaker 1: party got reelected. Right, it was just a series of
Speaker 1: this stuff. And we're we're in our third one right now,
Speaker 1: twenty eight yet going to resolve this. So I think
Speaker 1: we will eventually resolve it. The question is how many
Speaker 1: people have to get hurt before we sober up.
Speaker 2: That's exactly what I was saying. So all it will
Speaker 2: take is six hundred thousand dead, Although normed for the
Speaker 2: current population now would be like what two million?
Speaker 3: Great? I know we're not advocating civil war here, guys. No,
Speaker 3: the boat.
Speaker 1: We're actually hoping we can resolve it with it, you know,
Speaker 1: just short of that. Yeah, there are different parties, systems.
Speaker 1: I wanted I heard your commentary on Virginia. So you
Speaker 1: think that even without this redistricting, it would go from
Speaker 1: now it's six Democrats, five Republicans.
Speaker 2: You think we'd go to nine to two.
Speaker 3: Eight three without it? Eighty three without it? You got
Speaker 3: the first and the second man.
Speaker 1: You think, do you think ten to one with it
Speaker 1: or I don't know if they get the ten one
Speaker 1: ten one max. Yeah, but it could end up at
Speaker 1: nine to two. So if you end up at nine two,
Speaker 1: you basically did all this work. You sort of peed
Speaker 1: away political capital of Barack Obama and Abigail Spamberger for
Speaker 1: one seat.
Speaker 2: Right, But do you think as a general principal Democrats
Speaker 2: who have always said we are better than redistricting for
Speaker 2: political gain, do you think that's what they should say
Speaker 2: or they should be recognizing the moment right now where
Speaker 2: the headwinds are that we don't need to do it
Speaker 2: right now. Because as a principle. I do not believe
Speaker 2: in unilateral disarmament.
Speaker 3: Sure, I understand that concept.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just think the problem is, I guess I'm
Speaker 1: even more Pollyannish about it. I think having more swing
Speaker 1: basically you're taking away swing districts. But if you actually
Speaker 1: have Republicans in light red districts, then you have more possibility.
Speaker 1: Would we be better off if a third of the
Speaker 1: Republican caucus were Don Bacon people? Or do you create
Speaker 1: a situation where no, you're just gonna have a whole.
Speaker 3: Bunch of James Comers. Is that what you want?
Speaker 1: And then then there's no ability to sort of bridge
Speaker 1: any divides, so that I actually think that that's the
Speaker 1: other part of this is that what do you what
Speaker 1: do you are we really gaining in this other than
Speaker 1: a fight just you know, a gavel And again I'm I'm.
Speaker 3: This, Look, we've gone through this.
Speaker 1: Anytime you want to temporarily suspend anything because you think no, no, no,
Speaker 1: First of all, how often have parties you know who
Speaker 1: said no, no, no, we'll come back to this have actually
Speaker 1: come back to this?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that that's wise, but very specific to
Speaker 2: the moment, and I remember it was before we started
Speaker 2: seeing polls or knew much more than there's usually the
Speaker 2: swing back in the mid terms. But New York had
Speaker 2: the choice whether to really to throw out a fairly
Speaker 2: drawn electoral map, or the Democrats could try to force
Speaker 2: through their pro democratic map. And I remember thinking to myself,
Speaker 2: these are the Democrats right now kind of violating their
Speaker 2: own principles. And I don't know if they'll be punished
Speaker 2: by the voters for it, but they're showing themselves to
Speaker 2: be cynical, and it is I said, not a good look. Now,
Speaker 2: this was before I thought that they would win anyway,
Speaker 2: And in New York it doesn't really matter that My
Speaker 2: matter is a little bit. You know, Upstate New York
Speaker 2: elects repulsive valley.
Speaker 1: There's a whole bunch of places where right now New
Speaker 1: York is Ohio without the New York City mean.
Speaker 2: Well, Pennsylvania's Alabama with a tea in the middle. But
Speaker 2: as a principle, I don't think people really vote on it,
Speaker 2: especially because of the primacy of the primaries. And I
Speaker 2: think this is the biggest problem in American politics. You
Speaker 2: were talking about money. I think whatever can be done
Speaker 2: to make the because we're so polarized. I mean, if
Speaker 2: you want to go back to the EPI phenomenon, the
Speaker 2: primaries of the EPI phenomenon on, our polarization is the worst.
Speaker 2: And I have a friend and a guy I know,
Speaker 2: Bradley Tusk, and he's tried to get essentially app voting,
Speaker 2: and I think that would be a real game changer
Speaker 2: if it could be done successfully. And he's convinced me
Speaker 2: it can be done, so I don't want to you know,
Speaker 2: a lot.
Speaker 1: They're going to experiment in Alaska with this first.
Speaker 2: Alaska and it's done in West Virginia and it's been
Speaker 2: done successfully, and he specifically tried to bring it to
Speaker 2: non Blue states. He tried to bring it to places
Speaker 2: where they might be suspicious of this online voting app
Speaker 2: and think about all the things that we do that
Speaker 2: need to be secure on an app, from you know,
Speaker 2: registering for a citizenship or for our IDs and everything else.
Speaker 2: So it can be done. And once it's done, and
Speaker 2: once it's easy, it takes primaries from something with eleven
Speaker 2: percent participation, so you know, fifty And I think that's
Speaker 2: a huge game changer and it's the number one reform
Speaker 2: I think that really can change things look.
Speaker 1: And I actually think state I think I think we've
Speaker 1: had this conversation before. I think taxpayer funded partisan primaries
Speaker 1: I think are unconstitutional because you're telling me I have
Speaker 1: to join a private organization in order to participate in
Speaker 1: a taxpayer funded event. I think that's a violation of
Speaker 1: equal protection. And now that I don't think they're you know,
Speaker 1: I'm I am pretty I would just call it supportive
Speaker 1: of the folks over at open primaries. And I've like
Speaker 1: pushed this as as sort of I think there's a
Speaker 1: legal I think there's actually you can you can sue
Speaker 1: some of the states that had these that essentially bar
Speaker 1: independence and bar non registered voters from this. But looked
Speaker 1: all party primary, I mean, it is the better answer.
Speaker 3: There's no you know.
Speaker 1: The fact is, think about the office that is the
Speaker 1: least partisan in America these days, it's mayor. And a
Speaker 1: majority of mayors are elected in all party primaries, where
Speaker 1: the top two candidates usually they don't even put parties.
Speaker 1: A lot of them are none are you don't put
Speaker 1: your party label on the ballot.
Speaker 3: And top two play.
Speaker 1: I mean, And the thing is is that I love
Speaker 1: to use the example of a congressman and Carlos Sumenez.
Speaker 1: He's a Republican congressman from Miami. When he was mayor
Speaker 1: of Miami Dade, I had no idea he was a
Speaker 1: conservative Republican because he didn't govern that way. He governed
Speaker 1: the whole county. He was elected in a county wide vote.
Speaker 1: He never put his party. You knew he leaned, right, Okay,
Speaker 1: And let's say you governed based on how the votes
Speaker 1: that get you in office. And then, of course he
Speaker 1: got elected in a partisan Republican primary where the Republican
Speaker 1: primaries everything, and he's voted a lot more concern even
Speaker 1: challenged that the elect didn't certify in January sixth, right,
Speaker 1: And I remember being surprised that he didn't because I
Speaker 1: knew what kind of marry was. But I'd actually chalk
Speaker 1: it up to I always say this, Our issue is incentives.
Speaker 1: There are bad people can do good things with good incentives,
Speaker 1: and good people can do bad things with bad incentives.
Speaker 1: And our primary system is mostly a bad incentive.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: And to be a mayor you have to deliver actual
Speaker 2: material benefits to your voters and you will be judged
Speaker 2: on that. And snow days matter, not in Miami, but
Speaker 2: definitely in the Northeast. And then when you were a
Speaker 2: part of an anonymous or by choice, a powerless organization
Speaker 2: like the House of Representatives, then your incentives are all
Speaker 2: to be either a free agent who is a burr
Speaker 2: in the side of your party, or you know, a
Speaker 2: party apparatic. Absolutely, what do you.
Speaker 1: What do you think of these independent candidacies and do
Speaker 1: you buy into them or are you one of those
Speaker 1: that just doesn't believe these are going to work?
Speaker 2: Duverger's law we only have two parties, babe? Do you
Speaker 2: remember that from your political science training?
Speaker 3: What was its law?
Speaker 2: Duverger? It might be Duvage. This was the idea that
Speaker 2: in a first past the post system such as ours,
Speaker 2: you only ever get two parties. But it was one
Speaker 2: of these laws with so many exceptions. I don't know
Speaker 2: that being like a Tammany Hall law. Like look at India.
