0:00

Hey

0:00

there, Western Artis. Galen here. You

0:02

have undoubtedly heard the news

0:05

that the January sixth committee made

0:07

four criminal referrals against

0:09

former president Trump to the Department of

0:11

Justice. And we plan to talk about

0:13

both that and the full January

0:16

sixth report when it comes out

0:18

later this week. But in the meantime,

0:20

today's episode is a little bit

0:22

different. Here it is.

0:24

Are you ready to talk? You ready?

0:27

Yeah. I know what we're talking about.

0:29

I have no idea what we're talking about. You

0:32

in that that mode where you can look inward and

0:34

outward? I

0:38

don't know, but I think we're gonna find out. That pause

0:40

suggests no. Alright. Hello,

0:50

and welcome to the FiveThirtyEight Podcast.

0:53

I'm Galen. Oh, I'm Chadwick Matlin, an

0:55

editor five thirty eight also Galen

0:57

droops editor with me to

0:59

my left. It's your stalwart

1:02

host, Galen droop. Hi Galen. Hi, Chad.

1:05

Thanks for having me

1:05

today. Gil, what are we doing here today?

1:08

You are asking me questions

1:10

because it's the end of the year. And

1:13

you are asking me to reflect on the year that

1:15

we just covered on the five thirty politics

1:17

podcast

1:18

for a change. Even when you're not hosting,

1:20

you're still doing that set up language. It's incredible.

1:23

I was gonna do that, but you just did it. We are here

1:25

listeners to reflect on the year

1:27

that was the election that was really cycle

1:29

that

1:29

was, Gail and I have been talking

1:32

every week for, what, six years,

1:34

something like that? Seven Chad. This

1:36

month is my seventh anniversary at

1:38

five thirty eight. Incredible.

1:41

And we figured that the reflections that

1:43

we were doing privately actually maybe

1:45

had some value to to listeners

1:47

and and viewers as well. And so

1:49

we thought we can podcast video and really

1:51

talk about this election cycle and whether

1:54

it was different or not from past election

1:56

cycles because in your conversations over

1:58

the last six months or a year, a

2:00

lot of the conversations were about whether

2:02

this midterm would be unique

2:05

or not. I know you and Nate have

2:07

some type of running gag about that as well.

2:09

And what I really wanted to do

2:12

as a sort of capr of the year and a capr of

2:14

the cycle is figure out how

2:16

your thinking has changed over the last

2:18

seven years as you've been covering elections

2:20

at five thirty eight because

2:22

politics has changed. But I I'm

2:24

not sure whether or not your thinking has

2:26

changed. So it stays about you, Galen. About

2:29

me. Finally. This podcast is

2:31

always about the

2:32

audience. We aim

2:34

to serve. Wow. So on

2:36

message, so on where I'm at. What an ambassador?

2:39

Alright. So let's talk about

2:41

twenty twenty two

2:42

overall. Did something

2:44

new happen this year in your estimation? Yeah.

2:48

Because every year the

2:50

country changes and every time we have an election.

2:53

There's a new electorate voting. And

2:56

there are new circumstances, you

2:59

know, the kind of inflation that we're experiencing.

3:01

The kind of polarization that we're experiencing.

3:04

Every time we enter one of these elections, we're

3:06

going in as a brand new country in some

3:08

ways. Right? Obviously, our

3:10

entire model here at five thirty eight

3:12

relies on the fact that you can use

3:14

history to help determine what will happen

3:17

in the future. Historical data history

3:20

broader than even just something that you

3:22

can count. So, yes,

3:25

it was something brand new, but also

3:27

I think there are reasons that

3:30

we might have predicted it. So one thing

3:32

that I've sort of been harping on throughout this

3:34

year is that there

3:36

are such things as abstract

3:39

midterm elections, which is to say

3:41

years during which the president's party

3:43

doesn't actually lose house

3:45

seats at the mid term. And the easiest

3:47

ones to point to are, you know, two thousand

3:49

two and nineteen ninety eight. In both of those

3:51

circumstances, the incumbent president had

3:54

a sixty plus percent approval rating,

3:56

not a high thirties,

3:58

low forties percent approval

4:00

rating, which Biden had. So

4:02

what are the circumstances in which you

4:05

could have a president who actually isn't popular

4:07

but not really get punished? And I think

4:09

there's a couple of things going on, but one of the

4:11

things that might let us in this direction is

4:13

that we have seen increased polarization.

4:15

And so even if you

4:18

don't like Biden, you may hate

4:20

or even if you don't hate,

4:22

just dislike the alternative. And so

4:24

that may not have been as

4:26

much the case in nineteen ninety eight or even

4:28

two thousand two when we were experiencing a

4:30

rally around the flag

4:31

effect. As part of his well about

4:34

how much the leader of

4:36

the party is an emblem of

4:38

the party as a whole So

4:40

at least with the Democratic messaging,

4:43

Trump has been made to be the entire Republican

4:45

Party, and and we saw some Republicans

4:47

try and run away from that. This

4:49

cycle, is Biden the

4:51

same kind of head of the party as

4:53

Trump is made out to be for Republicans

4:55

or rather Republicans obviously make

4:57

biden out to be the head of the party. Does

5:00

that message have the same balance

5:02

given what we've seen around debates

5:04

within the Democratic

5:05

Party? No. In fact, I don't even think Republicans

5:07

make Biden out to be necessarily the

5:10

head of the Democratic Party.

5:12

I mean, I think they try to spotlight

5:14

the areas where his administration

5:17

has failed or at least problems in the country

5:19

that his administration has been unable

5:21

to solve. Thus far, But

5:23

I think, you know, it's hard to

5:26

do this empirically. To

5:28

what extent is somebody seen?

