Speaker 1: Already and this this is the Daily This is the
Speaker 1: Daily oas Oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Monday,
Speaker 2: the seventh of October. I'm Sam, I'm Zara. There are
Speaker 2: only twenty eight days until the US presidential election, and
Speaker 2: according to most major polls, it's almost neck and neck
Speaker 2: between current Vice President Kamala Harris of the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: and former Republican President Donald Trump. Whilst the polls don't
Speaker 2: tell us too much about who's going to win, they
Speaker 2: do tell us where to look for clues, and that's
Speaker 2: the seven important swing states, and they're universally believed to
Speaker 2: be crucial to whoever will eventually take the White House.
Speaker 2: In today's podcast, I talk to Chaz Lichadello, he's the
Speaker 2: host of ABC's Planet America, to go a bit deeper
Speaker 2: into this idea of swing states. We also talk about
Speaker 2: opinion polling and the art of trying to predict US politics.
Speaker 2: This isn't necessarily an episode about the big players in
Speaker 2: this year's election. Rather, it's about the mechanics of the
Speaker 2: US political system and some of the key ideas that
Speaker 2: helps the rest of the news make a bit more sense.
Speaker 2: We're going to get into that chat in just a minute,
Speaker 2: but first, Sarah, what is making headlines?
Speaker 3: Today marks one year since the October seven attack by
Speaker 3: Hamas on Israel, where twelve hundred people were killed and
Speaker 3: two hundred and fifty one people were taken hostage. A
Speaker 3: day later, Israel declared war on Hamas, and since that time,
Speaker 3: over forty one thousand Palestinians have been killed in Gaza.
Speaker 3: Australia's Jewish communities are holding a number of commemorations to
Speaker 3: mark the anniversary of October seven. The weekend also saw
Speaker 3: mass pro Palestinian protests across the country. Yesterday, TDA posted
Speaker 3: an explainer on the salient moments of the Middle Eastern
Speaker 3: conflence over the past twelve months. In the lead up
Speaker 3: to the anniversary.
Speaker 2: Hundreds of Australians have landed in Cyprus on flights from
Speaker 2: the Lebanese capital of Beirute, after boarding Australian government charter
Speaker 2: flights launched to assist citizens to flee the wartorn country.
Speaker 2: Israel has launched a series of intense air strikes and
Speaker 2: a ground operation on southern Lebanon, which it says is
Speaker 2: aimed at destroying terror group hezbola. According to the Lebanese
Speaker 2: Health Ministry, over twelve hundred people have been killed over
Speaker 2: the past two weeks.
Speaker 3: The federal government has reached out to states and territories
Speaker 3: asking for help developing plans to ban social media for children.
Speaker 3: PM Anthony Abernezi has written to leaders across the country
Speaker 3: requesting a range of things, including details on what the
Speaker 3: preferred age limit would be, how they can implement the plan,
Speaker 3: and what sort of exemptions could be considered. Last month,
Speaker 3: the Australian government announced it would legislate an age limit
Speaker 3: by the end of this year. South Australia became the
Speaker 3: first date to take steps towards in reducing a limit
Speaker 3: for children under fourteen.
Speaker 2: Earlier this year, and in today's good News, scientists have
Speaker 2: discovered a plastic eating bacteria that could be used to
Speaker 2: help break down waste. Researchers from Northwestern University in the
Speaker 2: US have discovered a bacteria in waste water that can
Speaker 2: break down the plastic used in common food and drink
Speaker 2: packaging and consume it as a food source. Researchers said
Speaker 2: the discovery opens up the potential for the bacteria to
Speaker 2: be used at scale to reduce microplastic pollutants in the
Speaker 2: world's oceans, which threaten drinking water supplies and biodiversity. As
Speaker 2: we edge closer and closer to the upcoming US presidential election,
Speaker 2: you might notice some terms getting thrown around not only
Speaker 2: by The Daily Ohs, but by all national and international
Speaker 2: media that are unique to US politics, things like the
Speaker 2: electoral college, swing states, particular discussions that are happening around
Speaker 2: abortion or gun control. I think a really important part
Speaker 2: of being a news consumer in the lead up to
Speaker 2: a US election is actually taking some time to understand
Speaker 2: what some of these very US specific ideas are. Now.