Speaker 2: They have first passed the post and they have vulgar parties.
Speaker 2: Of course it's India. So I think in some of
Speaker 2: the cases, you know Nebraska, it's an imperative. It's the
Speaker 2: only the In that case, the brand of the of
Speaker 2: the Democrats are so toxic that it makes sense to
Speaker 2: run as an independent say, with McMullen in Utah. Not
Speaker 2: that he could win, but it makes sense to win
Speaker 2: to run that way. And I also think on the
Speaker 2: presidential level there's a real chance at a breakthrough of
Speaker 2: a third party candidate. I think it's so much harder
Speaker 2: at the state level. I kind of support it. I
Speaker 2: like experimentation and mixing up, but you know, just because
Speaker 2: of all the incentives and all the everything that's in place,
Speaker 2: it makes it hard. It would be easier with that
Speaker 2: jungle primary. I think first past, not first past the post,
Speaker 2: but top two. Oh and one other thing I wanted
Speaker 2: to say, it's a light criticism. I think that the
Speaker 2: activists who were so behind ranked choice voting, they my
Speaker 2: rank choice of electoral reforms that would be way down
Speaker 2: the list. I'm more for it than against it, but
Speaker 2: ninety somethings percent of the time it doesn't have a
Speaker 2: real impact. There is a certain percentage of the time
Speaker 2: where you could plausibly argue is the are the will
Speaker 2: of the people really being reflected? And they did put
Speaker 2: a lot of effort into that, as opposed to jungle primaries,
Speaker 2: which I think would have helped things a lot more.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: Look, the concept of top four then you know, sort
Speaker 1: of top four advanced. You know, the Alaska law is
Speaker 1: everybody's on the same ballot and top four advance, then
Speaker 1: it becomes ranked choice for the general. I'd prefer it,
Speaker 1: I'm with My issue with ranked choice goes back to
Speaker 1: my days explaining what was explaining the vote count as
Speaker 1: it was coming in on election nights, and nobody can
Speaker 1: explain the black box that is ranked choice voting. There
Speaker 1: is no way for me to be able to open
Speaker 1: up on election night. Okay, here's the initial run and
Speaker 1: you know, here's what we know about the second choices.
Speaker 1: There appears to be this Canada has more second choices
Speaker 1: off of this, And you know, do I think we
Speaker 1: could get there with states and local officials getting better
Speaker 1: at figuring out how to report these things out?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: But are we better off not trying to have them
Speaker 1: do two or three different counts on election night and
Speaker 1: just focus on the main thing being the main thing,
Speaker 1: the actual the first count, and then you have a runoff,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, look, I'm for Louisiana had the
Speaker 1: of all the jump primary systems, it was Louisiana was
Speaker 1: my favorite jungle system because they did it where the
Speaker 1: all party primary actually was like in October or September,
Speaker 1: was late, and then top if nobody got fifty, top
Speaker 1: two met in the general election itself. So that way
Speaker 1: you had because the fear is that if you have
Speaker 1: a runoff after the general election, you get fewer, lesser turnout,
Speaker 1: and it's less will of the people. That's why the
Speaker 1: timing of the of the Louisiana system made the most
Speaker 1: sense of how he did it. And then you don't
Speaker 1: have to worry about rank choice voting, but you get
Speaker 1: all the but you get the you get exactly what
Speaker 1: rank choice voting wants to deliver.
Speaker 2: Yes, And I think that I still think it's true
Speaker 2: that ninety something percent of the vote would be the same,
Speaker 2: and that's why these other reforms I think would deliver.
Speaker 2: I think that Louisiana system has the potential to deliver
Speaker 2: vastly different and more in line with the will of
Speaker 2: the people results unlike astall.
Speaker 1: Look, I think that by the way, look at the
Speaker 1: last you know, Louisiana's basically created a Republican primary system
Speaker 1: for this cycle just to beat Bill Cassidy. Right, it
Speaker 1: became a but they got there getting rid of their
Speaker 1: they got rid of the system just to defeat Bill Cassidy,
Speaker 1: because in.
Speaker 3: The old system, Cassidy would have won.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And the point being, if you actually look at Louisiana
Speaker 1: election results over the past twenty five years, before you know,
Speaker 1: they put this system in, you had a competitive two
Speaker 1: party system. You had, Yeah, the land Drew dynasty was
Speaker 1: that's right. And you also had you know, John Bell Edwards.
Speaker 1: By the way, Washington State, which has a version of
Speaker 1: this system too, also has had even though it's a
Speaker 1: very blue state, it's been a very competitive Republican party
Speaker 1: for some time up there because of this system. And
Speaker 1: so I just think it actually gives minority voices more
Speaker 1: of an opportunity.
Speaker 3: To have to get their say.
Speaker 1: And I look at Washington, Louisiana, who have Now you know,
Speaker 1: again we're in this era where each party feels like
Speaker 1: they have to do everything they can to maximize their
Speaker 1: ability to win. In fact, so a buddy of mine
Speaker 1: who's a big consultant in California, I asked him, so,
Speaker 1: what happens if the two Republicans end up in the
Speaker 1: top two and that's the general election, right, Steve Hilton
Speaker 1: and Bianca? And he said Hilton would win and in
Speaker 1: less than a year there'd be a recall, right, and
Speaker 1: the top two and then the legislature would he and
Speaker 1: then there'd be a ballot prop to get rid of
Speaker 1: the all party primaries and California would return to this
Speaker 1: old system, basically eradicate all the Arnold Schwarzenegger election reforms
Speaker 1: within essentially eighteen months, if that is, If that's the
Speaker 1: scenario and the way he at I said, you know what,
Speaker 1: he's probably right. There would probably be a successful recall.
Speaker 1: Hilton probably would get recalled pretty quickly. And you know,
Speaker 1: you could just see that because we're so partisan right now,
Speaker 1: particularly on the coasts, that would happen pretty quick.
Speaker 2: So there's a classic conundrum there where Styer and Porter
Speaker 2: and Swalwell looking at each other, and the mayor of
Speaker 2: San Jose McMahon, who you had on the show the
Speaker 2: other day. You know, he thinks it's a fairy is
Speaker 2: at four percent or whatever? I guess you could say,
Speaker 2: who blinks first? But is it? If someone has to it?
Speaker 2: You know, it's the classic conundrum of they're all incentivized
Speaker 2: not to go, but but some of them, one of
Speaker 2: them has to go for the good of the trust.
Speaker 3: Don't you trust the voters to figure it out? And
Speaker 3: I just think they'll tune in. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I think that if Stier or Porter or swollwell, if
Speaker 2: one of them doesn't go, the risk is so far
Speaker 2: outweighs their individual choice of a chance of becoming governor.
Speaker 2: It could even ruin all of their careers, right, That's
Speaker 2: maybe how they should think about it. But they were
Speaker 2: so selfish that none of them would step down. This
Speaker 2: episode of the Check podcast is brought to you by Soul.
Speaker 2: So if you love that end of the day unwined
Speaker 2: but hate the hangover, Soul's out of Office is for you.
Speaker 2: These sparkling THCHC drinks and gummies give you the same
Speaker 2: relaxed social feeling without the alcohol, without the calories, and
Speaker 2: without the crash. Soul is a wellness brand that believes
Speaker 2: feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in
Speaker 2: delicious hemp derived THCHC and CBD products designed to boost
Speaker 2: your mood and help you unwind. Their best selling out
Speaker 2: of Office gummies were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz,
Speaker 2: boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation with five
Speaker 2: different strengths.
Speaker 3: You can tailor the dose to fit your vibe.
Speaker 1: So also has a variety of products specifically designed to
Speaker 1: help you get a better night's rest, including their top
Speaker 1: selling Sleepy Gummies, a fan favored for deep restorous sleep. Look,
Speaker 1: I have made no secret I am a believer in
Speaker 1: this stuff, in cannabis and hemp derived. I do not
Speaker 1: partake in alcohol. For the most part, I think this
Speaker 1: stuff is a lot safer them alcohol, a lot less
Speaker 1: addictive than alcohol. And yes, I have to say I
Speaker 1: love these drinks. It is the glass of wine and
Speaker 1: you know after work, that's what this is. So no
Speaker 1: hangover and no excess calories like this.
Speaker 3: I'm a big fan. So bring on the.
Speaker 1: Good vibes and treat yourself to sold today right now,
Speaker 1: Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order.
Speaker 1: Go to getsoul dot com and use the word toodcast
Speaker 1: that's getsol dot com promo code podcast for thirty percent off.