5:30

Is a president seen as emblematic

5:32

of their party. One thing

5:34

that I've looked to to try to compare to

5:36

past experiences is under

5:40

Trump, there was the resistance. Under

5:42

Obama, there was the tea party.

5:44

Under George W. Bush, there was

5:46

a big backlash to the Iraq

5:48

War. During Clinton's tenure,

5:50

there was the Republican revolution. So

5:53

we have seen a very

5:55

visible very

5:57

negative response to past

5:59

incumbent presidents, where people are

6:01

literally out in the street, voting

6:04

against the person, organizing you

6:06

know, these grassroots campaign structures

6:08

are built around dislike

6:10

of an incumbent president. We

6:13

weirdly haven't seen that for

6:15

Biden. Even though by every

6:17

measure, there's a lot of discontent with

6:19

the current state of affairs in America.

6:21

Let's go, Brandon, isn't that for you? Well,

6:24

I just I don't think it's really anywhere on

6:26

par with the hashtag resistance and the tea party.

6:28

And so I think part of it is,

6:30

there is a lack

6:32

of excitement around

6:35

Biden. I don't think Biden has seen

6:37

as a sort of like existential threat

6:39

to the Republican party in the way obama

6:41

might have been seen because the way that we talked

6:43

about Obama in the media was that

6:45

this is the future of the Democratic Party,

6:47

and this is a rising majority of that is

6:49

going to be on repeatable. And if

6:52

you were somebody who looked at that and said, I

6:54

don't wanna live in that country, like, I don't agree

6:56

with his policies. I don't agree with the ways that

6:58

he talks about identity or whatever it may be, whatever

7:00

he signifies for you.

7:02

There's a reason for you to get on the same applied

7:04

for Trump. And you see

7:06

advertisements for, like, yeah,

7:09

Biden ranked up there

7:11

in terms of when we we counted

7:13

all of the money spent on advertising and

7:15

what was the most money spent on the

7:17

Republican side, on the Democratic side, Biden certainly

7:19

wasn't number one. He

7:21

was up there. And even whenever he was

7:23

brought up, Republican

7:25

ads made sure to include people like Pelosi

7:27

or AOC or the squad or things like

7:29

that. Because I don't think he is emblematic of

7:32

the Democratic Party the way

7:34

that past presidents have been emblematic

7:36

of their parties.

7:36

Well, or he's not emblematic of the fears

7:38

that Republicans have of what the Democratic Party

7:40

are. Right? I think part of what we

7:42

I've shown on five thirty eight, is that the Biden

7:44

coalition really did last

7:47

into this election in some ways

7:49

that we saw that within the the senate

7:51

candidates over performing expectation, and

7:53

we have a piece coming out

7:55

this week about that on the website.

7:57

Well, because he won independence. Is that what you mean?

7:59

Yeah. And and when you look at the

8:01

twenty twenty vote per

8:04

precinct or per county, I

8:06

guess it is, versus twenty

8:08

twenty two, the performances

8:10

are in line or higher within

8:12

those senate races. Right? And so that suggests

8:14

that there is a bedrock that carried

8:16

over And when you break it down by

8:19

demographics within those

8:19

counties, you can start to see some of those those trends. I

8:22

think it to emphasize that even

8:24

more for a second, and we talked

8:26

about this with Carlo Serdeo about

8:28

the Latino vote in twenty

8:30

twenty two. When we calculate our

8:34

partism scores of districts or

8:36

states. We combine multiple

8:38

elections across time to

8:40

come to a number. We don't just

8:42

rely on the last election

8:44

because there's oftentimes a reversion

8:46

to. The mean, there are certain circumstances

8:48

that exist in a in a

8:50

singular election that may not carry over to the

8:52

next election. I think we are still uniquely

8:54

in a twenty twenty moment in terms

8:56

of how the electorate divided up. Now, the electorate

8:58

in twenty twenty two was significantly different because there

9:00

is a lower turnout and, you know, the elector

9:02

is whiter, for example, it's better educated in a

9:04

mid term year, those kinds of things.

9:06

But it is inter you look at the

9:08

Rio Grande Valley If you went

9:10

off of our partisan score, you would not

9:12

have done a very good job predicting how

9:14

those elections turned out. Because according to our

9:16

partisan score, Texas's fifteenth district,

9:18

which is a border district, majority Hispanic

9:21

district. If you combine the

9:23

results in two thousand eighteen and two thousand

9:25

sixteen in order gather that partisan score, it looks like a

9:27

Democratic district. But if you only look at

9:29

twenty twenty, it's a Trump plus four

9:31

district and the Republican one.

9:33

And So

9:35

we are still very much in in

9:37

that sort of paradigm. At least at this

9:39

moment, and I should say and we've said this on

9:41

the podcast before, that midterms

9:43

don't predict twenty twenty four outcomes.

9:45

And you know, at this point, it looks

9:47

perhaps likely that there

9:49

will be I don't wanna say

9:50

likely. I I don't wanna get way out over my

9:53

skis now now that I have the mic has

9:55

been

9:55

turned over to me to say what I think, but he

9:57

looks like there's a possible pattern shift. And if Rhonda

9:59

Santos or somebody else is the Republican

10:02

nominee, I think a lot of these

10:04

dynamics are up

10:06

for debate. It's up for debate whether they will

10:07

persist. I think there is a lot of

10:10

Trump

10:10

-- The leftover twenty twenty dynamics. -- I think

10:12

there's a lot of Trump specific stuff

10:14

going on in terms of how the suburbs in

10:16

terms of how college educated voters

10:18

of vote that I don't

10:20

know if it would

10:21

persist. In a Rhonda Santos world. Mhmm.

