Speaker 1: Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, the show about making
Speaker 1: better decisions. I'm Maria Kanakova, I'm Nate Silver.
Speaker 2: We're at no lack of political news. We're going to
Speaker 2: talk about the elections that were held this last Tuesday,
Speaker 2: the shutdown that it's on its way to being over,
Speaker 2: maybe will be officially super deeper over by the time
Speaker 2: you listener are hearing this episode. Big win for Democrats
Speaker 2: in one case, I'd argue, a big l for Democrats
Speaker 2: and the So we're gonna we're gonna talk all that
Speaker 2: through in kind of an emerged way, I think, which
Speaker 2: is how it feels as they're prossing this in real time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know what does as we often wonder
Speaker 1: on the show, what does this mean for the future
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party and what they should be thinking
Speaker 1: going forward. So let's get into it. So, yes, full disclosure,
Speaker 1: we are taping us on Monday, November tenth. Lots of
Speaker 1: things happening, Nate that you would probably agree that had
Speaker 1: we been taping this, say on Friday, it would be
Speaker 1: a very and I mean Friday last week, would be
Speaker 1: a very different segment because we'd be talking about it
Speaker 1: in very different terms. In terms of what the democraty
Speaker 1: Democratic Party was doing, what its momentum was like, than
Speaker 1: we are after the weekend, when we had ten members
Speaker 1: of the Senate basically capitulate and say, Okay, we don't
Speaker 1: want the shutdown to continue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look if we've been taping on Friday or Wednesday
Speaker 2: for that matter. I mean, look on my newsletter, I
Speaker 2: called the night a ten out of ten for Democrats.
Speaker 2: They won basically every race that you might expect them
Speaker 2: to win. They win Virginia a Jersey by huge margins.
Speaker 2: They won a bunch of Supreme Court retentions of Pennsylvania,
Speaker 2: They won all the little Kitaly State Senate and dogcatcher races.
Speaker 2: You know, depending on what type of Democrat you are,
Speaker 2: may or may not feel good about the results. In
Speaker 2: New York City, that's a little bit of a different bucket.
Speaker 2: You had a Democrat running against a former Democrat. But
Speaker 2: this was like a ten out of ten night. You know,
Speaker 2: one thing it demonstrated is that President Trump is extremely unpopular.
Speaker 2: In fact, his unpopularity increased during the shutdown. Let me
Speaker 2: qualify that, though, right, What really seemed to trigger an
Speaker 2: increase in Trump's disapproval rating was suspending SNAP benefits, that is,
Speaker 2: the food nutrition program a food stamps. If you look
Speaker 2: carefully at when his approval rating spike, because at first
Speaker 2: in the shutdown it wasn't much affected. Actually in silver
Speaker 2: bulletins tracking it increased marginally, kind of within the margin
Speaker 2: of error. But when he tried to use that as
Speaker 2: a political cudgel and ignored court orders to funded and
Speaker 2: obviously Trump has exercised a lot of discression and what
Speaker 2: things are or are not funded. I mean that effects
Speaker 2: forty three million Americans or something. And you know, that
Speaker 2: combined with having these fancy dinners that Trump is inclined
Speaker 2: to have most presidents, to do with mar A Lago,
Speaker 2: and just a general insensitivity toward how Accoute might feel
Speaker 2: was you know, it seems like really starting to affect
Speaker 2: his numbers. Also, all these issues, both healthcare, which were
Speaker 2: the a sensible six of the shutdown and snapenefits have
Speaker 2: to do with affordability, right in the case of some
Speaker 2: staff recipients, maybe the ability to buy food at all
Speaker 2: or go hungry potentially, you know, between those things and paraffs,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, we talk about all the fuck
Speaker 2: ups that Democrats make and we'll talk about them some
Speaker 2: of them today. But like Republicans are not exactly game
Speaker 2: theory optimal political strategists either, or at least or at
Speaker 2: least Trump isn't right, you know, on some level the
Speaker 2: kind of progressive critique the Republics want to cut benefits
Speaker 2: for the poor in order to pay for tax cuts
Speaker 2: for the rich. I mean that's like directionally true for
Speaker 2: a long time. You know, it's true of Trump. But
Speaker 2: you know, if you fuck with people's benefits. And by
Speaker 2: the way, we're in an environment now where Trump likes
Speaker 2: to scariotype Democrats as being poor, the ones who would
Speaker 2: need food stamps. Again, the audience should know, I'm not
Speaker 2: super woke, Right, this often is racially coded messaging. Right,
Speaker 2: you look at the data, then probably a pretty even
Speaker 2: mix of Democratic and Republican groups that are receiving these benefits. Right,
Speaker 2: Trump actually does quite well with poorer white voters. Trump
Speaker 2: also does fairly well with minorities who didn't attend college
Speaker 2: and things like that, and so so that was a
Speaker 2: big political opportunity, yeah for Democrats, and then they just
Speaker 2: they just caved. You know, I'm busted out of my
Speaker 2: poker tournament, and like oh, the shutdowns over, Maybe I'll
Speaker 2: make my flights back and forth around the country. But Maria,
Speaker 2: what do you think.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I was looking at a lot of the
Speaker 1: number over kind of the last week, and I noticed
Speaker 1: two things. One kind of when you see the New
Speaker 1: York election, it seems like mcdonnie was able to make
Speaker 1: inroads into a lot of the areas that had gone
Speaker 1: redder in the presidential election and that had gone Trump, right,
Speaker 1: So it seems that he was actually successful in appealing
Speaker 1: to some of that base to vote Democratic, which to
Speaker 1: me spoke of the fact that you know, there were
Speaker 1: people were starting to get fed up, right, some of
Speaker 1: those lower income areas that had been heavily pro Trump
Speaker 1: were starting to kind of feel the pain of everything
Speaker 1: that's been going on. And as you pointed out in
Speaker 1: your newsletter, and I think this is true, some of
Speaker 1: the messaging of the Democrats during the shutdown hadn't really
Speaker 1: been landing, like the Affordable Care Act, right, the healthcare
Speaker 1: It should be landing, right, you should want healthcare. But
Speaker 1: you know, because people are very in the moment and
Speaker 1: they don't always You and I are you know, very
Speaker 1: much online and kind of pay attention to this, but
Speaker 1: a lot of people they're not online and they're not
Speaker 1: really listening, and they're like, I don't know what the
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act is, you know, like I don't care.