Speaker 2: One of the ideas that there's come up a lot
Speaker 2: when talking about the election with people here at the
Speaker 2: Daily Ohs but also just friends and family, is why
Speaker 2: both presidential candidates are spending so much time in very
Speaker 2: specific parts of the country. And the answer, of course,
Speaker 2: is this idea of swing states, or as they're referred
Speaker 2: to sometimes in US media, battleground states. I wanted to
Speaker 2: go a bit deeper into this, and it kind of
Speaker 2: leads into a conversation about polling because, as you're hear
Speaker 2: in my discussion with the co host of Planet America,
Speaker 2: Chas Lichadello. We often looked at polls for a bit
Speaker 2: of a clue as to who is leading in these
Speaker 2: swing states. So this is an interesting conversation. It's a
Speaker 2: little bit more about how to understand the system rather
Speaker 2: than the candidates themselves. We spend so much talking about
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris and Donald Trump all linked to some episodes
Speaker 2: where we can talk about their policies. But here's that
Speaker 2: chat with Chas about all things swing states. Chas, thanks
Speaker 2: so much for joining us today. I wanted to get
Speaker 2: your temperature on how you're feeling about the election. You're
Speaker 2: stuck with me in the lift. You've got thirty seconds.
Speaker 2: Where are we at.
Speaker 1: We have seven states they're going to determine this election,
Speaker 1: and they are all within two points of the other
Speaker 1: side winning those states. Two points is a magic number.
Speaker 1: It's the margin of error of almost every poll that
Speaker 1: you see. What that means is literally either side can
Speaker 1: win any of seven states. And that's been the case
Speaker 1: now for over a month. I bet that's not going
Speaker 1: to change. I think we're looking at potentially the closest
Speaker 1: election that's ever been run, and I reckon that. Anyone
Speaker 1: who says they know who's going to win going up
Speaker 1: to this election is full of shit. It's going to
Speaker 1: be really, really close.
Speaker 2: And so when you're talking about those seven states, you're
Speaker 2: referring to swing states, you're referring to sometimes I've heard them,
Speaker 2: particularly in US media, called battleground states, and those are
Speaker 2: the seven that hold the key. So I might just
Speaker 2: take a moment to actually take you through these seven
Speaker 2: states that we are talking about so much and run
Speaker 2: you through not only where they are in the country,
Speaker 2: but also how many electoral votes they each hold. So
Speaker 2: Pennsylvania is the big one of the seven. It has
Speaker 2: nineteen electoral votes. Then we have North Carolina and Georgia
Speaker 2: they've got sixteen each, Michigan has fifteen, Arizona has eleven,
Speaker 2: Wisconsin has ten, and Nevada has six. Now, if we
Speaker 2: were to look at the polls, it looks like at
Speaker 2: the moment, Karmala Harris is leading in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Speaker 2: and Nevada. Trump is leading in North Carolina and Georgia.
Speaker 2: And it's a bit of a lineball decision in Arizona.
Speaker 2: Besides for the fact that they're very close contests, why
Speaker 2: those seven.
Speaker 1: There's nothing special that each of these states. They all
Speaker 1: very different from each other. The only thing they have
Speaker 1: in common is they happen to have about fifty percent
Speaker 1: Republicans and fifty percent Democrats. Are the people who are
Speaker 1: willing to vote. And that's an important emphasis that people
Speaker 1: who are willing to vote, because I don't think people
Speaker 1: realize how few people do vote in America, and if
Speaker 1: one side can convince people who haven't voted before to
Speaker 1: turn out to vote, we wouldn't know it until election day.