10:23

It's it's a it's a I'm curious about it. I

10:25

don't have an answer. I think it will likely also depend

10:27

on the legal troubles that are that are facing Trump

10:29

in the various different investigations

10:32

and and sort of what his role

10:34

is in the party come

10:36

next

10:36

year. Oh, yeah. I don't mean what will happen

10:39

in the Republican primary. I mean if Rhonda

10:41

Santos is actually at the top of the

10:43

ticket in twenty twenty four, do

10:45

the dynamics that we've seen

10:47

of these upscale educated

10:49

suburbs becoming something of almost

10:51

a bedrock of the, like, resistance

10:54

to the Trump Republican

10:56

Party. Does it stay that way? I

10:58

don't think pea I don't know. We're gonna have to

11:00

look at a lot of data in the coming year, but do

11:02

people have this sort

11:02

of, like, gut negative response to Rhonda Sanders

11:04

that they do to Trump? I don't think so.

11:06

So you talked a lot about how politics

11:09

has changed over the last seven years. Do you think

11:11

the way we the way we and the

11:13

way there is probably

11:15

the media as a whole. We can get into five thirty eight in

11:17

a second. Do you think that the media has changed

11:19

the way it analyzes politics in the

11:21

last seven

11:21

years? Of course. I

11:25

think that

11:28

we, the media, etcetera,

11:30

covered the twenty sixteen

11:32

election as something that

11:34

was a spec like

11:36

an absolute

11:36

spectacle. And it was

11:38

a spectacle at times. But I

11:40

don't think we were, like, okay,

11:42

this person seems like they

11:44

might flout Democratic norms in

11:46

a way that is even like threatening

11:48

to constitution or constitutional Republic.

11:50

You know

11:51

But that yeah. I hear what you're saying. That's the coverage

11:53

of what's being said by the candidates, for

11:55

example, and and potentially the threat

11:57

posed by them. I'm

11:59

curious about the analysis of

12:01

what's gonna happen or what has happened. Do

12:03

you think that we are still in

12:05

in the media, essentially, that the the way

12:08

that that the media tries to make sense

12:10

of the American electorate

12:12

is the same as

12:15

it was pre Trump?

12:16

No. I think there was a lot more embrace of

12:19

uncertainty, which I think is a good

12:21

thing. We had a weird dynamic during the

12:23

Obama years where the

12:25

poles were really predictive and

12:27

the coalition seemed pretty

12:29

stable. And I think because

12:33

that dynamic benefited Democrats.

12:35

And there are a lot of Liberals

12:37

in academia and media.

12:40

There was reason for those people to

12:42

celebrate the current electoral

12:44

dynamics and say, hey,

12:46

we got it, baby. Like, this is gonna fast.

12:48

And so there was, like, sort of, like, wishful thinking

12:50

on the part of a lot of the people analyzing

12:52

this stuff, saying, oh, there there's

12:54

this ascendant majority, which

12:56

is it's relies that

12:58

coalition still people may forget it. It still relies

13:00

heavily on noncollege educated white voters,

13:03

but that of, like, the people who got the most

13:05

attention were increasingly voted

13:07

for the college degree and minority voters, you

13:09

know, he had sort of sky high levels

13:12

of turnout and approval

13:14

amongst black and Latino voters

13:16

for the Democratic Party. And so

13:18

I think there was this idea that these

13:20

coalitions are stable and we know the trends

13:22

people are becoming more

13:22

educated. The country is becoming more diverse.

13:25

Democrats as destinies. And demographics

13:27

as destinies. Of course. No. And you're saying the

13:28

media bought into that. I think the media bought

13:30

into that, and that's why they believe

13:32

that Trump could never win. And

13:34

that the version of the Democratic Party

13:36

that Hillary Clinton was selling where if you

13:38

remember those stump speeches,

13:40

a large portion of that speech was

13:43

just shouting out every single

13:45

perceived part of the Democratic coalition

13:48

that at the time Democrats were thinking, like, we

13:50

just need to keep these these these

13:52

these and these people pieced together and we'll

13:54

keep our coalition intact. And, you

13:56

know, it was a very kind of

13:58

front and center version of identity

14:00

politics and the ideas, you know, I

14:02

think she got a lot of criticism for not talking enough

14:04

about the economy, whatever. But it wasn't a

14:06

very, like, Obama

14:08

actually style message, which was

14:10

our divisions don't matter. We're one country blah

14:12

blah blah blah. Do

14:12

you recite stump speeches in your

14:15

sleep, like, to to fall asleep at night?

14:18

No. In my That's what I recall.

14:20

In my

14:20

outside life, I spent very little

14:22

time engaging with politics. Unlike our

14:24

former colleague Keriantan who used to

14:26

watch old election

14:28

night covered from, like, the nineties on YouTube as

14:30

a way to lull himself to

14:31

sleep. So the one thing I will cop

14:33

to is and I haven't done

14:35

this recently I used

14:37

to really love watching concession speeches

14:40

because they're the most, like, human

14:43

real honest sometimes moments

14:45

in politics. That I and and some of

14:47

them are actually beautifully

14:47

written. So I would

14:50

recommend and they're the most How would they make

14:52

you feel? Sad for them or

14:54

you mostly felt like you were just

14:56

glimpsing behind the the

14:58

facade?