Speaker 1: My payments still seem the same. They don't realize, oh,
Speaker 1: this really might be affecting me. So the messaging wasn't
Speaker 1: exactly landing, but with the combination of you know, tariffs
Speaker 1: finally starting to kind of play out in the pricing,
Speaker 1: and Snap, which does immediately affect you, right, It affects
Speaker 1: your ability to get food, It affects your ability to
Speaker 1: get benefits right now. It's kind of it's a very emotional,
Speaker 1: very kind of visceral experience that caused.
Speaker 2: If you look at Google searches for Snap benefits, they
Speaker 2: have this weird cyclicality based on I don't you know,
Speaker 2: I've not been I'm like Sam some my loft. I
Speaker 2: don't know the timing of when they're released, but you
Speaker 2: can see syclicality that indicates people are searching for information
Speaker 2: about whereas the grocery store can go with with food
Speaker 2: stamps the moment they receive yeah, those benefits and things
Speaker 2: like that, right, and so it's literally eating is about
Speaker 2: the most visceral exactly exactly that one can imagine healthcare
Speaker 2: maybe you know, one absolute degree removed from that. In
Speaker 2: the Suden said, it's hopefully mostly preventative, or IF's not preventive,
Speaker 2: and it's things that you don't realize until you have
Speaker 2: a problem.
Speaker 1: Right, But food is something that we really care about,
Speaker 1: right obviously, and now this was kind of a double
Speaker 1: whammy because food prices are going up. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't care what Trump is saying that the prices are down,
Speaker 1: It's not true. Right, we know that inflation is actually
Speaker 1: hitting kind of that angle, and we know that Snap
Speaker 1: benefits where finally, you know, people didn't know there was
Speaker 1: a lot of uncertainty. We also talk a lot on
Speaker 1: the show about how the human mind really doesn't like uncertainty.
Speaker 1: So it's horrible. Can you imagine if you have a
Speaker 1: family to feed and you're in limbo, You're like, I
Speaker 1: don't know if I'm going to get my Snap benefits, right, Like,
Speaker 1: I actually have no idea if they're going to come
Speaker 1: this weekend. I don't know if I'll be able to
Speaker 1: afford my meal. Like, I don't know what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: And it keeps going back and forth, and they release
Speaker 1: funds and they don't release funds, and people, you know,
Speaker 1: this is a moment where you can really appeal to
Speaker 1: people and be like, see, you know, this is actually
Speaker 1: because people also were you know, I think about equally
Speaker 1: blaming and correct me if I'm wrong Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 1: for the shutdown. It wasn't like Republicans were getting all
Speaker 1: the blame. But with the Snap benefits, it's very clear
Speaker 1: that there are people who are saying, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: release the money. We need to pay, we need to
Speaker 1: get money to the families. And you have Trump saying no, right,
Speaker 1: It's actually he's saying, no, I don't want to release
Speaker 1: this money. I don't want the Snap benefits going out. So,
Speaker 1: you know, Nate, who knows what in the world he
Speaker 1: was thinking. But what we do know is that the
Speaker 1: effect of this was felt.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: The approval ratings were going down, and I think that
Speaker 1: this helped kind of the momentum, the victorious moment of
Speaker 1: the Democrats saying, you know, because this all happened at
Speaker 1: the same time, right, there was this coalition.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think Democrats have the problem, the same
Speaker 2: problem that Marie and I do, which is that, you know,
Speaker 2: most people who comment on politics are are fairly privileged, right,
Speaker 2: and in certain ways, it's the privilege to talk about
Speaker 2: abstract concepts like creeping authoritarianism or long term impacts like
Speaker 2: climate change, for example, as opposed to the visceral can
Speaker 2: I eat today? If I get into a car accident,
Speaker 2: do I have insurance to cover my you know, broken
Speaker 2: leg or whatever else? Right, those things are a bit
Speaker 2: more visceral. And I think, you know, one of the
Speaker 2: problems you had with the shutdown is that, like so,
Speaker 2: the a sensible basis for it was healthcare. Right. If
Speaker 2: you look for Google searches for the Affordable Care Act, right,
Speaker 2: they were up a little bit, but they're they're tiny
Speaker 2: as compared to searches for snap benefits or a shutdown,
Speaker 2: or other news stories that came up, like the no
Speaker 2: King's protests or even even the White House renovation, slash destruction,
Speaker 2: construction of the East wing, creation of a new ballroom.
Speaker 2: You know, all those things have a much bigger registry.
Speaker 2: And I think because there are some Democrats like alexandriro
Speaker 2: Kazak Cortez or Bernie Sanders that are very effective on healthcare,
Speaker 2: a lot of Democrats are going TV want to talk
Speaker 2: about these kind of more abstract themes instead. That's kind
Speaker 2: of what the democratic we spelt like the blogosphere, right,
Speaker 2: you know, democratic podcasters, substackers, social media personalities, cable news guests. Right,
Speaker 2: you know, they are usually talking about these abstract things
Speaker 2: democracy and so forth, right and so like, you know,
Speaker 2: it wasn't quite like democrats hearts were rellion the message either.
Speaker 2: And I mean there are a couple of stories by
Speaker 2: democrats cave right. You know. One story involves we're afraid
Speaker 2: about the tangible impact on people and we are the
Speaker 2: kind heart of people. We can't make people suffer for
Speaker 2: this thing. That's not going to work anyway. Right, it's
Speaker 2: once story. You know. Story number two is that ultimately
Speaker 2: that if you listen to Maria and I are read
Speaker 2: by writing a silver bulletin, you know, recognized early on
Speaker 2: that like a lot of this comes down to you,
Speaker 2: are you willing to have Republicans blow up the filibuster? Right?
Speaker 2: If you do that, you don't need any Democratic votes. Right,
Speaker 2: you have majorities in both chambers of Congress, and you know,
Speaker 2: reportedly there were some centators who didn't want to go
Speaker 2: that far. And then they're just kind of general risk aversion,
Speaker 2: you know. So it's kind of the flip. You know.
Speaker 2: On the one hand, the public assumes, perhaps correctly, and
Speaker 2: that it's Republicans who like to not pay for a
Speaker 2: shit that helps working class people and shut government shit down. Right.