Speaker 1: The reason why I say that is because one of
Speaker 1: the keys with polls is what they call a likely
Speaker 1: voter model. Because they don't just decide. They don't just
Speaker 1: ask any rando in a poll. They ask people who
Speaker 1: they think are likely to vote. Now, when you say
Speaker 1: likely to vote, how do they know who's likely to vote?
Speaker 1: You might think, Oh, they just ask them, are you
Speaker 1: going to vote? And if they say yes, then they
Speaker 1: say they're likely to vote. No, they don't do that
Speaker 1: because people lie and people have no idea. In the past,
Speaker 1: about twenty seven to twenty eight percent of people who
Speaker 1: say they're definitely going to vote do not vote. So
Speaker 1: the way they determine this is by looking at your
Speaker 1: voting history. Because in America you can buy people's voting history,
Speaker 1: and so if you haven't voted before, you're never going
Speaker 1: to be in a poll, which means if one side
Speaker 1: gets out an extra three or four percent of voters,
Speaker 1: they won't turn up in any poll at all because
Speaker 1: they're not likely voters, which is why when you have
Speaker 1: a close election like this, could be a big surprise
Speaker 1: who wins in a particular state.
Speaker 2: And so is that the key dynamic at play in
Speaker 2: terms of polling, because obviously here in Australia we have
Speaker 2: compulsory polling, So if you did a census based example
Speaker 2: of Australians, they have to vote, so you don't have
Speaker 2: that extra layer of complexity. Is that why you think
Speaker 2: there's this narrative that the polls have constantly gotten it wrong.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes, it is the hardest thing in the world
Speaker 1: for a polster in America to try and work out
Speaker 1: who is going to actually turn up to vote.
Speaker 2: So why do we pay so much attention to them
Speaker 2: in the media.
Speaker 1: Because if we don't pay attention to them, we've got
Speaker 1: no common frame of reference to talk about politics. Like
Speaker 1: when I say to you, say, for instance, you asked
Speaker 1: me about the debate and you say, who went well?
Speaker 1: The first thing I would say is what the poll said.
Speaker 1: If I said, oh, I thought Trump went well, then
Speaker 1: you go, well, yeah, sure you thought that, but someone
Speaker 1: else might think something else. And so the only way
Speaker 1: in this world that we can evaluate anything that even
Speaker 1: sounds objective is through some kind of referee, and that
Speaker 1: is polling. So, even though polling is kind of fools gold,
Speaker 1: it feels like objectivity, and so we, in our very
Speaker 1: subjective existence, we reach for whatever objectivity we can find.
Speaker 2: Explain to me, why then we're going to see the
Speaker 2: candidates both candidates spend so much time in these states
Speaker 2: when there might be other states. Let's take California, for example,
Speaker 2: which Kamala Harris is going to win. I mean, we
Speaker 2: can say that with almost perfect certainty. There's such a
Speaker 2: bigger population in a place like California than one of
Speaker 2: the swing states. Let's take Arizona or Pennsylvania. Why are
Speaker 2: we going to see her campaign bus pull up so
Speaker 2: many more times in Pennsylvania for let's say, sixty thousand
Speaker 2: votes in one particular community than Los Angeles, where she
Speaker 2: could have millions.
Speaker 1: It's because the way the electoral college works in America
Speaker 1: which is how they determine who wins the presidential election
Speaker 1: is not by the number of votes. They don't care
Speaker 1: about the number of votes. What they care about is
Speaker 1: how many states you win or how many states you
Speaker 1: get a majority in, and how much each state is worth.
Speaker 1: And the way they determine how much each state is
Speaker 1: worth it's quite a complicated formula, but essentially, the greater
Speaker 1: the population, the more a state is worth. So say California,
Speaker 1: off the top of my head, I think is worth
Speaker 1: fifty five electoral college votes, whereas Nevada, of the top
Speaker 1: of my head, is worth four I think electoral college votes.