Speaker 3: And yes, I too, am a customer. I can look
Speaker 3: at it another way.
Speaker 1: Isn't this isn't the fact that no Democrat has jumped
Speaker 1: out and indictment of the candidates themselves who are running.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you do have a lot of
Speaker 1: I remember remember the since you're your you and I
Speaker 1: are pretty close in age. You remember the nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: two presidential field when it was in nineteen ninety one
Speaker 1: and called the seven Dwarfs, yep, I remember that it
Speaker 1: becomes none of them over, none of the major Democrats
Speaker 1: that everybody thought were going to be the front runners.
Speaker 1: They thought, oh, Bush is unbeatable, I'm not running. I'm
Speaker 1: going to wait till ninety six. Right, you're Bill Bradley's
Speaker 1: you're out, Gorge, your dicktep parts, all these Jay Rockefeller,
Speaker 1: all these say I'm none. There were all these people
Speaker 1: that said I'm waiting, and you know, so there were
Speaker 1: those that said, well, every nomination's worth having, so why not.
Speaker 1: And it does feel like the California right that the
Speaker 1: mayor of San Francis. I've talked to so many Democrats
Speaker 1: whore like, I wish the mayor of San Francisco were running,
Speaker 1: Lurry or you have those in southern California. I wish
Speaker 1: Rick Caruso were running, but he's not. I've heard others
Speaker 1: say I wish Kamala Harrison running, I wish Alex Padilla
Speaker 1: were running, there's a lot of It is amazing when
Speaker 1: you look at the number of high profile people that
Speaker 1: don't want to lead the world's fourth largest economy. It's
Speaker 1: surprising how many people have taken a pass on that seat.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, maybe some of those names you listed
Speaker 2: have more of an accurate sense of their chances of winning.
Speaker 2: I mean, if Kamala Harris ran for that and lost,
Speaker 2: I think she'd be forever done in politics in any way.
Speaker 2: I mean, it helps her to.
Speaker 3: Be Richard Nixon.
Speaker 1: Richard Nixon lost to California governor's racing, became president within
Speaker 1: six years.
Speaker 2: I know we didn't. So you're saying we won't have
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris to kick around anymore with, are you good
Speaker 2: Democratic cloth code? Yeah? I do think that it's going
Speaker 2: to shake out, and I think that one of them
Speaker 2: will leave, And I don't know if it'll be pressure
Speaker 2: or polling or Tom Steyer really thinks he's going to
Speaker 2: be governor.
Speaker 1: I think Cash Patel is going to get Eric Swawall
Speaker 1: the nomination if they go and leak that file about
Speaker 1: his in a weird way, that will you know, if
Speaker 1: he becomes a quote target of the Trump administration, right,
Speaker 1: it probably helps him in that primary.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Also, but also the voters aren't paying attention and
Speaker 2: they're turned off by it. I mean, I think I
Speaker 2: don't sense that the voters are paying attention.
Speaker 1: How about the fact that Gavin Newsom doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: have an heir apparent and has no in Tristan. And
Speaker 1: I don't know if any of them would want Gavin's
Speaker 1: endorsement out.
Speaker 2: There, which is odd republic I mean, Democratic front runner,
Speaker 2: but wouldn't even have a positive effect in the race.
Speaker 2: Right now, you know this gets too I know it's
Speaker 2: your show, but let me segue here. So if the
Speaker 2: Democrats gained power of this.
Speaker 1: Is like being back in the days when I used
Speaker 1: to have Tom Broke on Meet the Press. It would
Speaker 1: be like, are you going to anchor meet the press?
Speaker 1: You know? You know I always said, you know, Tom
Speaker 1: was a okay passenger, that he always be instinctively wanting
Speaker 1: to grab the wheel, right, But go ahead, go ahead.
Speaker 2: Well, I could ask you how to question to plug
Speaker 2: my later show. How to know what I wanted to
Speaker 2: ask you was interesting and important for them and everyone.
Speaker 2: Should the Democrats gain power, but what are the things
Speaker 2: they want to do. I know, on the national scene,
Speaker 2: it's save our democracy. But what are the things in
Speaker 2: the Senate. There've been a couple of gigantic bills. Corey
Speaker 2: Booker wants spend seven trillion dollars to give tax cuts
Speaker 2: to everyone except the rich.
Speaker 3: That would be.
Speaker 2: A rather bad program. Chris van Holland has a similar,
Speaker 2: smaller program, but a thing that has gain steam because
Speaker 2: we're told, and I think it's true that this is
Speaker 2: the affordability moment and election is There are different words
Speaker 2: for it, surveillance pricing, predatory pricing, predictive pricing. This is
Speaker 2: the technology, very simple technology that you could change the
Speaker 2: price based on a lot of different things.
Speaker 1: Look, I want to get into this a minute, but
Speaker 1: I actually want to get at the at this specific
Speaker 1: So if Democrats get Congress and they have a Donald
Speaker 1: Trump as president for two years, and this is a
Speaker 1: question that I've had a lot of Democrats freeze up
Speaker 1: on me when I ask them this question, do you
Speaker 1: try to pass legislation with Donald Trump?
Speaker 3: How can you answer?
Speaker 1: There is a real the base won't be excited if
Speaker 1: you know they negotiate with Donald Trump. You know, and
Speaker 1: yet I'll give you an I'll give you an item
Speaker 1: that I think you could get Jade Vanson to support,
Speaker 1: but I don't know if they would want to help
Speaker 1: jd Vance potentially help his presidential campaign, and that is
Speaker 1: the childcare tax credit.
Speaker 3: Right, that is.
Speaker 1: Something that Vance and could get Trump to support. That
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of sort of main you know,
Speaker 1: sort of the There was plenty of Republican opposition to it, right,
Speaker 1: But this is one of the areas where there is
Speaker 1: some there is some agreement between sort of one wing
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party and one wing of the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: But to me, I think that's the hardest. I think
Speaker 1: that's the hardest thing. Forget what they're going to do
Speaker 1: when in office. Do you want your bill signed by
Speaker 1: Donald Trump? And are you going to be comfortable if
Speaker 1: you pass things that Donald Trump likes?
Speaker 2: Hey, listen, I don't want my money signed by Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: but I'll still spend it, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: How can you get into office and say so, we
Speaker 2: are such an alternative to the do nothing Republicans and
Speaker 2: we're going to prove it by doing nothing. So there's
Speaker 2: a number of people in their constituency who really want
Speaker 2: to do something there's some who look at they know
Speaker 2: that the map's not going to be as good as
Speaker 2: it was in twenty six and actually working with Republicans
Speaker 2: and being bipartisan will be rewarded. There's a bunch that,
Speaker 2: you know, Democrats tend to be more policy wonks. They
Speaker 2: actually are excited to get some things done. You add
Speaker 2: that all up. I think that the we need to
Speaker 2: do nothing to make a point or to not give
Speaker 2: JD or Donald a win. I think that's a small caucus.
Speaker 2: Of course, you know, just a small faction can have devastating,
Speaker 2: outsized impacts.
Speaker 1: I was just going to say, I don't disagree that
Speaker 1: it's a small faction, but I think the loudest voices
Speaker 1: in the world we occupy right in new media are
Speaker 1: going to be one. And don't forget you're going to
Speaker 1: have presidential candidates on the trail. That's the other thing.
Speaker 1: You're going to have presidential candidates who are going to
Speaker 1: do nothing but piss on Washington, right, and they're going
Speaker 1: to look for opportunities to run against those that establishment
Speaker 1: crowd whatever it is. So I think we are absolutely
Speaker 1: going to see nothing get done if there's a democratic
Speaker 1: Now some might argue that's what they want, right, just
Speaker 1: paralysis is better than giving anything.
Speaker 2: They'll two investigations, they'll count that as the thing.
Speaker 1: But I think that will be the highest profile stuff,
Speaker 1: and it won't be It won't be Trump administration officials
Speaker 1: who will all hide under executive privilege. But I'll tell you,
Speaker 1: and I've told this to my friends in the business
Speaker 1: community when they ask me, what should we be telling
Speaker 1: our business that the you know, corporations who are trying
Speaker 1: to figure out what's happening, why, I said, be prepared
Speaker 1: for lots of subpoenas, because because congressional Democrats aren't going
Speaker 1: to be able to get these Trump officials to answer
Speaker 1: subpoenas because they'll all hide behind executive privilege and finding
Speaker 1: out what these deals were that were cut with the
Speaker 1: administration and all this stuff. But the private sector doesn't
Speaker 1: get to hide behind executive privilege. And I have a
Speaker 1: feeling that the most high profile impact of a Democratic
Speaker 1: Congress is going to be that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would think that there are a number of
Speaker 2: Democrats who would say, we'll have done our job if
Speaker 2: our investigations by the time we're done lead in two
Speaker 2: years to subpoena's credible subpoenas of Elon Musk. That's a
Speaker 2: big target. He's subpoenable based on his.