Speaker 2: So on the one hand, that might create I don't
Speaker 2: know if you call it a bias, but create like
Speaker 2: kind of the presumption among the public that like, if
Speaker 2: things aren't functioning well in government, then and it's some
Speaker 2: type of policy choice opposed to incompetence or whatever, right,
Speaker 2: then that is a Republican choice, right, and that message
Speaker 2: is pretty hard for them to overcome, especially when Trump
Speaker 2: is saying about things like snap, benefit's no, we don't
Speaker 2: want those right. You know. The other hand, like if
Speaker 2: they're big like softies who are going to like cave
Speaker 2: on everything, then then okay, then that creates a predictable outcome.
Speaker 2: You're gonna cave at some point, and what consequence does
Speaker 2: that have? I mean, Maria, you know, since we've been
Speaker 2: out here playing poker, yea, let's let me go for
Speaker 2: a poker two to oh one kind of more detailed analogy. Right,
Speaker 2: there's times when let's say I'm playing a tough player. Right,
Speaker 2: the tough opponent raises, you know I'm playing you. I'm
Speaker 2: playing you, and I just feel like you're owning me today.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, you know, I just got your number today.
Speaker 2: You raise. I'm defending my blind right, and I have
Speaker 2: a hand that I know according to the computers. According
Speaker 2: to game theory, defense right is a is a thin
Speaker 2: defend for example, a king for offsuit or something right.
Speaker 2: And the way that you realize money with that hand is, Yeah,
Speaker 2: sometimes you thought the king or a pair of fos
Speaker 2: a hold on. But it's also stuff like sometimes you're
Speaker 2: supposed to turn it into a bluff. Sometimes you're supposed
Speaker 2: to call down really thin right, someone's supposed to hope
Speaker 2: that Maria is a turn from betting, and like, and
Speaker 2: all those ways to realize the value of the hand
Speaker 2: are difficult and require a lot of skill and discipline
Speaker 2: on every other street.
Speaker 1: Right, yes, And I'm just gonna I'm just gonna caveat
Speaker 1: this because for people who don't play poker, yes to
Speaker 1: kind of one, yes to a one for kind of
Speaker 1: and applying it to kind of the broader political thing
Speaker 1: like big caveat in poker. Just to remind you, you
Speaker 1: do not actually have to have the best hand to win, right.
Speaker 1: It is the only game where you can win with
Speaker 1: the worst hand if you play it correctly, if you
Speaker 1: execute the strategy correctly. And yes, some of it is
Speaker 1: just outright bluffing, but it's also putting your opponent to
Speaker 1: a to a hard kind of test when they might
Speaker 1: have a decent hand but not a great hand. So
Speaker 1: it's all about being able to figure out how do
Speaker 1: I exert pressure correctly? So your King four offsuit. For
Speaker 1: people listening, they're like, wait, I thought that was a
Speaker 1: bad hand. Yes, it is a bad hand. However, there
Speaker 1: are reasons why we might still want to play it
Speaker 1: if we have kind of this future game tree in
Speaker 1: mind and we are confident of our abilities to be
Speaker 1: able to execute that correctly. Please continuate. So you've defended King.
Speaker 2: Four, and now you get a good price from the pot, right,
Speaker 2: you have good pot odds. If let me just you know,
Speaker 2: if you are not willing to make those thin call
Speaker 2: downs and creative bluffs from time to time, then the
Speaker 2: hand is not profitable to defend. Just if everything goes right, yeah, now,
Speaker 2: and then you hit two pair or make trips or
Speaker 2: some weird straight with the four or something. Right, it
Speaker 2: just happened enough just by the time when you have
Speaker 2: a better hammer rear right, you know. In other words,
Speaker 2: if you are not willing to be strategic and exercise
Speaker 2: your options and adapts, circumstances just unfold, right, then just
Speaker 2: don't do it, yeah, because like you're not gonna like,
Speaker 2: you know, this thing about Snap. I mean, people kind
Speaker 2: of mischaracter you know, all these kind of we're partisan
Speaker 2: Democrats who are like we're waiting the checkdown. It's like,
Speaker 2: I don't really think you're wanting to checkdown because at
Speaker 2: first Tripschoo writing didn't really decline at all. We talked
Speaker 2: about it on the show, right, and then Snap when
Speaker 2: there were some of the stuff there was a white
Speaker 2: House and no Kings. But like it seems based on
Speaker 2: the persistence of Google searches for Snap and the persistence
Speaker 2: of that in the dialogue and the discourse and the
Speaker 2: real world impact of it, that like that was a
Speaker 2: real gift to Democrats and you know, about the best
Speaker 2: possible turn of events they could have, and they still cave,
Speaker 2: which means that like their whole strategy was really miss
Speaker 2: gotten in the first place, if something goes well for
Speaker 2: you and you still don't know how to play right
Speaker 2: or still give up, and that means you're already then
Speaker 2: close to having.
Speaker 1: Yeah, imagine, imagine, you know, to continue nate your poker
Speaker 1: analogy since you started it. Imagine that you did decide,
Speaker 1: you know, okay, you know what, I'm going to defend this.
Speaker 1: I'm not quite sure why, but I am. And then
Speaker 1: the flop comes, you know, king three six something like that,
Speaker 1: so you have top pair, and then you know, you check,
Speaker 1: I bet big, you call. Basically you end up folding
Speaker 1: the king anyway, right, and you you end up folding
Speaker 1: the king on a board that doesn't really change at
Speaker 1: all from the flop, and you already or let's just
Speaker 1: let's say you made a pair of fours and there's
Speaker 1: nothing else. Let's just imagine that you actually did well right,
Speaker 1: and your hand became something much more playable than it
Speaker 1: was originally, and yet you still end up bending to
Speaker 1: pressure because you're like, well, Maria's betting so big that
Speaker 1: she probably has a better king, right, she probably has
Speaker 1: you know, an even better kicker. Kicker is the second
Speaker 1: card for people who don't play poker. You know, she
Speaker 1: probably has like King ten or something like that, I'm
Speaker 1: just going to fold just in case. Well, then what
Speaker 1: the fuck were you doing defunding the king for if
Speaker 1: you're either going you know, if you're not actually able
Speaker 1: to navigate those situations. And it seems to me that
Speaker 1: over and over what Democrats have done is have these
Speaker 1: principled positions where they're like, you know, we can't do this,
Speaker 1: and I'm you know, great, you know, I also don't
Speaker 1: think we should be taking away health care from people.