14:59

I think just engaged, interested,

15:02

but to continue my point,

15:04

I think that that perceived

15:07

coalition for Democrats didn't

15:09

work out the way for stop. I think, like,

15:11

Latino voters is one of the

15:14

most glaring examples, but, you know,

15:16

black turnout hasn't reached the Obama

15:18

numbers. I don't in retrospect,

15:21

you wonder sometimes why people thought it

15:23

would. Why all of these trends that were so

15:25

unique to this one president

15:27

would persist?

15:29

And they haven't. Well, can you say the same thing about

15:31

Trump? What do you mean?

15:33

That what you just said was

15:35

that why did people think

15:37

that the circumstances unique to one

15:39

president would persist. And

15:41

I think based on what I understand what you said

15:43

about to Sandoz earlier, you're sort of saying

15:46

the same thing could happen with Trump's

15:48

coalition. That if Trump is on on the ballot, a

15:50

lot of his a lot of the coalition changes of

15:52

who's voting for Republican Party. And so the question

15:54

becomes the

15:57

inroads that Democrats have made

15:59

with, you know, Democrats now, of course, when

16:01

the majority of college educated white voters,

16:03

which for a long time or the Bedrock of the

16:05

Republican Party, can DeSantis

16:07

win those people back? I mean, I

16:09

think we saw that evidenced

16:12

by DeSantis winning Palm Beach

16:14

County. He can in Florida.

16:16

He can in an and again, it's

16:18

hard. He can in an environment

16:20

where Democrats aren't putting up that much of

16:22

a

16:22

fight. And

16:23

against the weak component, yeah, to your

16:26

point. Obviously, I mean, is Charlie

16:28

Crystal weak component? He the

16:30

last time the Republican Party won a

16:32

majority of the Latino vote in

16:33

Florida, it was when Charlie Crist was a

16:36

Republican on a ballot in Florida. Yes.

16:38

But to your point, Republican politics have changed

16:40

quite a bit. And what Democrat represents now is

16:42

quite different. Right. So I think, you know,

16:44

look, the way that

16:47

campaigns play out. Would you

16:49

remember back to two thousand twelve

16:51

when Democrats made Mitt

16:53

Romney out to be the devil? It

16:54

was like That's

16:54

what I watched the fall asleep at

16:56

night. He was driving

16:58

with his dog on the roof of his car. He had the dog

17:00

on the passenger

17:01

side. Yeah. Yeah. It was, like, this man doesn't care

17:03

about animals. He doesn't care about women. He

17:05

was his name. I don't remember.

17:08

But all of, you know, that moment

17:10

during the debate where he talked about having

17:12

binders full of women at Bain

17:14

Capital, and he was prioritizing hiring

17:17

women and things like that. And it was like, this guy

17:19

started to touch this guy or whatever.

17:22

I mean, if you thought

17:24

Mitt Romney, if you like, from the liberal perspective,

17:26

you thought Mitt Romney was the devil, then, like, I

17:28

don't know what you thought about Don Trump, but

17:30

like Well, they also are not here with the devil. Sure. But

17:32

there are ways that you can take,

17:34

honestly, relatively innocuous. People

17:38

and turn them into whatever you want. The

17:40

politics,

17:40

baby. And so

17:41

if you if you want Rhonda Santos to

17:43

be Donald Trump, there's like a way that you can play

17:46

your cards to make it so. And

17:48

so that's why I don't know if

17:50

automatically by getting rid of Trump, the

17:52

Republican Party can win back the

17:54

voters.

17:54

That's I don't know. Okay.

17:56

I'm gonna stop interrupting you and ask a new question that I

17:58

can then interrupt you your answer

18:01

of. So we talked about the

18:03

way media analyzes

18:06

politics perhaps

18:06

changing. And you mentioned that polls are

18:09

are a part of. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

18:11

So as it's

18:13

become clear that coalitions

18:15

are not stable. Polls

18:17

have been increasingly prone

18:19

to error, not not from,

18:21

like, a decade long perspective, but from

18:24

maybe a two thousands perspective, increase Relative

18:26

to two thousands. Relative to the two thousands

18:28

and especially relative to obama's time

18:30

and office, which ironically is sort of

18:32

when five thirty eight became so

18:34

popular, it was at a time when

18:37

polls were very accurate. You're saying it may historically

18:39

accurate. And so, yes,

18:42

people came we're

18:44

sort of like a lulled into this

18:47

view that the polls are

18:49

infallible and when the coalition shifted

18:51

and when polling became less

18:53

accurate, it was sort of like, well, the sky

18:55

has fallen. This guy isn't falling. I still believe in a

18:57

scientific math and I don't think there's a better way of

18:59

understanding what the American public

19:01

believes than using

19:03

the scientific method, doing public opinion, pulling,

19:05

trying to get to the bottom of people what people believe

19:07

even if it's an imperfect science.

19:10

But it made people more

19:12

in this past election

19:15

in these midterms. We

19:17

saw lots of polls showing

19:19

that Democrats were not gonna do so

19:21

bad. But there was just this sort

19:24

of inability or

19:27

disinterest in accepting

19:30

that. It was almost in many

19:32

ways a post pulling election

19:35

cycle. And the moment that hit that

19:37

home for me was when The New York

19:39

Times published a set of house

19:41

polls showing Democrats doing

19:43

well in all of these different swing

19:45

districts in Kansas, in where where I

19:47

can't remember exactly where all of the districts were

19:50

in Ohio. They published

19:53

the results of those polls that

19:55

were good for Democrats under the

19:57

headline, like, trouble for

19:59

Democrats at the midterms. And

20:01

so a hundred percent we're at a different place than

20:03

we were in two thousand

20:04

sixteen. We're in everything felt so

20:06

certain. If Nate started

20:08

FiveThirtyEight eight, this year.