Speaker 1: Beach entire AI all the Tech I mean, I think
Speaker 1: they're coming after Tech in a big way.
Speaker 2: Well, this is with them. I don't know that Tech
Speaker 2: has committed crimes, but you know, there's a plausible case
Speaker 2: that Musk has with how he you know, his website
Speaker 2: which would only register, which would crash if you wanted
Speaker 2: to register as a Democrat. And even guys like Stephen
Speaker 2: Miller I think are subpoenable, Not that he'll answer.
Speaker 1: I think he's not that act privilege. He's in the
Speaker 1: West Wing. Yeah, I think he absolutely hides behind executive privilege.
Speaker 2: But investigations that show that. You know, he went to
Speaker 2: California officials and said, forget due process and forget reasonableok
Speaker 2: cause just go to parking lots of home depots. I
Speaker 2: mean he did say that, or he allegedly or has
Speaker 2: been reported to have said that.
Speaker 1: Now surveillance price. Okay, I know you're you're obsessed about this.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you a fun Let me tell you
Speaker 1: a fun little nugget I got on this. I had
Speaker 1: interviewed Brad Carson, former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma who's essentially
Speaker 1: the front person for the anthropic AI super Pac, meaning
Speaker 1: the AI super pac that is pro regulation versus the
Speaker 1: open AI superPAC. Right, you know, there's all this money
Speaker 1: flowing around. So we were I threw this in there
Speaker 1: and he told me. He says, well, I thank good.
Speaker 1: Now we were talking about AI regulation and I said
Speaker 1: why you're pro and he says, yes, and I want
Speaker 1: to see the states regulate. And he gave me an example.
Speaker 1: He goes, I'm a subscriber to the Washington Post and
Speaker 1: thanks to the law New York, you know, I really
Speaker 1: you know, which said that you know this has been
Speaker 1: done with surveillance pricing. You know essentially that he was
Speaker 1: being and that was his way of using an example
Speaker 1: why it's good if the state's way in and in
Speaker 1: one state law could actually help people living in other states.
Speaker 1: In one regulatory decision by New York to force disclosure
Speaker 1: on surveillance pricing at least gave a consumer in Oklahoma
Speaker 1: an opportunity to find out what this was all about.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I like Brek Carson. By the way, I
Speaker 2: think his heart is actually in it. He's not just
Speaker 2: taking a gig he's a former secret under Secretary of
Speaker 2: the Army and ran University of Tulsa for a while.
Speaker 2: I've had him on my show, not even mad. I
Speaker 2: think he's a straight shooter. And you know, back back
Speaker 2: in a time when you could get elected as a
Speaker 2: Democrat from Oklahoma, maybe that time will come again. So
Speaker 2: the deal with surveillance pricing, which, depending on how much
Speaker 2: you like it or hate it, is called dynamic pricing.
Speaker 2: That seems good the stores, the retailers call it dynamic pricing.
Speaker 2: And I think the.
Speaker 1: Remember dynamic scoring. Remember that phenomenon in Congressional Budget Office.
Speaker 2: Oh right, yes, yes, no no no.
Speaker 1: So tax cuts, no, no, no, dynamic scoring. The debt
Speaker 1: doesn't go up, it goes down with dynamic scoring.
Speaker 2: For the first time ever, an accountant gets accused of
Speaker 2: dynamism worth a dynamic duo, meaning he has the pencil
Speaker 2: and I have the ice shade.
Speaker 3: Anyway, dynamic scoring, dynamic price pricing.
Speaker 2: Surveillance pricing, predatory pricing, you could change that's if you
Speaker 2: hate it, you call it predatory pricing. And if you
Speaker 2: adopt a bill or propose a bill like Letitia James
Speaker 2: in New York and McMorrow is campaigning on this in Michigan.
Speaker 2: You talk about the egregious example. So McMorrow always talks
Speaker 2: about if you go to book an uber but your
Speaker 2: phone shows that it's under five percent battery, it boosts
Speaker 2: the price because it knows you're desperate. No one likes that.
Speaker 2: That's pretty bad. But another aspect of dynamic pricing, and
Speaker 2: this made the front page of the New York Post,
Speaker 2: is Wendy's was charging more for hamburgers at noon than
Speaker 2: they were at eleven. And I got to say, all
Speaker 2: this to me is is a discount for the eleven
Speaker 2: o'clock hamburg.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that doesn't bother me. That's not to me.
Speaker 1: That's different because in theory everybody's eligible for the discount.
Speaker 2: But what about the prices. Here's another one, the prices
Speaker 2: on store shelves. That there are a lot of bills
Speaker 2: in different legislators that would illegalize electronic price tags, like
Speaker 2: what is this nineteen seventy eight because the idea is
Speaker 2: you could use dynamic pricing. And what they always say
Speaker 2: is charge two people different things. And I guess the
Speaker 2: people who are against this all Democrats, think that it
Speaker 2: is just inherently bad to charge two people different things.
Speaker 2: But this is what the circulars and discounts and even
Speaker 2: be longing to Sam's Club gives you. Right, different people
Speaker 2: have different things. The classic example that the retailers use
Speaker 2: is if the bananas are going bad, we could price
Speaker 2: them at ten cents a pound instead of thirty five
Speaker 2: cents a pound, and essentially we might even be taking
Speaker 2: a loss. But what we're really doing is incentivizing the
Speaker 2: shopper to take the bananas home with them instead of
Speaker 2: us putting it in a compost team. So there's so
Speaker 2: much about dynamic pricing that's just modern and that actually
Speaker 2: just helps everyone and is being thought of as a boogeyman.
Speaker 2: And there are bills, literally bills in front of Congress
Speaker 2: that would eliminate the banana pricing scheme. And I identify
Speaker 2: this as though the outrageous examples concentrate the mind. I
Speaker 2: think that if you just publicize them, my libertarian instincts
Speaker 2: would say that the companies wouldn't want to be associated
Speaker 2: with them. I think of it as so if affordability
Speaker 2: is the issue, it's very hard for Democrats not to
Speaker 2: jump on this trend. But are they really improving things
Speaker 2: for the media and voter and consumer.
Speaker 3: That's a look.
Speaker 1: I think it all depends and what you're putting your
Speaker 1: throwing into this bucket of what we're going to call
Speaker 1: surveillance pricing or whatever. I think the where I the
Speaker 1: problem I have is what the airlines want to do,
Speaker 1: which is use the data, use the data that I
Speaker 1: have voluntarily given them against me to price some things, right,
Speaker 1: and that is wait a minute, you know, so now
Speaker 1: it looks like now I'm almost regretting ever becoming a
Speaker 1: frequent flyer because I've given them so much information that
Speaker 1: you know, they now every time I book, they know
Speaker 1: certain things and I'm going to get quoted a price.
Speaker 1: You know, they know where I'm They can look at
Speaker 1: my history to know how price sensitive I am on
Speaker 1: various things and various routes and how and so the
Speaker 1: I think it's how the how the data you've handed
Speaker 1: over to them, if that's being used to inform your
Speaker 1: individual price. I think when you're saying floating price based
Speaker 1: on supply and demand, that seems very normal, fair part
Speaker 1: of the free market economy. When you're changing price based
Speaker 1: on what you think an individual will do, that feels
Speaker 1: a little bit.
Speaker 3: That feels like you're bordering on discrimination. Well, if you.
Speaker 2: Write the bill narrowly so it doesn't go through broad
Speaker 2: I guess I support it, but't I listen to the
Speaker 2: rhetoric of Greg Caesar and Luhan of New Mexico and
Speaker 2: the and Letitia James, and this is not what they're saying.
Speaker 2: They're not allowing I never hear the clause, and I
Speaker 2: listen of now. Of course we understand that businesses it's
Speaker 2: not just in their ability, but helps the business stay
Speaker 2: afloat and also helps the consumer dev different prices at
Speaker 2: different times. They're just all seen as a boogeyman, and
Speaker 2: in this moment of affordability above all else, it's tantalizing
Speaker 2: to reach for. I also don't know do voters really
Speaker 2: reward you for these small, bore quality of life improvements.
Speaker 2: When Biden tried maybe this was messaging jump.
Speaker 1: Fees, it was weirdly popular. Though it pulls well.