Speaker 1: You know, kudos, this is a great thing to stand
Speaker 1: up for. But then why the hell did you do it.
Speaker 1: If you're going to say, okay, well fine, you can
Speaker 1: take away the health care as long as you you know,
Speaker 1: pay them food benefits right now, well, then why did
Speaker 1: we even get you know, if you didn't even have
Speaker 1: a shutdown, if you capitulate on everything, then we wouldn't
Speaker 1: even be in this snap situation or this airline drama
Speaker 1: or any of this. And the Republicans get everything they
Speaker 1: wanted originally anyway. So it just seems like, you know,
Speaker 1: if you already know that, then why in the world.
Speaker 1: Then it means that your strategy was not principled. Because
Speaker 1: you are stepping back from all of those principles, right
Speaker 1: Like if you were saying we're the nice party that
Speaker 1: just doesn't want people to get hurt, well, you know,
Speaker 1: then sometimes you have to take immediate pain. And it
Speaker 1: seems like they're not able to do that.
Speaker 2: And we'll be right back after this break.
Speaker 1: So back to kind of this broader question of how
Speaker 1: is the Democratic Party doing now? I'm in a you know,
Speaker 1: as I said last week, it was such an amazing
Speaker 1: moment where you could see an amazing moment if you're
Speaker 1: a Democrat, where you could see all sorts of different
Speaker 1: kinds of candidates when right in different places. It's not
Speaker 1: like the progressives. One, yes, Mamdani won in New York,
Speaker 1: but much more moderate candidates won in you know, New Jersey,
Speaker 1: in other states, and you know, people, it seemed like
Speaker 1: there were people coming together to say, Okay, you know what,
Speaker 1: we're getting fed up and there is some Democratic momentum
Speaker 1: and this might hold through the midterms and if you
Speaker 1: can keep it going, this might have all sorts of
Speaker 1: good things for the party. I think actually Nancy Pelosis
Speaker 1: saying she's not going to run again was also a
Speaker 1: good thing for the party to say, Okay, we need
Speaker 1: some younger blood, we need some of these these people
Speaker 1: who probably shouldn't have been running for reelection already last cycle.
Speaker 1: It's good that they're finally stepping down. There were a
Speaker 1: lot of good things, and now, you know what, it's
Speaker 1: kind of in some ways, Nate, and maybe this is
Speaker 1: a little bit harsh. What they did over the weekend
Speaker 1: seems like a little bit of a fuck you to
Speaker 1: the people who kind of banded together and stood by
Speaker 1: them and said, you know what, we can actually affect
Speaker 1: change and then said, eh, you know what, We're just
Speaker 1: gonna We're just gonna anyway. At least that's what it felt.
Speaker 2: Like to be. Look, we haven't mentioned the chuck of
Speaker 2: Chuck and Nancy Chum.
Speaker 1: He, by the way, was opposed to He was one
Speaker 1: of the voices that was that it was opposed to
Speaker 1: ending the shutdown.
Speaker 2: Correct, he voted against it. But what the party leader
Speaker 2: does is theatrics, right, it's theatrics. And fair enough, Look,
Speaker 2: if he if he couldn't control his caucus after this
Speaker 2: very good turn of events, then he should resign anyway,
Speaker 2: because he has no right.
Speaker 1: So so yes, it either means that he is disingenuous,
Speaker 1: and he was okay with these votes that are ending
Speaker 1: the shutdown, and he just wanted to publicly say no,
Speaker 1: I'm not or it means that he's ineffective. One of
Speaker 1: the two, and either one is not a particularly good thing.
Speaker 2: Remember he didn't shut the government down last March at
Speaker 2: a time when it was a lower boil for democratic disarray.
Speaker 2: I guess. I mean, you know, look, when you're the
Speaker 2: op position party, in some ways, there's never that much
Speaker 2: a rake. You don't really have to do that much. Right,
Speaker 2: But you know, Schumber didn't command any confidence in his caucus. Right,
Speaker 2: He's often very unpopular even among Democrats. A florality of
Speaker 2: Democrats in the recent PW Research poll have a negative
Speaker 2: opinion of Schumer. Right, Like, all these things to me
Speaker 2: suggests he's not tenable as party leader. Like I don't
Speaker 2: understand why. I mean, actually I do kind of you know,
Speaker 2: one reason why you might have someone to replace Schumer's
Speaker 2: because like it's kind of a bad job. It's kind
Speaker 2: of a terrible job. You're going to piss people off
Speaker 2: no matter what. But you know, look, here are in
Speaker 2: my view, kind of the the long term stakes, right,
Speaker 2: which is that do you kind of trigger a a
Speaker 2: mini kind of Tea party movement among Democratic voters, where
Speaker 2: where if they don't do kind of what the activist
Speaker 2: base once right, then they're voting office in primaries.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: That is a powerful extentive. It's a very powerful for Republicans.
Speaker 2: You know, you always hear stories, oh privately, Republicans are
Speaker 2: very reasonable, but they're terrified at being primary.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: I kind of halfway by that. I think sometimes it's
Speaker 2: it's spinning through reporters. It's probably mostly true most of
Speaker 2: the time. Right. You know, if Democrats certificate that dynamic
Speaker 2: is it's you know, a that makes leadership even more inflexible.
Speaker 2: If you think the base is smart about its demands,
Speaker 2: then maybe that's fine. Right, I'm not sure. I think
Speaker 2: they're particularly smart, irrational about kind of the kind of
Speaker 2: things they want Congress to do. Right. But also, in effect,
Speaker 2: what type of candidates win. The incumbency advantage is diminishing
Speaker 2: matters less than it once did. At the same time,
Speaker 2: more experienced candidates do tend to win office more often.
Speaker 2: At a big point of controversy in my research, I
Speaker 2: spent a lot of time on this. More moderate candidates,
Speaker 2: on average win office more often, other things being equal,
Speaker 2: all those qualifiers there are important, right. You know you
Speaker 2: have in Maine Graham Platner, who was outsider. Have we
Speaker 2: talked about good old Grammy. I think some of the
Speaker 2: name of the controversial reddit posts and tattoos and tattoosgically
Speaker 2: happens to be associated with the with a certain pancer
Speaker 2: division of the army fully known as the Nazis. You know,
Speaker 2: probably not, you're cover it up. You cover it up.