Speaker 1: So California is worth many more than the Vada. But
Speaker 1: you get those fifty five electoral college votes from in
Speaker 1: California just for getting fifty one percent of the vote
Speaker 1: in California. In California, there's seventy percent of the voter
Speaker 1: as a Democratic. There's no point for either side to
Speaker 1: step one foot inside California because the fifty one percent
Speaker 1: is already determined and the fifty five votes are going
Speaker 1: to the Democrats. You're wasting your time. You might as
Speaker 1: well spend time in states where it's really really close
Speaker 1: and uncertain where those electoral College votes are going to go,
Speaker 1: and they're the swing states, which is why everyone spends
Speaker 1: time there.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you've ever been in a swing
Speaker 2: state in the lead up to an election, but is
Speaker 2: it overwhelming? Like I imagine this huge political infrastructure of
Speaker 2: both parties kind of cascading in on corners of America
Speaker 2: that are largely quiet, you know, three years and eleven months,
Speaker 2: and then they're just crazy for a month.
Speaker 1: Look, I wish I could tell you personal experience, but
Speaker 1: I've never even been in America during an election campaign,
Speaker 1: let alone in the swing state during an election campaign,
Speaker 1: So I can't tell you from my own personal experience. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I can tell you this. I can't tell you that
Speaker 1: not only do people get in physical fist fights over
Speaker 1: yard signs, which is like the signs out the front
Speaker 1: of their house saying vote vote for Trump, vote for
Speaker 1: vote for Harris, but I can also tell you for
Speaker 1: a fact that the primetime ad breaks in swing states
Speaker 1: often have four to six ads about the election per
Speaker 1: ad break for the entire three months leading up to
Speaker 1: the election. So that would be quite overwhelming, I.
Speaker 2: Imagine, and I'm sure the money being spent in those
Speaker 2: particular states is quite overwhelming as well. Has there been
Speaker 2: any sense that this electoral college model, where some states
Speaker 2: are worth more than others, it's not a representative sample
Speaker 2: of the US population. Has that been challenged? But like,
Speaker 2: is that an election issue in itself?
Speaker 1: It's like many things in America, when a system favors
Speaker 1: one particular party over the other, well, it seems too
Speaker 1: in an election, the people's opinions get filtered the long
Speaker 1: party lines. So right now, Democrats despise the electoral college
Speaker 1: system because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost
Speaker 1: the electoral college. Al Gore won the popular vote but
Speaker 1: lost the electoral college in two thousand. So Democrats wish
Speaker 1: it wasn't an election issue, but Republicans would never let
Speaker 1: it be because they're very happy about the system at
Speaker 1: the moment. Now. It's illogical in both cases, because there's
Speaker 1: no reason why Republicans sometime in the future might not
Speaker 1: win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. But
Speaker 1: that's not how they think. They just look at the
Speaker 1: last election when it mattered, and they go, who did
Speaker 1: it help helped my side? Then I like it, and
Speaker 1: so that's how it goes.
Speaker 2: Cha's last question from me. You have the responsibility of
Speaker 2: presenting a shit to Australia to update them on the
Speaker 2: US in a really critical month. Where are you going
Speaker 2: to be looking? I mean, we've talked in this conversation
Speaker 2: about the polling, the issues that exist with polling, the
Speaker 2: reasons why perhaps it's been wrong in the past. We
Speaker 2: haven't talked about the media, of which you and I
Speaker 2: are both proud members of, but there are obviously well
Speaker 2: talked out issues with US media as well. Where are
Speaker 2: you going to be looking for truth?
Speaker 1: There's no one source in America of objective news. That's
Speaker 1: certainly the case. And I mean, obviously I shouldn't just
Speaker 1: say America. That's human nature, but America, particularly America, is
Speaker 1: a very Parsian country, and there are very few people
Speaker 1: who aren't extremely partisan, even by Australian standards. So I
Speaker 1: certainly wouldn't recommend that particular source. What I would say is,
Speaker 1: if you are someone who cares about what's going on
Speaker 1: and you have a little bit of time, advise you
Speaker 1: to read widely, to read outlets from different points of view.