Speaker 2: It does ask people the question flat out, you want
Speaker 2: to pay more or less? They'll say less. But does
Speaker 2: it really accrue to the statesman who is there and
Speaker 2: trying to fight for you in a big way. Maybe
Speaker 2: on the smaller level it will. I don't think this
Speaker 2: is I am suspicious. I understand why Democrats are reaching
Speaker 2: for I don't think that it is the killer blow
Speaker 2: that some think it is.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a killer blow, but I do
Speaker 1: believe if you're always seen on the side of the
Speaker 1: consumer right, not thinking of this as voter, and if
Speaker 1: you want to have a conversation with people that are
Speaker 1: just not in your tribe but are actually members of
Speaker 1: other tribes, then I think.
Speaker 3: It's a way in. Again.
Speaker 1: Look, I believe this. I think part of the news
Speaker 1: media's trust issue is on the national level, we don't
Speaker 1: think of ourselves as consumer advocates very often. Local news
Speaker 1: actually used to be. That was the differentiator. Your local
Speaker 1: news operation was much more of a consumer advocate than
Speaker 1: and I think gutting And I've always said when we
Speaker 1: gutted local news, we actually gutted the first line of
Speaker 1: trust defense, meaning because the local news operators were the
Speaker 1: consumer advocates finding out who was getting scammed and hey
Speaker 1: there's some bad phone calls right, always section on you
Speaker 1: that it gave actually media a little bit more trust generally.
Speaker 1: So I agree it's not a single killer app issue,
Speaker 1: but I actually think anytime you're caught being a consumer advocate.
Speaker 3: You're gaining trust.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and if you agree with us, we'll also send
Speaker 2: you a copy of the fight back theme song that
Speaker 2: was the other David Horowitz show from the eighties. True,
Speaker 2: then again, and.
Speaker 1: Then David Horowitz became a a huge right winger.
Speaker 3: Remember different guy?
Speaker 1: Was it a different There were two, there, weren't I
Speaker 1: remember being very confused, Wait a minute, right.
Speaker 2: What are we fighting back?
Speaker 1: In fact, I think the right wing David Horrowitz became
Speaker 1: more prominent.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, and he the right wing David Horror or
Speaker 2: Whitz started off as an extreme left wing you know,
Speaker 2: smashed the state guy, as is often the arc. I also,
Speaker 2: I do wonder, though, if the idea of the local
Speaker 2: news and the tip off to a ripoff is of
Speaker 2: a piece with an older era where Chuck Schumer would
Speaker 2: have a press conference every week at a gas station
Speaker 2: and talk about exactly these issues, but he also knew
Speaker 2: that he could get coverage of it. And now what
Speaker 2: are we really paying attention to? Do you think there's
Speaker 2: going to be a ripoff talk? A shame on you talk?
Speaker 2: Do you think this is going to be a predatory
Speaker 2: pricing talk? I don't know that these are the issues
Speaker 2: that are grabbing our attention these days.
Speaker 1: No, but it is a piece of the larger issue
Speaker 1: that we have less control and that somehow we've given
Speaker 1: tech too much control of things in general. So I
Speaker 1: think it's a piece of something bigger. That's why I
Speaker 1: think it resonates.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think MGP. I think Marie lucikan Perez
Speaker 2: is the ultimate example of someone who's very much on
Speaker 2: the side of consumer and she's mostly associated with the
Speaker 2: ability to fix your own washing machine, and that's her
Speaker 2: brand and it helps her. So yeah, that would be
Speaker 2: an example of where some of it does break through.
Speaker 2: I wonder, I mean, if the Republican Party didn't go
Speaker 2: as crazy as it did, I had wondered for a
Speaker 2: long time, might she defect because she seems very very
Speaker 2: upset with the Democrats and often is. If you hear
Speaker 2: three Democrats voted against the bill and she's.
Speaker 3: Of from one.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Wild Grain.
Speaker 3: Wild Grain is the.
Speaker 1: First bake from Frozen subscription box for sour dough breads,
Speaker 1: arteasonal pastries, and fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently
Speaker 1: baked in twenty five minutes or less. Unlike many store
Speaker 1: brought options. While Grain uses some simple ingredients you can
Speaker 1: pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can be a
Speaker 1: lot easier on your belly little gut health there right
Speaker 1: and richer in nutrients and oxidants. There's also no preservatives
Speaker 1: and no shortcuts. The Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable.
Speaker 1: In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten
Speaker 1: free box, a vegan box, and a new protein box.
Speaker 1: I will tell you I have done the gluten free box.
Speaker 1: I have done it a second time. I have also
Speaker 1: used the code, the todcast code. If you use the
Speaker 1: promo code podcast at check out, you get thirty dollars off.
Speaker 1: I've already used it as a gift to somebody else
Speaker 1: who loves this bread. It is hard to find good
Speaker 1: gluten free bread. It is fantastic. They give you step
Speaker 1: by step instructions. I really dig this. There is nothing
Speaker 1: like having an artesian bakery in your freezer to chase
Speaker 1: away the winter chill. Now is the best time to
Speaker 1: stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade meals.
Speaker 3: With Wild Grain.
Speaker 1: I obviously highly recooned me it. It is worth giving
Speaker 1: Wildgreen to try right now. Wildgrain is offering my listeners
Speaker 1: thirty dollars off your first box plus free croissance for life.
Speaker 1: Come on when you go to wildgrain dot com slash
Speaker 1: podcast to start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off
Speaker 1: your first box and free croissants for life when you
Speaker 1: visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or simply use the
Speaker 1: promo code podcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I
Speaker 1: absolutely embrace, so use that code.
Speaker 3: I am and maybe this is the poly in me.
Speaker 1: I am hopeful that what Kevin Kylie did when he
Speaker 1: decided to put an eye next to his name and
Speaker 1: leave the Republican Party. You know, I think that if
Speaker 1: you told me MGP decided to become an I and
Speaker 1: then you know, look, I'm pretty fluent and certainly I
Speaker 1: converse a lot with the folks in the Forward space,
Speaker 1: the Andrew Yang World, Christy Weapons involved, and and you know,
Speaker 1: they're they're trying they're sort of fighting a two front war,
Speaker 1: right one is they're trying to improve batlet access for
Speaker 1: independent candidates. And you know, and that's a that's the
Speaker 1: thing you kind of have, that's almost like a that's
Speaker 1: the long game. The short game is they're looking to
Speaker 1: do a better version of what problem Solvers and no
Speaker 1: Labels tried to do and didn't do it very well,
Speaker 1: which is create a caucus of independent thinkers whatever that
Speaker 1: is independent Dems, independent ours, independent independence, right that collectively
Speaker 1: vote together on leadership elections and and become the folkrum
Speaker 1: like in the Senate if you just got you know,
Speaker 1: take Dan Osborne, right, the thing that's keeping him from
Speaker 1: winning that Senate race is the fact that he you know,
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's he's going to be a vote
Speaker 1: for Schumer.
Speaker 3: He's going to be a vote for Democrats.
Speaker 1: So how does he convince the voters that he's not
Speaker 1: a vote for Schumer and that he's not a vote
Speaker 1: for Democrats?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: You know, if he's working with you know, if his
Speaker 1: answer is I'm going to work with Lisa, I'm going
Speaker 1: to Lisa Murkowski, and I'm going to you know, Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders and Lisa Murkowski and Angus King and you know,
Speaker 1: and John Curtis in Utah, you know, you sort of
Speaker 1: and I'm you know, I'm going to try to forge
Speaker 1: an independ I refuse to have to pick between Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and Chuck Schumer. You're not going to make me
Speaker 1: pick here because I actually think my election is going
Speaker 1: to create an opening with to work with a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of independence and will make the two parties court
Speaker 1: us to decide who should get the majority. But until
Speaker 1: we have that breakthrough, that's what makes it I think
Speaker 1: tough in these independent Senate campaigns.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that the the structure of it. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I think that it's structurally tough. I think that our
Speaker 2: politics is sclerotic and it doesn't it doesn't at all
Speaker 2: comport with our media and our attention. And I think
Speaker 2: that there's been a bigger there hasn't ever been a
Speaker 2: bigger mismatch in our lifetime. It's like we're running analog
Speaker 2: politics with next gen digital. Not just this goes to
Speaker 2: how we think about the world.
Speaker 1: Well, this goes to whether it's it's infrastructure right to
Speaker 1: improve the small de democratic infrastructure like online voting or
Speaker 1: you know, doing things like this, like we haven't modernized
Speaker 1: the infrastructure of politics to match the needs of today.