Speaker 1: After how many years, after twenty years or the years to.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent by that he was on some drunk
Speaker 2: and sojourn in Croatia when he got the statoo and
Speaker 2: called crossbones. It kind of looks so cool man. You know,
Speaker 2: if you have it on your body, you're probably gonna
Speaker 2: know what it is. Yes, after years? Yeah, after whatever?
Speaker 1: Yeap. Or this is like the Schumer question. Either you
Speaker 1: know what it is, which says something very important about you,
Speaker 1: or you never bother to figure out what it is,
Speaker 1: which also says something very important about you. And neither
Speaker 1: one is something that you particularly want in somebody who's
Speaker 1: going to be representing you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but like a tart of you know, he's running
Speaker 2: against Janet Mills, who is the two term governor of Maine,
Speaker 2: seventy seven years old. You know, couldn't really be a
Speaker 2: bigger contrast between the kind of old safe establishment choice
Speaker 2: and this new kind of thing right tighter' is like, oh,
Speaker 2: I won't turn into John Fetterman. You're someone who shifts
Speaker 2: their ideology all the time. It's like, well, actually you
Speaker 2: just did you know? So anyway, they hear another he
Speaker 2: would be fun to get a beer with. That much
Speaker 2: seems to be.
Speaker 1: It would be interesting to get a beer with, that's
Speaker 1: for sure, and he could probably drink me under the
Speaker 1: table and get some tattoos as a result. But anyhow,
Speaker 1: I think that what you know, that the broader point
Speaker 1: is like what is yeah, what does the face of
Speaker 1: the party look like? And you know, the moderate candidates
Speaker 1: there is all thing being equal. I think the data
Speaker 1: I've seen it too, and Nate obviously, like you said,
Speaker 1: you've worked with it. That that does make a difference.
Speaker 1: But there is also kind of this I think movement,
Speaker 1: and I think this is inspired by Biden for you know,
Speaker 1: younger candidates right now, because oh yeah, so this in
Speaker 1: main like the fact that she's seventy seven like that
Speaker 1: also plays into it, Right, I think people are fed up.
Speaker 1: They're like, we do we do not want another one
Speaker 1: of these debacle debates, right, we would much rather have
Speaker 1: someone even though experience matters, We would much rather have
Speaker 1: someone who can at least, you know, be vibrant and
Speaker 1: more youthful. And you know, it doesn't always have to
Speaker 1: be a thirty four year old. But let's stop nominating
Speaker 1: people in their late seventies and eighties.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look, I mean there are signs that you know,
Speaker 2: on lots of political issues, there's a a kind of
Speaker 2: divide that cuts about midway through kind of millennials, where
Speaker 2: people who kind of grew up in an age where
Speaker 2: they were on their phones from early childhood. Right, Like,
Speaker 2: that's that's quite different, you know what I mean my age.
Speaker 2: It's kind of like, well, you got computers early in
Speaker 2: life and then phones when you were in college, right, Like,
Speaker 2: I think technology is behind a lot of these shifts.
Speaker 2: I mean, probably not that uncommon, but like, look, you've
Speaker 2: had you had Democrats dominate. Ironically, Bernie Sanders is older
Speaker 2: than Hillary Clinton, right, I think older than Joe Biden
Speaker 2: by half a year two if I have that, right,
Speaker 2: And but he was a choice of the youth, right
Speaker 2: you'd go to I went to Rally's in New Hampshire's
Speaker 2: your reporter, and you know, I saw Hillary Clinton speak
Speaker 2: at some college and like she was talking about the
Speaker 2: Vietnam War, and shit, that fucking these college students. This
Speaker 2: is now. I don't care about twelve years ago, don't
Speaker 2: don't know where care about.
Speaker 1: Right, Nay, I mean that was the Vietnam War. I
Speaker 1: recently gave a talk to a financial audience and realized
Speaker 1: that a lot of people in the audience not only
Speaker 1: did not go through, but didn't realize basically that there
Speaker 1: was a huge crash in two thousand and eight. So
Speaker 1: like it was I was like, oh my god, you know, right,
Speaker 1: that is how far removed we are from. You know,
Speaker 1: you're talking to people who are in finance and they're like, oh,
Speaker 1: like two thousand and eight crash. You know, that's basically
Speaker 1: like Black Friday, right, It's like the Great Depression. It's
Speaker 1: forever ago, and I don't care and I don't really
Speaker 1: know and what are you even talking about? But that
Speaker 1: is one of those I mean, I'm just pointing that
Speaker 1: out to say people's memory really is short, and we
Speaker 1: are talking to a very new generation, and we do
Speaker 1: need people who know how to appeal to them and
Speaker 1: how to say words that actually resonate. That's important. That's
Speaker 1: part of a politician's job.
Speaker 2: Youth goes a long way, right, Like maybe you want
Speaker 2: more Moneric ha mean, you know Cheryl and Spenberger in
Speaker 2: New Jersey and Virginia. I know how old they are,
Speaker 2: but they're like you know even that some you know,
Speaker 2: even me middle age basically seems to help quite a bit, right,
Speaker 2: and there Josh Shapiro, by the way, you know, he
Speaker 2: was ranting about snappings. That's he understands politics. For you
Speaker 2: what care is like fifty nine or.
Speaker 1: But he seems to But he has youthful energy, right
Speaker 1: he has.
Speaker 2: You know, one could accuse him of borrowing a little
Speaker 2: bit from the Obama cadence. I'm not gonna try to
Speaker 2: imitate it. Maybe that will be a future silver bulletin
Speaker 2: easter egg, right, you know, one might say Josh Shapier,
Speaker 2: but like, but he's extremely effective. And something too is
Speaker 2: like when you have a county who has run for
Speaker 2: and one office before then, depending on how much they
Speaker 2: ever performed relative to the typical numbers in their state
Speaker 2: or district. Right. You know, again, my view is always
Speaker 2: I'm not sure. Zilran is a great example of this
Speaker 2: because because he ran, it's kind of another quasi democrat
Speaker 2: former democrat.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: But like, you know, anybody who performs objectively well relative
Speaker 2: to some reasonable baseline, right, that trump's any abstract arguments
Speaker 2: for me about moderate versus progressive or electrible or not.