20:11

Mhmm. You're saying or I guess,

20:13

especially in twenty twenty, you're

20:15

saying it wouldn't be as popular because

20:17

there wouldn't be that kind of reinforcing mechanism and the

20:20

polls being right, and that's part of what created

20:22

this sort of interest in electoral

20:24

forecasting even as we at five thirty

20:26

emphasized uncertainty. People

20:28

like to say, oh, Nick, at fifty out of fifty

20:30

states or whatever it was, forty out of fifty states

20:32

in two thousand twelve, right, or whatever

20:34

it was. Right.

20:35

Exactly. Today's podcast

20:38

is brought to you by Givewell.

20:40

Many of us open our hearts and make

20:42

donations during the holiday season. But

20:44

when you donate, how can you feel confident that your donations

20:46

are really making a big impact? You

20:48

could do weeks of research to find charities,

20:51

figure out what they do, how effective

20:53

they are, and how the charity might use

20:55

additional money, or you could

20:57

visit give well dot org.

20:59

There, you'll find free research and

21:01

recommendations about the charities that can save

21:03

or improve lives the most

21:05

per dollar. Givewell spends over

21:07

thirty thousand hours each year researching

21:09

charitable organizations and only

21:11

directs funding to a few of the

21:13

highest impact evidence backed

21:15

opportunities they found. Over one

21:17

hundred thousand donors have used Gitwell

21:19

to donate more than one billion

21:21

dollars. Rigorous evidence suggests that

21:23

these donations will save one hundred

21:25

and fifty thousand lives and improve the

21:27

lives of millions more. If you've

21:29

never donated to give Wells recommended charities before,

21:32

you can have your donation matched up to

21:34

one hundred dollars before the end of the

21:36

year as long as matching funds

21:38

last. Declain your match, go to give well dot org

21:40

and pick podcast and enter five

21:42

thirty eight politics at checkout. Make

21:44

sure they know you heard about give well from

21:46

five thirty eight politics, to

21:48

get your donation matched. Again, that's give well

21:51

dot org. What if

21:53

I told you? In

21:55

Iran, women are banned from going

21:57

to soccer games. For

22:03

forty three years, Iranian women have

22:06

fought back. Coolness pushed us.

22:08

True. This is their

22:10

story. The jury

22:12

was forbidden. What is the

22:14

meaning of that? That is

22:16

how they control you. I'm

22:18

Shimul Yay. Listen to the new thirty

22:20

four thirty podcast, Pink

22:22

Card. Available now. What is

22:23

more interesting to you these days? Talking

22:26

about how Americans will vote

22:28

or talk about talking about

22:30

how Americans have voted. Do you

22:33

want an earnest answer or a

22:35

hipster answer? Oh,

22:37

I love that. There's no earnestness available

22:40

to hipsters. Do you think hipsters are just totally they

22:42

don't have any earnestness in them?

22:43

No. I mean, I'm it's always a thought. I

22:45

was born in the year I am

22:47

prime, like, sarcastic, millennial, where everything is

22:49

ironic. Would you consider yourself a

22:52

hipster? No. Yeah. I don't think I would call you

22:54

that either. But

22:55

I mean, I'll take him from

22:58

twenty to twenty twelve, the answer would

23:00

have been different. You were hipster in twenty

23:01

twelve. And everyone would have called me hipster. I had,

23:03

like, the acetate glasses, the any So

23:06

it's because so much of my social life in

23:08

Williamsburg. Like, because you come to work for

23:10

five thirty eight that you have become more earnest. That's what

23:12

I'm hearing you

23:12

say.

23:12

I -- Yeah. -- I don't know if I ever go that

23:15

far. Age does something to you.

23:18

No longer being

23:18

a consolidation. Rope

23:20

does something to you.

23:22

What was I asking about? Oh, yeah. I'll take the earnest answer

23:24

since you are an earnest person now. And then

23:26

you can give me your twenty twelve

23:29

cents answer.

23:29

Okay. Well, the earnest answer is

23:32

that how voters

23:34

have voted is what

23:36

I'm more interested in because

23:38

that is verifiable. And

23:41

obviously, there is pulling error

23:44

and, you know, people can

23:46

reflect all kinds of bias into

23:48

the survey work that they do.

23:51

And as we

23:53

say, ultimately, the only

23:55

poll that truly matters as on election

23:57

day or in the weeks before during

23:59

early voting. Because in the

24:01

face of real hard election

24:03

day, the voter file, presync level data,

24:05

all of the bullshit,

24:07

all of the narrative, all

24:09

of the, you know,

24:11

oh, it's this issue, not that issue, but it

24:13

what it can kind of fall away. And you

24:16

there is still narrative building.

24:18

Why did these specific voters

24:20

in this precinct level data. Why did they show up

24:22

and vote the way that they did? You're never gonna

24:24

have as precise of a y as you

24:26

do a what, but at

24:28

the very least having a precise what will get you closer

24:30

to the precise why. And

24:32

so in a way it's

24:34

sad because we spend so

24:36

many, many months pouring over

24:38

the pre election polling

24:41

data and talking about what it all

24:43

means. Understandably so. Elections

24:45

you know, as emotionally disengaged

24:48

from elections as I try

24:50

to be. For most

24:53

Americans, elections are extremely emotional

24:55

things. I I don't wanna know if I wanna

24:57

say for most Americans. For Americans who

24:59

pay attention to political media, elections

25:02

are extremely emotional things, and so I understand why

25:04

there is much focus on pre election polling.