Speaker 1: Just like you know, i'd argue our constitution needs updated,
Speaker 1: doesn't need we don't need to redo it. But there
Speaker 1: are a few things that like, Okay, that's sort of
Speaker 1: that doesn't work anymore, and we kind of need this,
Speaker 1: like the pardon power. I'm really into this constitutional amendment
Speaker 1: that's been introduced in the House that gives Congress the
Speaker 1: ability to essentially overturn a part presidential pardon using sort
Speaker 1: of but realizing it has to be a constitutional amendment.
Speaker 1: And I actually think the parameters they created, which was
Speaker 1: it has to be a super majority to do it.
Speaker 1: This stuff feels very founding fatherlike oh, sort of like okay,
Speaker 1: and the type of modernization that probably is necessary out
Speaker 1: of you know, for the life of me, I don't
Speaker 1: know why there's soul why an individual was given pardon
Speaker 1: power by a bunch of people who were afraid of
Speaker 1: a king. But needless to say that I did happen.
Speaker 2: You know from reading the history. It was a huge
Speaker 2: compromise and didn't really conceptualize what the president would be.
Speaker 2: I give them a lot of leeway. Those guys in
Speaker 2: those wigs, drinking the weak beer they were made.
Speaker 3: It was pretty good.
Speaker 1: What they did come up with has been yes, right,
Speaker 1: they were reinfected. They didn't think you know, remember our
Speaker 1: first constitution didn't even last a decade, so so pretty good.
Speaker 2: Thing is the moment it's so hard to amend the Constitution,
Speaker 2: and the moment to amend the Constitution is a post
Speaker 2: Watergate moment when everyone realizes, oh my god, that went
Speaker 2: horribly wrong. And I don't think we're going to have that.
Speaker 2: I don't think we're going to have that in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty eight. I don't think we're going to have But I.
Speaker 3: Think by twenty four.
Speaker 1: You know, if you look at the eras when we
Speaker 1: have done multiple constitutional amendments in a ten year period,
Speaker 1: they have happened after huge moments.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: We had a period around the Civil War. We had
Speaker 1: a period essentially in the industrial right, the Industrial Revolution
Speaker 1: and the pushback on that. That's why we got direct
Speaker 1: election of senators when suffrage the ability to tax.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: So, you know, do I think it's twenty twenty eight? No,
Speaker 1: But do I think remember all of those constitutional amendments
Speaker 1: that passed.
Speaker 3: Were like introduced twenty years earlier. Right.
Speaker 1: It is one of those things that it does take.
Speaker 1: You know, it takes time to do it, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think we will eventually get there. Hey, let me,
Speaker 1: are you an MBA fan?
Speaker 2: I am, in fact.
Speaker 1: Okay, because I thought this would be a good way
Speaker 1: for us to close.
Speaker 3: We're buttoning up here in.
Speaker 2: The forty five close seven times during the interview shop.
Speaker 1: Yeah you have you keep trying to get out. That's
Speaker 1: really the sneaky little thing. I have this annual conversation
Speaker 1: with a whole group of friends of mine, and it
Speaker 1: always happens at the same time a year. Why Why
Speaker 1: during March madness do I end up realizing how much
Speaker 1: I hate the NBA sucks.
Speaker 3: NBA regular season sucks, and.
Speaker 1: It's like it like it always just it's a stark
Speaker 1: reminder that like the NBA has a massive regular season problem.
Speaker 1: I'll say this both as a fan of basketball and
Speaker 1: as a gambler. Okay, I enjoy gambling. I know that's
Speaker 1: not popular to say that, but I.
Speaker 2: It's not popular to say that it's popular to do it,
Speaker 2: that is exactly.
Speaker 1: But I also want I also believe in honest I
Speaker 1: want to gamble honestly, meaning if you know, I don't
Speaker 1: gamble on the NBA because I don't believe every team
Speaker 1: is trying every night, and if I know that people
Speaker 1: aren't trying, then I don't want to. I'm not risking
Speaker 1: my money on something that is that is that is
Speaker 1: not going to be that is not going to match
Speaker 1: with the DA indicates generally it should match right. And
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I think the NBA has a
Speaker 1: massive regular season problem. And I don't know how they should,
Speaker 1: how they're going to fix it, but I think they've
Speaker 1: got to fix it. I'm embarrassed about the Wizards, you know,
Speaker 1: but if they're not alone here with this tanking mess,
Speaker 1: but it really has made the NBA is useless to watch.
Speaker 1: When a tanking team is playing anybody, it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: if they're playing Wenby or if they're playing you know,
Speaker 1: it is baseball. Yeah, think about baseball, baseball, whatever you
Speaker 1: think of baseball in September, of the teams that are eliminated,
Speaker 1: those players try hard because they.
Speaker 2: Want to call up and it's their slot.
Speaker 3: Yeah right.
Speaker 1: And somehow in the NBA, I mean literally, you have
Speaker 1: the Wizards. As soon as a player does well that
Speaker 1: he gets benched. Yes, I mean literally, the coaches get
Speaker 1: involved to do this, and I do think it's screwed
Speaker 1: up the product. And I do think the NCAA Tournament
Speaker 1: always becomes this moment to remind people, oh yeah, boy time.
Speaker 1: I can't wait for the NBA playoffs because We're literally
Speaker 1: at the crappiest time of year to watch the NBA.
Speaker 2: Right so my counters, I don't know if they're counters.
Speaker 2: And by the way, this would make a great how to.
Speaker 2: You should come on my new show how to Fix
Speaker 2: the NBA. And I don't have a good answer that this.
Speaker 2: We need question askers, so you would ask, how how
Speaker 2: do I fix the How do I gamble correctly and
Speaker 2: do this?
Speaker 1: And I want to get I enjoy? Well, put it
Speaker 1: this way, the NCAA Tournament's been great. This has been
Speaker 1: great college basketball. By the way, a reminder, money can't
Speaker 1: improve things creating financial incentives to you know, we have
Speaker 1: some of the most competitive basketball and improved quality that
Speaker 1: we've had in thirty years. This feels like the eighties again,
Speaker 1: how good college basketball is right now.
Speaker 2: So I'm a huge Saint John's fan. Without Mike Ropole
Speaker 2: of vitamin water and some horses injecting tens of million
Speaker 2: dollars into that franchise to get Patino in to pay players,
Speaker 2: they'd be regular old, probably not even going to make
Speaker 2: the tournament. Saint John's. I agree with you on an il.
Speaker 2: I definitely think they need a bunch of reforms, like
Speaker 2: you need to know how much the players will play.
Speaker 3: You need to know that everybody's following the same rules.
Speaker 2: Yes, we need to We need to know what the
Speaker 2: market is. It screws of the players. It's opaque, it's
Speaker 2: not working for anyone except the agents. Would you rather
Speaker 2: have It's almost unfair because the NBA is a one
Speaker 2: and done situation. So that's unbelievably exciting. But it's a
Speaker 2: six yes, sorry, March madness is that's a six game tournament,
Speaker 2: and not only for money and attention, but even for
Speaker 2: the actual the actual pace of play and how sophisticated
Speaker 2: these guys are. You want longer series in the NBA,
Speaker 2: not by being selfish and trying to milk the fans.
Speaker 2: Long series where teams get to know each other and
Speaker 2: get to know each other's every move are amazing. They're great.
Speaker 2: So I'd rather have an NBA where people are trying,
Speaker 2: where teams are trying, than an NCAAA which gins up
Speaker 2: this March madness excitement because of the one and done
Speaker 2: nature of the tournament. In fact, I think the tournament
Speaker 2: itself is this great product and people don't view ANDCAA
Speaker 2: basketball is this great product they do a little bit lately,
Speaker 2: people are interested in the freshitt better.
Speaker 1: Oh, I think it's quality of play. Look, March Madness
Speaker 1: kept the conversation about the crappiness of college basketball over
Speaker 1: the last twenty years at Bay because the tournament was
Speaker 1: still good, right, even if the team, even if we
Speaker 1: saw a lot of just crappy games.
Speaker 2: The tournament is a great product. Absolutely, it's great marketing.
Speaker 2: Gambling helps and one and done in Jack says Trauma
Speaker 2: into it.
Speaker 1: I would argue that the improved the fact that you
Speaker 1: have players now staying longer. Right, anybody under six to
Speaker 1: six isn't isn't leaving to go play in Europe anymore.
Speaker 1: They're staying here because they can make the same money
Speaker 1: here that they could make playing in Turkey or France
Speaker 1: or whatever. So you've got you know, you've got these
Speaker 1: veteran teams, right, So you've got just in the same
Speaker 1: way four year point guards were the key to winning
Speaker 1: the tournament in the eighties. Four year point guards again
Speaker 1: become important in the NCBA. So I think that in
Speaker 1: that sense, let me throw an idea at you.