Speaker 2: You know, Bernie Sanders until fairly recently actually won by
Speaker 2: wider to Democrats presidential margins in Vermont. That's changed lately,
Speaker 2: but he has a good long run, right. Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 2: underperformed routinely democratic presidential margins. Right. To me, that is
Speaker 2: a difference between a very good politician, so you wanted
Speaker 2: up Bernie right, for him to get socialism so much
Speaker 2: into the mainstream right versus I think a very bad politician. Right,
Speaker 2: maybe not a bad politician, a bad after retail aspects
Speaker 2: of electoral office. I think Elizaeth Warren is surely a
Speaker 2: very smart person, right, an articulate but like but not
Speaker 2: very appealing. And there are lots of gender based and
Speaker 2: other right, But absolutely, that difference is a big one, you.
Speaker 1: Know, it is a big one. And as we talk
Speaker 1: about a lot here, and I think that this is
Speaker 1: really important. You need to when you have objective data points,
Speaker 1: you need to look at them right like because we
Speaker 1: are emotional, like we we want to say, oh, but
Speaker 1: but when you have the objective data, right, when you
Speaker 1: have the electoral performance, when you have the actual numbers
Speaker 1: for who turned out, how did they turn out, who
Speaker 1: did they vote for, what did they say? Look at
Speaker 1: those numbers and do not dismiss them, right like, you
Speaker 1: have data, Stop dismissing data, even if it goes against
Speaker 1: your view of who should be popular and who shouldn't.
Speaker 1: And so you know, I have not been a Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders fan quite a quite frequently I am at odds
Speaker 1: with Bernie Sanders. But I cannot deny that he is
Speaker 1: an incredibly effective politician, right, and that people who say, oh,
Speaker 1: we should dismiss him don't aren't looking right. If you
Speaker 1: don't like him, it doesn't mean he's not effective.
Speaker 2: Can I make what more poker analogy here?
Speaker 1: I mean yes, absolutely, this is risky business poker away
Speaker 1: premise of the show, this is our show. Note you
Speaker 1: can make a poker analogy.
Speaker 2: Oca players who don't have a long term game plan
Speaker 2: or aren't very experienced. What they do is they just
Speaker 2: they call too much, right, They're not just hitting the action.
Speaker 2: And like that's a theme here too, right, Like you know,
Speaker 2: when Democrats kind of replace Biden, I guess they got
Speaker 2: so bad they couldn't really have any other option, right,
Speaker 2: But like, but you know, the kind of compromise was
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris and like sometimes and that was not the
Speaker 2: worst decision that Democrats made. Renominating Biden in the first
Speaker 2: place was a bigger disaster than that in the predicate
Speaker 2: to it in a lot of ways. Right, But like,
Speaker 2: you know, if you don't have a a a game plan,
Speaker 2: you wind up calling too much of poker, which means
Speaker 2: the opponent gets to dictate the action all the time,
Speaker 2: and you're like, oh shit, what do I do now?
Speaker 2: What do I do now? What I do now? Right?
Speaker 2: And to take boulder action, a bolder action sometimes means folding.
Speaker 2: Sometimes it means turning the patre or something, or turning
Speaker 2: down and oppertun you think it's a losing battle, right
Speaker 2: if you don't have it more of a long term
Speaker 2: game plan. And you know, again, if you look at
Speaker 2: the messaging on the shutdown, some of it is on healthcare,
Speaker 2: some of it is on authoritarianism, some of it's on
Speaker 2: SNAP benefits, some of it's just kind of blame defraying
Speaker 2: or airlines or whatever else. Right, you know, that reflects
Speaker 2: a lack of an actual consensus on what you're fighting for,
Speaker 2: and it's like kind of leadership's job to firm up
Speaker 2: that consensus. I think right to say, look, if we
Speaker 2: do this, we will achieve we'll have a chance of
Speaker 2: achieving objective X. And here are the way it seems
Speaker 2: to go wrong because like nothing here again, nothing in
Speaker 2: the shutdown was really surprising except that kind of Trump
Speaker 2: picked this battle over Snap when there's a lot of
Speaker 2: ability for the president the executive branch to determine what's
Speaker 2: open and what's not right. It picked to fight turned
Speaker 2: back badly for him, and I pressed stilldn'take advantage of that.
Speaker 2: Maybe I've got the shutdown, But do you have any
Speaker 2: any thoughts before we return to New York?
Speaker 1: Now I think we're on the same page here, where
Speaker 1: like this is just a failure, a failure of strategy,
Speaker 1: a failure of long term stetrategic thinking. And to kind
Speaker 1: of close the loop on your poker analogy, Nate. You know,
Speaker 1: a lot of what happens with these passive players is,
Speaker 1: you know, you take the passive route, You kind of
Speaker 1: go the way of inertia, You avoid risks because you
Speaker 1: think that's the actual risk free way of playing. When
Speaker 1: you look down, you realize you don't have chips left. Right,
Speaker 1: you have so few chips because you've put yourself in
Speaker 1: all these positions, and then you're forced to take a
Speaker 1: suboptimal risk. Right. Then you're actually put in a position
Speaker 1: where you are forced to play a hand that you
Speaker 1: don't actually want to play, or take a spot. You
Speaker 1: don't want a spot because otherwise you are going to
Speaker 1: go bust. Right, you have put yourself into a corner
Speaker 1: where you have to actually make an incredibly risky play.
Speaker 1: You have to go all in for your tournament life,
Speaker 1: which is the riskiest thing you can do, and you're
Speaker 1: doing it not on your terms, but on the terms
Speaker 1: that have been dictated basically by the circumstance, because you've
Speaker 1: been so risk averse, and so that risk aversion ends
Speaker 1: up forcing you to take a bad risk, right, a
Speaker 1: suboptimal risk. So it turns out that it's actually not
Speaker 1: the risk free strategy. It turns out that it's the
Speaker 1: strategy that backs you into a corner, that forces you
Speaker 1: to take a risk that you should not be taking
Speaker 1: at a moment where you should not necessarily be taking it.
Speaker 1: You're taking it for the wrong reasons. I think that's
Speaker 1: what got us Kamala Harris right, like, that's what gets
Speaker 1: us into a lot of these situations. And so I
Speaker 1: think that's strategically, whether you're playing poke or playing politics,
Speaker 1: you need to understand what the repercussions are of playing
Speaker 1: that sort of strategy. And we'll be back right after.
Speaker 2: This, Maria, are you prepared for Mayor mom Donnie.