25:06

And I'm thankful because it provides me

25:08

a job. However, we

25:11

are pretty prone to

25:14

closing the book on an election and saying,

25:16

alright, what's next twenty twenty four? Let's move on.

25:18

But we we still don't have all the data we need

25:20

in order to properly analyze twenty

25:23

twenty two. I think we're trying to do some that here

25:25

on the five thirty eight politics podcast, but

25:27

because we're nerds. Like, for the

25:29

most part, cable

25:31

news isn't going back and being like,

25:33

Steve Karnaki, come back on John

25:35

King, come back on. Now that

25:37

we have voter file, sales, now

25:39

that we have presync level data and not the

25:41

partial results in one district in

25:44

Kentucky, let's talk about what it all

25:45

means. That's my earnest answer. I

25:48

totally agree. And one of my frustrations

25:50

is about

25:52

the appetite for that kind of analysis

25:54

because is the case that so much

25:56

of electoral of of political journalism

25:58

is fueled by anxiety. The anxiety

26:00

of the audience

26:02

that wants to know the answer before they possibly can

26:04

know the answer or the anxiety of the reporters to get

26:06

scoops and figure out incremental

26:09

change to politics when actually not not just

26:11

changing at all. And anxiety

26:13

among the the politicians or the messaging world that

26:15

that they're waging. Right? There's a lot more action

26:17

happening on the front in the in the back end

26:19

even

26:19

though, to your point earlier in this

26:21

podcast, the back end, the actual

26:24

votes tell you more about what's gonna happen

26:26

next in many ways. Whatever you were blabbing him

26:28

out in advance of of the

26:30

actual election. Don't

26:31

call my analysis blabbing Chan

26:34

You know, I would say you're not

26:37

blabbing. What what what verb would I put to the

26:39

podcast? Pontificating. Dude,

26:42

it's blurring. Rheumatoid.

26:44

Rheumatoid. Being.

26:45

You

26:45

know, I just try to I just try to

26:48

call balls and strikes and mister mister chad

26:50

of my Well,

26:50

it's funny you bring up the sports, but you never let

26:52

me you never let me give my earnest sorry,

26:54

my sarcastic answer. Am I gonna let you?

26:56

III dared to respond with my

26:58

own thoughts. But now,

27:01

Galen, the floor is yours. What's your

27:03

hipster answer? My hipster

27:05

answer is that in

27:07

a midterm election, most

27:10

eligible Americans, not even just

27:12

most Americans, most eligible

27:14

Americans don't vote. And even

27:16

in a presidential election,

27:19

it's still not the

27:21

vast majority of eligible

27:23

Americans voting. However,

27:25

we still share a country with all

27:27

of those people. Part of the reason

27:29

that public opinion data can be so

27:32

useful is because all of the

27:34

Americans who don't vote, like,

27:37

matter. You know? And

27:40

I think that as

27:42

much as politics is

27:44

structured in such a way, that

27:46

it's really only the opinions of voters

27:48

that matter, like, politicians have

27:50

an incentive to

27:52

shape themselves and their policies and

27:55

whatever. To the people who are actually voting. But of

27:57

course, people who vote, who don't vote

27:59

matter. I mean, children

28:01

matter. Children can't

28:04

legally vote. And so you

28:06

wanna lower the voting age, just so I'm hearing you. No. I

28:08

have no idea whether or not we should lower the voting

28:10

age. But knowing

28:12

what Americans who don't vote

28:14

think is important. Because also,

28:16

in a way, if

28:18

you know how those people think about

28:20

the world, you may eventually be able

28:22

to bring them into the

28:24

electorate. Mhmm. And so just the

28:27

voter files, just knowing the

28:29

results of the twenty twenty two

28:31

election, aren't gonna tell you

28:32

that much about America. It's

28:35

gonna tell you a lot about politics. The Americans

28:37

who vote. Yeah. Interesting.

28:39

Who who do you think did a better job answering the

28:42

hipster, you, or I missed you?

28:43

I think it's

28:44

really a tie. Yeah. I think both

28:47

pretty top notch blabbing.

28:50

Exploring. Alright,

28:53

Galen. I think we're reaching the end of

28:55

our time together. Oh my

28:56

god. So fast. Well,

28:58

time flies when you're the the blabber. I

29:00

know. The question

29:01

You're like you're like your job is so boring. I just have

29:03

to sit here and listen to you talk like boring. You

29:05

know, I like to think about where I can interject.

29:07

Yada yada. It's in

29:10

seven years. In seven

29:12

years, What's that? It's twenty twenty two, twenty

29:14

twenty nine, let's just call it twenty thirty. Let's

29:16

just round up. Okay? In

29:19

twenty thirty, What percentage of this

29:21

podcast when you listen back to

29:22

it? And I know you will fall asleep at night. Do

29:24

you think you will still

29:25

agree with? Percentage of the Like, what do you what

29:28

percentage sorry. Not will you agree with, but what percentage do

29:30

you think will still hold? Do you think politics will

29:32

just totally reinvent itself in the next ten year seven

29:35

years

29:35

again? I mean, it'll all hold because I

29:37

think a big message of the podcast

29:39

is that the future

29:41

is unknown.

29:44

And that we do the best we can

29:46

with the data that we have at the moment, and we

29:48

keep an open mind to how

29:50

the country and voters and whatever can

29:53

change. Like, For example,

29:55

we have just experienced

29:58

twenty years during which, like,

30:00

you pretty much couldn't go wrong.