Speaker 3: It at the NBA.
Speaker 1: So look, I hear you on a seven game series
Speaker 1: there's nothing like it for the NBA Finals and for
Speaker 1: the conference finals. But you know, baseball would have a
Speaker 1: bigger problem about the Dodgers if it wasn't for the
Speaker 1: fact that they have a five game series in their playoffs.
Speaker 2: Because it introduces randomness, correct, and if you had a
Speaker 2: little bit more randomness in the NBA in that first round.
Speaker 1: Now, remember they used to have it two out of
Speaker 1: three was a bad idea. They tried that once and
Speaker 1: eliminated the Lakers in the first round. That was a
Speaker 1: disaster for them, so they quickly got rid of that.
Speaker 1: I remember this back in bream was heard. But like
Speaker 1: they loose to the Rockets at are two out of
Speaker 1: three the year after they win the title, it.
Speaker 3: Was just screw it.
Speaker 2: Eighties.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but a five game series in the first round
Speaker 1: and allowing some randomness in the first round. My thesis
Speaker 1: is those nine, ten to eleven teams. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: not a big fan of the play in as much
Speaker 1: I get why they tried it, But instead of doing
Speaker 1: the play in, I'd rather see the five game first
Speaker 1: round series because it then makes the eighth seed and
Speaker 1: seven seed worth having as it is, and you might
Speaker 1: get more nine through twelve teams who are deciding do
Speaker 1: I tank or not. You're not beating You're not going
Speaker 1: to win a one You're not going to beat a
Speaker 1: one seed in a seven game series. It's happened once
Speaker 1: or twice, but it mostly doesn't. But you could do
Speaker 1: it in a five game and then suddenly that's an
Speaker 1: incentive to get.
Speaker 3: Into the playoffs.
Speaker 1: Just like in baseball, the eighty eight win team that
Speaker 1: sneaks in with a great pitcher can knock off the
Speaker 1: one seed in a five game series because that pitcher
Speaker 1: can pitch twice.
Speaker 2: And I know that's exciting, but I don't know that
Speaker 2: that's fair. Just on the baseball side of things. I
Speaker 2: used to analogize it too. There was a lot of
Speaker 2: there was a lot of discussion about if college admissions
Speaker 2: were fair or not fair, and I said, well, what
Speaker 2: you could do is inject a lot of random, which
Speaker 2: is your SAT score would just correlate to the number
Speaker 2: of spots you had on a big prize wheel, and
Speaker 2: that would be if you got into college. So that
Speaker 2: would be more I guess fair or random, or it
Speaker 2: would deprioritize the SATs. But I don't think that would
Speaker 2: be a fairer system. But what we want in sports
Speaker 2: is entertainment. So I definitely want to say this one thing.
Speaker 2: I have a solution, and I have a critique of
Speaker 2: something you said, you don't bet because you don't know
Speaker 2: if the teams are trying. That is true. I think
Speaker 2: you're probably over indexing for the Wizards, who are horrendous
Speaker 2: on this score, absolutely shameful.
Speaker 1: I've had to deal with this for three years now.
Speaker 1: I mean, your best DC could be a great basketball market.
Speaker 1: It's the NBA, and the Wizards have just been you know, made,
Speaker 1: they screwed it up.
Speaker 2: The players, of course always try, but like you say,
Speaker 2: the management doesn't give you the good players, or they
Speaker 2: shut you down, or the coaches will pull you out
Speaker 2: if you weren't you bet. I mean on the Nuggets
Speaker 2: are playing the Rockets, or the Knicks are playing the Rockets,
Speaker 2: or the Nuggets are playing the Lakers. These guys are
Speaker 2: going at it. Let's right, Luca is going at it
Speaker 2: as hard as he could. I'm seeing Jamal Murray with
Speaker 2: facial lacerations as he drives down the lane. There is
Speaker 2: a lot of effort and the way to stop the tanking.
Speaker 2: It's very interesting because they thought that, well, instead of
Speaker 2: giving teams the guaranteed number one pick, we'll just give
Speaker 2: them the highest odds at the number one pick. And
Speaker 2: I think a behavioral economists will say that will never
Speaker 2: change behavior. If all you're doing is saying, well, do
Speaker 2: I have any chance of it? Is it a better
Speaker 2: chance than everyone else, I'm still going to do it.
Speaker 2: The downside of tanking isn't that bad what you do.
Speaker 2: It's a fundamental change. But really, if you think about it,
Speaker 2: it's fine. It works. It solves a lot of problems.
Speaker 2: Rotate the number one pick among all thirty two teams
Speaker 2: in the league, or when we expand thirty five thirty eight,
Speaker 2: So that's fine. I mean one year Oklahoma City will
Speaker 2: have it after winning the National Championship and or the
Speaker 2: NBA Championship, and one year the Spurs will have it
Speaker 2: after being in last place, as they did when you know,
Speaker 2: when they picked David Robinson. So if you just do
Speaker 2: a rotation and then some modification, I don't think teams
Speaker 2: are jockeying so much to get the three or four
Speaker 2: or five pick. I think it's a lot better than
Speaker 2: what we have now. You have to address tanking. Silver
Speaker 2: I think could lose a job over how bad the
Speaker 2: tanking issue has become.
Speaker 1: Well, and the other thing is I think more transparency.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, it is true. Am I going to
Speaker 1: see certain players when they come to my city once?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: When they come to my city once? And then I
Speaker 1: spend all this money, you know, and then you don't
Speaker 1: get to see that one star playery you kind of wanted.
Speaker 3: To see right there. And that's the fact. I mean.
Speaker 1: They try to mess around with load management by having
Speaker 1: a mandatory number of games to qualify for rewards and stuff.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's worked, right. I think we still
Speaker 1: we still have it, and part of the load management
Speaker 1: gets it too. This is why I think tinkering with
Speaker 1: the playoffs, where you incentivize making the regular season matter more,
Speaker 1: you've got and I think ultimately, if the regular season
Speaker 1: matters more, you will over time have less handing. And
Speaker 1: I don't know how you do when you allow twenty
Speaker 1: of the thirty teams to make the playoffs, Have you
Speaker 1: made the regular season matter anymore?
Speaker 2: No, it doesn't matter that much. But you know, I'm
Speaker 2: sure you've been watching it for a while. If you
Speaker 2: compare a random second quarter of an NBA game now,
Speaker 2: just the defense that's being pit played to the eighties
Speaker 2: or nineties. I used to think, are they even really trying?
Speaker 2: And they weren't and just go to a quarter defense.
Speaker 1: We know, and I get it, but again I go back,
Speaker 1: baseball doesn't have this problem.
Speaker 2: Well, baseball has a lot of other problems.
Speaker 1: They have other problems. I'm not going to sit there
Speaker 1: and say they don't, but they don't have this problem.
Speaker 1: And they have, you know, even fewer teams that make
Speaker 1: the playoffs in a given year by the way they've
Speaker 1: They have a rule that seems like a pretty simple
Speaker 1: rule on their lottery. If you got the number one pick.
Speaker 3: This year.
Speaker 1: I remember the Nats one year they got the first
Speaker 1: overall pick, and they were ineligible to get the first
Speaker 1: overall the next year. The highest they could get was eleven. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so you know that seemed like a pretty so that way,
Speaker 1: you're not doing the process i e. The sixers where
Speaker 1: you're tanking three years in a row or what the
Speaker 1: Astros did, right that was that was what happened in baseball.
Speaker 1: The Astros did a huge tank job in twenty ten,
Speaker 1: twenty eleven, twenty twelve, which got them to a Correa Bregman,
Speaker 1: you know, and then they ended up, you know, having
Speaker 1: this great run.
Speaker 2: And the Rays were sort of doing a tank job
Speaker 2: except when they weren't. They just didn't want to spend
Speaker 2: any money. But the baseball draft matters a lot less
Speaker 2: than the NBA draft, just for in terms of predictability,
Speaker 2: but also in terms of development. The guys making the
Speaker 2: picks probably if they screw it up too often, won't
Speaker 2: be in the front office years later, whereas in the NBA,
Speaker 2: you know, those are your picks that are that you
Speaker 2: hang on. The GM.
Speaker 3: Well, it's just it's funny. I can't tell you.
Speaker 1: It feels like every April there's this group of friends
Speaker 1: of mine and I we have this argument about God,
Speaker 1: what's wrong with the NBA. And I think part of
Speaker 1: it is, again, it's recency bias. The tournament is so
Speaker 1: much fun, right, and you're just sitting there going, oh,
Speaker 1: there's no urgency and we're at the tail end of
Speaker 1: the season, right, We're at this and so you do
Speaker 1: have that, you know, there's a little bit of let's
Speaker 1: save people a little bit for the playoffs. So it
Speaker 1: is and it's a if I'm the NBA, it's a bummer.