Speaker 1: Well Nate as a part time resident of New York.
Speaker 1: I am very curious to see what Mayor Mum Donnie
Speaker 1: will actually do. I remember you and I talking this
Speaker 1: past summer at Aspen when we were kind of dealing
Speaker 1: with the primaries and you know, seeing the Mom Donnie momentum.
Speaker 1: I'm going to repeat something I said back then, which
Speaker 1: is I'm very curious to see how all of this
Speaker 1: campaigning is going to actually play out in practice, right,
Speaker 1: because campaigning is not governing, and things that you can
Speaker 1: say and do positions, you can take rhetoric that may
Speaker 1: or may not reflect your true point of view. Is
Speaker 1: much easier when you are not yet elected, right, and
Speaker 1: especially when you're new, right, you're a new face. There's
Speaker 1: all this hope, there's all this promise. There, all of
Speaker 1: these things that people project onto you. They see what
Speaker 1: they want to see, kind of, they project their dreams,
Speaker 1: and they think that you can embody them if you
Speaker 1: campaign well, which mum Donnie absolutely did, And so then
Speaker 1: you get into all and there's political reality, right. You
Speaker 1: have to build coalitions, you have to get shit done,
Speaker 1: and you can't just bulldoze your way into the policies
Speaker 1: that you want. You have to realize that, Okay, now
Speaker 1: I'm going to have to try to be re elected
Speaker 1: when the time comes, I need to kind of get
Speaker 1: along with all of these different things. And so when
Speaker 1: you are suddenly put in a position where you're governing,
Speaker 1: it's a very different proposition from where you were when
Speaker 1: you were campaigning. So I'm very curious to see how
Speaker 1: he actually does in office because he's largely untested, right,
Speaker 1: he is someone who has not had kind of this position.
Speaker 1: Well obviously he's not been mayor of New York, but
Speaker 1: he hasn't been a very similar position in the past.
Speaker 2: I feel like the messaging three terms in Albany.
Speaker 1: No, no, that's that's not what I mean. But you
Speaker 1: know exactly what I mean, And this is what I said,
Speaker 1: you know, back in the back in the summer, where like,
Speaker 1: let's see how it actually plays out. And I would
Speaker 1: love to give him the benefit of the doubt and
Speaker 1: hope that he's going to be effective and that he'll
Speaker 1: step back, hopefully from some of the things that are
Speaker 1: potentially not as great for New York as a whole.
Speaker 1: So I'm cautiously optimistic, but I have no idea. I
Speaker 1: want to see what he does in the first six months,
Speaker 1: in the first year. I want to see how this
Speaker 1: plays out once he gets into office, and I'm going
Speaker 1: to be very open minded and hope for the best.
Speaker 2: Well you can ride the free bust to the communist postery.
Speaker 2: Not just kidding. I've been surprised that how Hoole are eyed.
Speaker 2: Some of my more centrist friends have been against Zora
Speaker 2: and who seems to be like it right, young dude
Speaker 2: who's been a little more forthright in some ways and
Speaker 2: for example apologizing for his like the seventy two versions
Speaker 2: of him saying like defund the police, and again, when
Speaker 2: are we talking to this king? Like, I you know,
Speaker 2: look after let I talked to the Subtec Live with
Speaker 2: Ross Barkin, who's a journalist New York who also interestingly
Speaker 2: had Zoran as his campaign Maager. He ran for office
Speaker 2: in twenty eighteen, right, and you can listen to that. But
Speaker 2: like but Ross was like, yeah, he actually is pretty progressive, right,
Speaker 2: and yeah, look, I mean there were stories about how
Speaker 2: like Zooram when he was running for like class president,
Speaker 2: promised like free fresh squeeze like orange juice every day.
Speaker 2: I think this is literally true. I think he is
Speaker 2: going to be guilty of like having over promised, especially
Speaker 2: because like you know, a lot of his coalition was younger.
Speaker 2: When I turned out to vote a last Tuesday, and
Speaker 2: substantially notably younger electorate people I voted stickers on and
Speaker 2: you typically see in New York and at my polling
Speaker 2: place and things like that, right, and also very notable
Speaker 2: in the data. Right, So it wasn't just wasn't just
Speaker 2: my an general observations from once Maorea, the younger people
Speaker 2: can be fickle. They tend not to tune into, especially
Speaker 2: local politics outside of election years, Right, So in practice,
Speaker 2: the squeaky wheels during fights over a budget, which by
Speaker 2: the way, a lot of it's controlled by Albany, right,
Speaker 2: or fight's over new city policy, right, they're having vocal
Speaker 2: opposition can make your life a lot tougher.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I will say that a second time because
Speaker 1: I think it's a really important psychological point people in general,
Speaker 1: but younger voters in particular. Younger people in particular are fickle.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: It's not just things of the moment, but it's also
Speaker 1: especially when you're talking about like delayed gratification before like
Speaker 1: and this happens. You know, brains mature, people mature, like
Speaker 1: as you get older, you understand that change takes time,
Speaker 1: that things kind of don't always happen. But we're I
Speaker 1: think seeing a generation right now that hasn't had to
Speaker 1: delay gratification very often, where you do have kind of
Speaker 1: instant gratification with you know, cell phones and social media
Speaker 1: and all of these things. And so we might see
Speaker 1: a disconnect where you know, you elect someone on these
Speaker 1: hopes and if you know the promises aren't met immediately,
Speaker 1: then there's a backlash and you're like, oh, oh, you're
Speaker 1: betraying us. Right, because they don't understand Wait, no, like
Speaker 1: this takes time, right, things take time. This is not
Speaker 1: you know, this is not a betrayal, and so I
Speaker 1: do wonder how that's going to play out more broadly,
Speaker 1: so Nate too, to kind of wrap up everything here, then,
Speaker 1: if we're going to be looking towards the midterms, what
Speaker 1: do you think kind of are the issues that people
Speaker 1: should be focusing on, because, as you said, like in
Speaker 1: New York, some of these issues like crime, they didn't
Speaker 1: really work as we were looking at the shutdown. Some
Speaker 1: of the things like healthcare, they weren't really working. Kind
Speaker 1: of the let's prevent autocracy, doesn't you know? The no
Speaker 1: King's protests did work because that was a much more
Speaker 1: succinct way of putting it. But in your opinion, what
Speaker 1: are the issues that Democrats should be focusing on going
Speaker 1: into the midterms and how should they play their hand
Speaker 1: now that they've painted themselves into this corner with capitulating
Speaker 1: to the shutdown.