30:02

By taking your moment of political

30:04

analysis to say increasing

30:07

polarization, increasing partisanship, etcetera,

30:11

etcetera, etcetera. There's nothing written

30:13

in stone that things have to remain

30:15

that way. And I think we saw

30:17

in twenty twenty two some of the

30:20

advantages to campaigning in a way that

30:22

doesn't accept

30:22

that. So you're sort of saying

30:25

So I

30:28

would say like, who

30:30

knows what the world is going to look like

30:32

in two thousand and thirty? I

30:35

mean, for myself, for

30:37

the country, our listeners like our podcast, but

30:39

I don't know the like, what I guess,

30:41

let me put it back to you. What do you feel

30:43

like are the main tenants

30:47

of our coverage on the podcast that

30:49

I could judge how we've

30:51

done ten years from now.

30:51

That's not how this works going. Seven times from now. I am

30:54

the one asking questions. You know,

30:56

I think we are relatively

30:59

restrained. However, I think on the site

31:01

and just recently you

31:03

know, with Nate, there have been

31:05

conversations about our Democrats doomed

31:07

in the senate for the next six

31:10

three cycles. That is an interesting

31:12

question, but it

31:14

is a question that can only be evaluated

31:16

with present

31:17

information. Yeah. And to

31:19

your point, the electorate does, in some ways, reinvent

31:22

itself every two years. Oftentimes, that

31:24

reinvention is only a half step

31:26

away from what it was before. But

31:28

sometimes it's a leap. And when it does

31:30

leap, it is difficult for us to

31:32

catch up. Do I think it's gonna go that

31:34

differently? No. But do I walk

31:36

around telling people I know what's gonna happen?

31:38

No, which is sort of what you're saying. Right?

31:40

If for me, over

31:42

the nine years, this job had just

31:44

made me think, it's not even worth my

31:47

breath talking about what's

31:49

gonna happen. It's an entire

31:51

website. It's built around the entire

31:53

I understand it, but anyone who

31:55

tells me what's gonna happen. It

31:57

went like, I just don't I don't even

32:00

it doesn't even register with me as something

32:03

to meaningfully engage with.

32:05

These pollsters who after an election crew that

32:07

they had it right, LOL.

32:10

Sure, you got it right. That doesn't mean you

32:12

were right. It means you said something

32:14

and the future turned out to be what

32:16

you said it might be, but that doesn't mean you

32:18

somehow were like, special. Is this my

32:20

soapbox hour or your soapbox hour? The

32:22

whole point of bringing you on here was that

32:24

eventually, I could go on a jack. I

32:26

have jacked. So

32:29

and don't flip it where you're now interviewing

32:31

me. That's not the agreement.

32:33

I understand where

32:36

you're coming from. But I think

32:39

that there's

32:41

more Yes. Like, oh,

32:43

growing about got those exactly right

32:45

or whatever. Like, that's not what this is all about

32:47

ultimately anyway. But I

32:50

do think that

32:52

we can use historical data

32:55

and historical context that

32:58

is non data. I mean, maybe all of

33:00

history is data. In order to try

33:02

to understand understand the

33:04

house, understand the present, and

33:06

make some assumptions about the future. I

33:08

mean, something that does know,

33:10

we're gonna really go off on attention. Something that really hits us home for

33:13

me is reading

33:16

I I part of what I studied in college

33:19

was Italian literature. And

33:21

you read listeners know that you I

33:23

went to high school in Italy or is it

33:25

I mentioned it once during cohort. But

33:29

reading the satira con and sort

33:31

of the ways in which society Let's

33:33

just back

33:33

up. You can't say satira con and

33:36

assume that people know what you're talking about. What

33:38

is the cetericon? It's

33:40

sort of a description of a decadent

33:42

ancient

33:42

realm. Amazing. And the ways

33:45

that sort of society is

33:47

falling apart and the impulses

33:49

of the people that leads to this sort

33:51

of societal collapse. And

33:53

the description, these these like

33:55

thousand year old descriptions, of

33:58

people's impulses haven't

34:00

changed all that much. And

34:02

so I would encourage

34:04

us not to just say, oh, we haven't no

34:06

clue, people have not evolved. One

34:10

Iota, since everything

34:12

that we consider in

34:14

history happened since the world's greatest atrocities since

34:16

the world's greatest achievements. So we Hobbs

34:18

the end of

34:19

you. We are the

34:21

exact same people like biologically,

34:24

we are still as a

34:26

people possible of all of those same impulses. The

34:28

only things that keep us in check, I would

34:30

say, are institutions. And our institutions have certainly

34:32

evolved over that time. But

34:35

I think it would be

34:37

foolish to say that

34:39

because we can't completely predict an election

34:41

within three points of the outcome

34:44

that using the data that we

34:46

have today is

34:48

useless to try to understanding what the future will look like. Of course, we

34:51

should absolutely do that. That's like that was

34:53

like a super high

34:55

brow way of of trying

34:57

to make Tell me that I was being too hipster and that you are an Ernest one who is

34:59

right. I understand. But, like, it will help us

35:01

at the very least develop

35:05

set of possibilities. And again,

35:08

like, I'm torn between,

35:10

yes, let's use historical data.

35:12

In order to understand who we are and where we're headed. let's also keep

35:14

an open mind. Like, Democrats lament

35:17

every day of their lives how the

35:19

Senate is skewed and

35:22

you know, all of these rural states and

35:24

blah blah blah blah, like, yes, the way that

35:27

our governmental structure works is

35:29

that there are, like, winners and

35:32

losers. And the winner of

35:34

that structure used to be the Democratic Party, and

35:36

it's not anymore. And it could be

35:38

once again. If you want it to be that

35:40

way, if you want the Democratic party to go and win small rural states, go make it

35:42

happen because it's certainly possible.