Speaker 1: That's certainly what I do. I mean, I wouldn't advise
Speaker 1: you to read all I read because I spend forty
Speaker 1: hours a day reading, but I would recommend if the
Speaker 1: other time, spend an hour flick through a couple of
Speaker 1: different different publications. Pick out a right wing one, pick
Speaker 1: out a left wing one, because you're just you're never
Speaker 1: going to get the whole story from one particular publication.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't exist. They've all got their biases. Some
Speaker 1: are more biased than others, but all are biased. So
Speaker 1: you just need to read widely.
Speaker 2: Something I've been saying to my friends as well is
Speaker 2: if you have the time, watch a full speech, So watch.
Speaker 2: You know, they're all uploaded by the Kamala Harris or
Speaker 2: the Donald Trump channels to YouTube. We are guilty, all
Speaker 2: of us, you know, ABC, TDA, everyone, of chopping these
Speaker 2: speeches up into packages so that audiences can get around
Speaker 2: it really quickly. But there is I think a benefit
Speaker 2: in watching an entire rally and seeing how it plays out,
Speaker 2: how audiences respond to particular issues, unedited versions of their messaging.
Speaker 1: I think that's excellent. I think that's excellent advice. And
Speaker 1: I would particularly say that with regards to probably the
Speaker 1: question I get asked more than any by Australians is
Speaker 1: how do people support Trump? Like Australians are really not
Speaker 1: Trump fans generally speaking, and a lot of Austrainians don't
Speaker 1: understand it at all. They just they go, well, the
Speaker 1: on these Americans, they seem smart. Why they suppoint this
Speaker 1: person who I have antipathy for? I say I not
Speaker 1: me personally, but the person I'm speaking to and by
Speaker 1: the ways say to them is just watch a rally.
Speaker 1: Just watch a rally, and what you will find if
Speaker 1: you watch a Trump rally. There's plenty of silliness, there,
Speaker 1: no doubt about that, but at least you'll start to
Speaker 1: understand why people like it. You need to watch a
Speaker 1: whole rally. And if you can't understand why people like
Speaker 1: a politician, forget Trump from now, just any politician, then
Speaker 1: I definitely would recommend what you just said to pull
Speaker 1: out one of their rallies and just just find out
Speaker 1: what their supporters see. And if you can't work it out,
Speaker 1: then you haven't watched enough.
Speaker 2: It's only once every four years that we have to
Speaker 2: slowly start building our literacy around the swing states, the
Speaker 2: electoral college, the polling, the candidates chas. You've made that
Speaker 2: a little bit easier today. Thank you so much for
Speaker 2: your time, and we'll chat to you soon. That's how
Speaker 2: we've got time for on today's edition of The Daily Odds.
Speaker 2: It's certainly raised a couple more questions than answers that conversation,
Speaker 2: and I think it's only good if we can have
Speaker 2: these sorts of chats about the way that the US
Speaker 2: presidential electoral system works. It's going to become more and
Speaker 2: more important than the weeks ahead to understand the significance
Speaker 2: of each states. And there was some really interesting stuff
Speaker 2: from Chas there at the end about how to become
Speaker 2: a better news consumer in what is one of the
Speaker 2: most decisive and consequential elections in the world. We'll be
Speaker 2: back again for another episode of The Daily Ods tomorrow,
Speaker 2: but if you enjoyed that chat, I would love you
Speaker 2: to check us out on YouTube. That's where we're trying
Speaker 2: to grow this audience and engage more with the video
Speaker 2: side of a podcast. Try and watching a podcast kind
Speaker 2: of like watching a TV show. So if you could
Speaker 2: jump on there and follow us, it really does send
Speaker 2: a signal to YouTube that we're a channel worth paying
Speaker 2: attention to helps us grow. Thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 2: We'll speak to you again tomorrow.
Speaker 3: My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Speaker 3: Bungelung Kalkutin woman from Gadighl country. The Daily oz acknowledges
Speaker 3: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Speaker 3: Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest
Speaker 3: Rate island and nations. We pay our respects to the
Speaker 3: first peoples of these countries, both past and present.