Speaker 2: Maria inflation, inflation, inflation, the youth amis has become by ephemism,
Speaker 2: the term of arts become affordability, which is kind of
Speaker 2: more what's like the winning of Pooh meme where it's
Speaker 2: like there's pooh in a fancy anyway, call it inflation, affordability.
Speaker 2: That's for fucking pretentious bout in college. I prodounce that college.
Speaker 1: Student vod in college East Coast.
Speaker 2: Just call everything inflation. If healthcare is more expensive, inflation,
Speaker 2: If cultures are more expensive, inflation. If Trump takes away
Speaker 2: food stamps, if the stories them later on, inflation, right,
Speaker 2: Just call everything inflation. That's a word that people understand me.
Speaker 2: And affordability is a fine term. I'm not saying it's
Speaker 2: the worst political mussing of all time, but like, but yeah,
Speaker 2: and tariffs and everything else, and generalized anxiety about the economy.
Speaker 1: It's the economy, stupid, Nate. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 2: Yeah, which is why I thought some check down the government.
Speaker 2: But you know, but healthcare also gets to affordability, right,
Speaker 2: What these are actually tax credits that help you to
Speaker 2: pay for healthcare. By the way, Obamacare is increasing. The
Speaker 2: preemums are increasing, irregardless or regardless of of these subsidies, right,
Speaker 2: they also are getting more extensive. People will notice that,
Speaker 2: and like Republicans will probably say, hey, look, I'm sure
Speaker 2: trupples say like this proves that Obamacare is is broken.
Speaker 2: I don't want to get into a much of economics
Speaker 2: just late in the episode about like the initial mandate
Speaker 2: and things like that, Right, But the thing is when
Speaker 2: you are the president. I mean, if there's one good
Speaker 2: thing from press from the shutdown and how the pulling
Speaker 2: went down, right, it's like that plus the elections, we're
Speaker 2: evidence that, like, when you are the president in power,
Speaker 2: then you get blamed for a shit and in some
Speaker 2: ways having like a nameless, faceless party makes it even
Speaker 2: harder for you to get blame. That's probably reads I
Speaker 2: think she were. You know, have someone fucking relatively anonymous,
Speaker 2: probably some fucking Chris Murphy or some fuck who works
Speaker 2: like get on meeting the press all the time. I mean,
Speaker 2: like Chris Murphy was better on the shutdown than a
Speaker 2: lot of people. I think I think it was more honest. Right,
Speaker 2: But like, you know, you're gonna have some media horror.
Speaker 2: Is that is that this is going to all be
Speaker 2: edited out by the producer fly.
Speaker 3: And on that and on that fine note, No, I
Speaker 3: actually think I actually think that that's uh You've made.
Speaker 3: You've made several important points that I think we can
Speaker 3: use to sum up simplifying the messaging and making it
Speaker 3: something that is kind of more emotional mor of us
Speaker 3: or all, like you know.
Speaker 1: Inflation, affordability. This affects your pockets right now. It's not
Speaker 1: other people, it's not immigration, it's not it's not things
Speaker 1: that are not affecting me. It's things that are affecting
Speaker 1: my ability to live kind of my ability to live
Speaker 1: the life that I want to live. And I think
Speaker 1: that that is a powerful message obviously for either party,
Speaker 1: but one that the Democrats have kind of had been
Speaker 1: losing sight of for a long time.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Look, final, it's you know, my final thought here.
Speaker 2: It's been usual to be actually a citizen in the
Speaker 2: city where my vote madderlection Democrats excuse it amount of different.
Speaker 2: I'm actually a republic expliment before in the show, right, Yes,
Speaker 2: but as a citizen of New York in national general elections,
Speaker 2: your vote usually doesn't matter. It's interesting having to kind
Speaker 2: of think through this. If we do a segment how
Speaker 2: I decided to vote, that's a difference. I'm not going
Speaker 2: to I'm not gonna I'm not going to reveal it
Speaker 2: in photo you today audience, right, but like what I
Speaker 2: will say is like if I do an issue matrix
Speaker 2: thing where I'm like, here are the three candidates on
Speaker 2: the seventeen issues in effect in New York, Right, I'm
Speaker 2: not probably wouldn't wind up. Listeners are on, maybe with
Speaker 2: some exceptions right on a few things, but like, that's
Speaker 2: not the only thing that goes into being mayor. Effective
Speaker 2: governance transcends ideology, especially for for city government. Right, It's like,
Speaker 2: does it get done on time? Right? If there's a
Speaker 2: snowstorm high school the next day, is a good communication
Speaker 2: in public emergencies?
Speaker 1: Right, how's everything running? I think that that's sorry. I'm
Speaker 1: just I know we're wrapping up, but this just reminds
Speaker 1: me and I think this is so a propos of
Speaker 1: the town in New Hampshire I'm blanking on its name
Speaker 1: that was very libertarian and kind of wanted to abolish everything,
Speaker 1: and they did and it ended up being taken over
Speaker 1: by bears by just a very funny I think there's
Speaker 1: a it sounds like a children's story, but our wonderful
Speaker 1: producers have just shared that there was a book on
Speaker 1: this called A Libertarian Walks into a Bear and that
Speaker 1: book is about this town of Grafton, New Hampshire. And
Speaker 1: what we can learn from Grafton. But yes, you know,
Speaker 1: does shit get done? How does the government end up
Speaker 1: running the day today is very very important. Let us
Speaker 1: know what you think of the show. Reach out to
Speaker 1: us at Risky Business at pushkin dot FM. Risky Business
Speaker 1: is hosted by me Maria Kanakova and by.
Speaker 2: Me Late Slivery. The show was a cool production of
Speaker 2: Pushing Industries and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced by Isaac Carter.
Speaker 2: Our associate producer is Sonya gerwit Lydia, Jean Kott and
Speaker 2: Daphne Chen are our editors, and our executive producer is
Speaker 2: Jacob Goldstein. Mixing by Sarah Bruger.
Speaker 1: If you like the show, please rate and review us
Speaker 1: so other people can find us too, But once again,
Speaker 1: only if you like us. We don't want those bad
Speaker 1: reviews out there. Thanks for tuning in.