Speaker 1: You've got a whole bunch of people excited about basketball,
Speaker 1: they tune into the pros, and you're not giving them
Speaker 1: nearly the same urgency. And you know, I think it's
Speaker 1: a missed opportunity for the NBA as well.
Speaker 2: I've always thought on that first Thursday of the NCAA tournament,
Speaker 2: which is one of the best days in sports structurally
Speaker 2: the same as the next day, but just wall to
Speaker 2: all games, that the NBA even plays a game or
Speaker 2: two is kind of laughable. It's just sitting itself. Get
Speaker 2: out of the way, paradia failure.
Speaker 1: More importantly, make these Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of the following
Speaker 1: week some of the best matchups you you know, make
Speaker 1: sure Lakers Celtics, make sure Thunderspurs, make sure, you know,
Speaker 1: have a big prime time, you know, something like counter.
Speaker 1: You know, take advantage of this moment that you have
Speaker 1: on those days.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that the NBA just has too many
Speaker 2: games in the season, and of course they do, but
Speaker 2: this is what you're going to get. The last ten
Speaker 2: games of the NBA season is always going to be boring.
Speaker 2: If there are more than fifty games in the NBA season, Hey,
Speaker 2: if you want to balm for all of this WNBA.
Speaker 2: They've gone to a forty four game season, but they
Speaker 2: have three game series and it's all tight and taut.
Speaker 2: And though again with the new deal, which I congratulate
Speaker 2: the players for, as more money comes into the league,
Speaker 2: they're gonna want to if they can fill an arena,
Speaker 2: as they will. And that's what's going to happen with
Speaker 2: the WNBA, and they will be grousing about this. We'll
Speaker 2: be saying, oh, the Links always get the number one pick.
Speaker 1: Well, it seemed like in the eighties, don't you remember it,
Speaker 1: like the Lakers and Celtics always ended up with the
Speaker 1: number one pick.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was.
Speaker 1: It was just like but somehow the Clippers traded the
Speaker 1: Lakers the number one pick, and you're like.
Speaker 3: How did I mean it was?
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why they had to create the lottery,
Speaker 1: because too many teams were dumping their picks to the
Speaker 1: to the better teams.
Speaker 2: But if there were, if there's ever a counter argument
Speaker 2: to good old days with the sport of basketball in
Speaker 2: the fifties, they had the regional picks, so that the
Speaker 2: this is why, this is why the Celtics got everyone
Speaker 2: who went to a new England Institution, and the draft
Speaker 2: went like fifteen rounds. I don't understand. There were ten
Speaker 2: teams in the league. How are they picking fifteen players?
Speaker 2: Although you know you always hear Dave Debusha a thirteenth
Speaker 2: round pack.
Speaker 1: I know, well, but that NFL was that way. Bart
Speaker 1: Star famously was a seventeenth round pick.
Speaker 2: But seventeen on a roster fifty two versus fifteen on
Speaker 2: a rock.
Speaker 1: Now you only had like twelve, But back then you
Speaker 1: only had like twelve teams, right, right, so it made
Speaker 1: sense that you had you had all these rounds. But
Speaker 1: then again, remember Mike Piazza was famously drafted in like
Speaker 1: the twenty ninth round, and you're like as a favorite.
Speaker 2: Of Tommy Lasorda because their dads were friends or maybe
Speaker 2: just Italian.
Speaker 3: I don't know, that's exactly.
Speaker 1: Well, you've got some technical issues that you're gonna mess.
Speaker 3: With, huh.
Speaker 2: It's just the camera. Somebody like microphone sound great?
Speaker 1: They do, And of my audience, I think I think
Speaker 1: the interviews are more audio. Do you do you know
Speaker 1: the distinction between your audio and your video?
Speaker 2: Yes, it's uni yeah, yeah, And so.
Speaker 1: That it seems like if you don't offer video that's
Speaker 1: an important five. You're you're missing out.
Speaker 2: It is true. It's the cutting edge five, and they're
Speaker 2: gonna I'm gonna lose them to call your daddy.
Speaker 3: I fear.
Speaker 2: Cat plug a couple shows, please, Okay.
Speaker 1: I think I think I'm due to be in our
Speaker 1: Home and Away series. I think I'm due on.
Speaker 3: Your soon and you can't wait. I've got more to
Speaker 3: plug there. I've got a new sports show.
Speaker 2: I do have this show how to I said, we
Speaker 2: can pair you with how to Bet Better, the episode
Speaker 2: that is up right now. So every week we someone
Speaker 2: asks how to question, we get an expert, my friend
Speaker 2: Nate Silver, who I'm sure I don't know if you've
Speaker 2: interviewed him. He's a brilliant thinker and he's a good talker,
Speaker 2: but he uses these filler words like wright and um.
Speaker 2: So this week's episode is how not to say um
Speaker 2: with Nate Silver, and he's not embarrassed about he gets
Speaker 2: created it by the end. Let me tell you. So,
Speaker 2: we've had how to Immigrate as a throut ble to Europe.
Speaker 2: We've had how to be a Ghostbuster. We're doing next
Speaker 2: week how to Talk to My Cats. Some good practical
Speaker 2: advice there I do have cats, so tune into how
Speaker 2: To for You please, aclectic and practical pieces of advice.
Speaker 2: And I thought you want to ask a question?
Speaker 3: Seriously, I love the series and I do hope how
Speaker 3: to fix the NBA? Count me in?
Speaker 1: All right, count me in for that. But by the way,
Speaker 1: the cat, I mean, that's play into algorithms, aren't you?
Speaker 1: That's play into the algorithm? How to talk to cats?
Speaker 2: Except my experts like don't don't try, just operate in
Speaker 2: their world. She's a very good cat expert. The guy
Speaker 2: asking the question said, am I doing it right? My
Speaker 2: cat named mister Bad wakes me up at four thirty
Speaker 2: in the morning and I lock them in the closet.
Speaker 2: Then at six I show them my watch and say
Speaker 2: now it's time for feeding. And it turns out that
Speaker 2: wasn't how to talk to a cat.
Speaker 1: By the way, how do people get your daily newsletter?
Speaker 1: I love it and I find so many fun little
Speaker 1: stories from it.
Speaker 3: Tell people how to get it.
Speaker 2: The gist list is at Mike Pesca dot substack dot
Speaker 2: com and they also have some uh I've been doing
Speaker 2: going some deep diving information on the pit and their background,
Speaker 2: character and.
Speaker 1: Why you're obsessed with all the A holes on pity.
Speaker 1: That's just been a running gag of yours, hasn't it.
Speaker 2: Yes, well I'm keeping the official tracker. You know, you
Speaker 2: gotta have someone doing it.
Speaker 1: I have a I have a submission for the just List.
Speaker 1: You know there's a pencil running for governor of Oregon.
Speaker 1: Oh really a pencil, Yes, a pencil and it actually
Speaker 1: is a series.
Speaker 2: Of running as a writing candidate.
Speaker 3: Hey, there you go. See it just writes itself.
Speaker 2: Is he hoping to come in number two?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: Does he believe in carbonas.
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 1: This is I had. We did not plan this. I
Speaker 1: just threw it up there and and there it is.
Speaker 1: You know you dad pund it out of the ballpark.
Speaker 2: Make a good point.
Speaker 1: Guess who's lasting reading on K through three the state
Speaker 1: of Oregon?
Speaker 2: Is it?
Speaker 3: Really? Yeah?
Speaker 2: So that's the ire that the Mississippi miracle. Someone has
Speaker 2: to It's.
Speaker 1: Exactly what needs to happen is go learn about you know,
Speaker 1: get hooked on phonics.
Speaker 3: I think we learned. Go get hooked on phonics. It works.
Speaker 2: Found it out people. I love that pencil all.
Speaker 1: Right, anyway, go check out governor pencil. We need that's
Speaker 1: you know, I think people would be happier with inanimate
Speaker 1: objects as our political leaders as it is. So, you know,
Speaker 1: the stapler is next.
Speaker 2: I hope a red stapler that I think has niche appeal.
Speaker 1: Well, the red staples. You have the red staples and
Speaker 1: the blue staples. They don't know what, you know, it
Speaker 1: gets a little fularizing.
Speaker 3: And that's like.
Speaker 2: Third party paper fastener.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know the big bulky clip people. You know,
Speaker 1: Mike Paska.
Speaker 3: It's always a pleasure.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you, Chuck. Pleasure for me too.