35:45

If the Republican Party wants to compete in high class

35:47

suburbs and cities again, it's certainly

35:50

possible. The parties

35:52

ultimately do have to

35:54

compete to try to piece together a

35:56

majority coalition, and they have to go

35:58

where the voters go. Yes, there are

36:00

distortions and biases in

36:02

our system But at the end of the day,

36:04

parties wanna I mean, unless we literally truly dismantle democracy,

36:06

the parties wanna win, and they

36:08

gotta go where the voters are.

36:11

I

36:11

hear what you're saying. We've talked

36:14

for long enough. I don't think we need I need I need to

36:16

fully regret your point

36:18

about institutions. I think

36:20

dovetails with what rebuttal would be, which

36:22

is there's a way to go where the voters

36:24

are while also saying that the rules are

36:26

unfair. I'm not saying the rules are

36:28

aren't there. But the people who wanna the Democrats who are upset about the

36:30

senate, think that they that if they drum

36:32

up enough

36:32

action, obviously, they can change the rules.

36:34

That's what that's about. Are you

36:37

kidding me? They're gonna change the constitution. They're gonna abolish the Senate. Like, what I

36:39

mean, come on. That's where history comes

36:41

in. And we can tell you based on history is

36:43

not gonna happen.

36:46

And I think that'll do it for this

36:48

week's show. You heard it here

36:50

first, Galindrag says it's not gonna

36:53

happen. Democrats, let that

36:55

be the headline.

36:56

Abolishing the Senate? Yeah. That's all gonna happen.

36:58

Alright. Galen, this has been

37:00

a very interesting conversation. One that

37:02

might take away about what you are

37:05

sort of where you're at is that you think that things

37:08

have changed and that

37:10

America is constantly in the process

37:12

of changing, especially the

37:14

American electorate And

37:18

there's really no

37:20

way to move forward about what's going to happen, aside from you,

37:22

what we have. Is what you're Right? Like,

37:24

it's imperfect. A little bit like democracy, but

37:26

it's what we got. And so we have to we

37:28

have to use the information we have, and

37:31

we have to remain responsible within that

37:33

analysis about what's to come. Yeah.

37:35

I

37:35

mean, doing the best we

37:38

can in an uncertain world

37:40

is not all that different

37:42

from what everybody's life is like. And so whether we're

37:44

talking about the life of our

37:46

democracy or the life of our friends or the

37:48

life

37:49

of ourselves, We do the best we can with what we have.

37:52

We hope for a bright future,

37:54

but understand that life I would so

37:56

read yourself

37:58

help book that used political analysis as a way

38:00

in to improving our own

38:02

souls. Oh,

38:03

a hundred percent.

38:06

I mean, I would what I what am I saying a hundred

38:08

percent too? You know, I'm

38:10

an optimist. I could see you on this

38:12

-- No real optimist. -- speaking circuit.

38:16

sat down to write the self help book, whether you

38:18

could sit down to do

38:20

it day after day. My I'm too much I'm

38:22

too much of an extrovert. In fact,

38:24

whenever people this

38:26

gonna sound like so annoying to say it.

38:28

But, like, when people ask me, oh, do you aspire to

38:30

write a book someday? I'm like,

38:32

absolutely not. You know me, Chad. I

38:34

mean, every time we got on a Zoom, I, like, ask

38:36

you to stay twenty minutes longer, so I can just

38:38

plow with you. The idea

38:39

of, like, sitting on top, blah, blah,

38:40

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sure.

38:43

Sitting alone and writing a book

38:45

sounds hellish to me. I if

38:48

anything, I wanna do something

38:48

social. I wanna, like, yeah,

38:49

the speaking circuit. You can do that. I wanna I work I work on

38:51

with a team to, like, make a documentary or something. You

38:54

know, like, I wanna work with people on

38:56

a project. don't write

38:58

a book by myself. I, like, I truly

39:00

rather do anything about that. Alright.

39:02

You can play this 1I1

39:05

day writing

39:05

book. I hope I'm in your

39:08

editor when that happens. Gail

39:09

and Druck. Chadwick Mallory. Thanks for

39:11

coming

39:11

into your studio

39:14

relinquishing control. Role and really just settling into to the the

39:16

blabber role. I appreciate that. Thanks

39:18

so much. I don't

39:20

remember what the out credits are, but I

39:22

better go like

39:24

this. Our my

39:26

name is Chadwick Matlin. My name is Chadwick

39:28

Matlin. Our as Kevin Rider,

39:31

Ken writer is on board today and are in

39:33

the control

39:33

room. They're in the control room. Tony

39:36

Chow is sick. We Our thoughts

39:38

are with him.

39:38

Video editing. He's still You still video editing. That's the kind

39:40

of commitment that Tony Chow shows even at the end

39:42

of the year here. And Chadwick Mallon is our

39:45

editorial

39:45

director. And I direct the

39:48

editorial. Goodbye everyone. Well, no,

39:50

there's another piece to it. Let's see if I

39:52

can remember it. Totally

39:54

off the top of my

39:55

head. Oh, the email podcast five thirty

39:57

eight dot com tweeted us.

40:00

I'm Galen

40:01

droop. Even though

40:04

Twitter may or may not exist by the time you

40:06

hear this, and your friends about the Your about podcast, star ratings on

40:08

Apple, although

40:08

I don't know if people still that

40:11

matters as much. Spotify people

40:14

like I hear the upcoming

40:15

app. And we'll talk to you

40:18

next week. Thanks for listening. Thanks for listening.

40:20

You're listening. Goodbye.