Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
You're a podcast listener, and this is a podcast ad. Reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Lipson Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements, or run a reproduced ad like this one across thousands of shows to reach your target audience with Lipson Ads. Go to LipsonAds.com now. That's L-I-B-S-Y-N-Ads.com.
Part of the reason I'm thinking this is a short podcast is because I have a baked potato waiting for me to be eaten. And it's only going to stay warm for so long. And given the state of my day, it's like maybe the most luxury thing that's going to happen to me today.
is a warm baked potato at midnight in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. A lukewarm baked potato? Yeah, by the time we get to it, it's going to be the cold sour cream and warm baked potato are going to be approximately the same temperature.
Hello and welcome to this late night post-debate edition of the FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast. I'm Galen Druk. I am here in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and just got done watching the debate alongside my colleagues. We're here to talk about it. It was the smallest debate stage yet with just Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis, and Vivek Ramaswamy. The dynamics were a little bit different maybe than debates in the past in terms of
Folks really going after Nikki Haley. But ultimately, it wasn't that difference. I don't think anyone on this podcast tonight is going to say that tonight's debate changed the race, but we'll get into what there is to talk about. Maybe this won't be a particularly long podcast, but here with me to talk about what went down is senior elections analyst Jeffrey Scali. Hey, Jeff, welcome to the podcast. Good evening, Galen.
Also here with us is our colleague from ABC News, Mary Alice Parks, who's a White House correspondent, who's also here with me in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, actually in the room downstairs in the hotel. I don't know, Mary Alice, how should we describe this hotel that we're in right now?
Well, it's a college town. You know, we need to be a little generous, but I'll just say it's not my favorite one. I've stayed in before. But I'm so glad to be here. Joining you will probably be my favorite part of the night.
Well, now you're being generous with me. I appreciate it, but we're going to make this all better because I just ran a plastic cup of wine down to you. So Mary Alice, we're both in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. I'll say this is my first time in Tuscaloosa. I think I've been in Alabama maybe once before crossing the border from Pensacola, Florida into Alabama. But what have you absorbed so
So far, while we've been here, I know that you've also been talking to some voters. Let's just sort of like set the scene for where we actually are, since we're both on the ground. Yeah, I've been to Alabama before. Never to this college campus, though. We're about 20.
a 10 minute drive away from campus. And I spoke today to the college Republicans, a small group of them, but that's sort of the leadership of the college Republicans, a group of about five budding politicians themselves, as you can imagine. And it was funny to me, they described their campus as a purple campus, which was,
surprised me in Alabama. But they were very honest about which issues mattered to them. And I really appreciated that. They are young Republicans that knew how to deliver the party line, but they also said that they knew their party needed to talk to young voters better.
They brought up issues like climate change and conservation and the price of college and student debt. And I think there was a real acknowledgement on campus today that there's been a disconnect between the Republican Party and younger voters. And these young Republicans at least wanted to see their party do a little bit better. Interesting. Yeah. So I'll say just for the record that Alabama is great.
Trump country through and through, right? In the primary back in 2016, Alabama voted on Super Tuesday when the race was still competitive. And Donald Trump won the primary in Alabama back then by more than 20 points. I mean, he went on to win in the general by about 30 points in 2016. In 2020, he won by something more like 25 points.
But, you know, for my part, I don't want to play the silly national reporter here, but I've talked to plenty of people so far in the short amount of time that I've been here about their perceptions of politics and the debate coming to town. And honestly, the biggest impression it's made on me, and this happens a lot when I travel, is lack of knowledge about the field. Folks who are really just like, oh, wait, you tell me who's running for president. Folks really don't know who's running for president. And so...
Usually it's debates like the one that happened tonight that raise awareness about candidates that make the field potentially competitive, help candidates out. I don't know if tonight did that, but Jeff, get in here. What was your impression of the night from, I guess you're watching this from Vermont. Was there a winner? Oh yeah. There's always that question, you know, did someone win? Yeah.
I feel like if there was a winner, it was probably Ron DeSantis. And I say that because...
Coming into the night, DeSantis has been sort of largely on the wrong track. You have not a great trajectory in the polls. You have Nikki Haley gaining, picking up steam. A lot of people calling her even the second place candidate. And I think a lot about tonight's debate spoke to that because she got attacked a lot. She spent much of the debate on the defensive because DeSantis and Ramaswamy, in particular Ramaswamy, were very much going after her.
Uh, so to me, it's sort of a situation where DeSantis got a lot of shots in on Haley, but also had Rama Swami sort of running almost like a screening operation for him by just going after Haley. Now I'm not sure Rama Swami is, uh,
quite the best surrogate in terms of, you know, his favorability ratings have actually slid over the course of the primary after initially rising because I think he has rubbed some people the wrong way at events like this. And again, some of his behavior tonight might have done that too. But I guess it's just sort of, if I have to pick one, it would be DeSantis in part because maybe just sum it up, like Haley spent a lot of the debate on the defensive and I think it tends to be
more difficult to have a strong debate performance when you're on the defensive. I don't think Haley did a poor job or anything. I just think that that seems important. It's interesting that you say that, Jeff. I have thoughts, but Mary Alice, do you agree? No. I was really surprised to hear you say that, actually. You made a convincing argument that it was hard for...
a candidate to break through when they're often defending their record. I agree that she had to spend a lot of the night defending her record. But I think it looks good when you're the center of attention. I think she actually landed one of the most effective lines when she said,
Thanks for all the attention, fellas. And at one point she turned and said, it's not even worth my time responding to you, Vivek. I think she conveyed a sense of being ahead of the rest of the pack that that pack, at least that I actually think kind of worked for her.
I actually think it was a really good night for Chris Christie. We've seen this play before from him, obviously. That's been his chick, as the other candidates said, being the one that will take on Trump directly. But I actually thought he kind of made the argument in a sharper way, I
tonight, not only saying that, look, this strategy that you guys all have of not taking on Trump isn't going to work, but really essentially blame, not essentially, very much blaming his, his,
his consistent polling on their lack of calling him out. I mean, he said that they have validated Trump's behavior, that they have made Trump's behavior acceptable and that that was the rationale for Trump's polling. I thought that was just better articulated from him than I've heard in the past, more convincing a little bit to me. And I found that interesting.
It's interesting. I think that he did technically a good job debating, but I can't imagine that what he said was ultimately appealing to Republican primary voters outside of maybe a small segment of New Hampshire independents who will vote in the Republican primary. I mean, I think this criticism of the rest... You think that the booze in the room really helped him out? No. And I'll say...
when it comes to who won or who did a good job. To me, it was the same. It was a very similar dynamic to what we've seen before. Nikki Haley was the most talented debater on stage. She was the most forceful and direct in the way that she expressed herself and composed herself. And I don't think that Ron DeSantis did himself very many favors. I mean, I was looking at the Google Trends data and throughout the evening, Ron DeSantis got basically no peaks in terms of search traffic. Nikki Haley was getting...
more attention than any of the other candidates. Vivek Ramaswamy had a spike here or there, and Chris Christie did get quite a spike when he was talking about policy regarding transgender care for minors, which was an interesting part of the debate because there was very clear division on that issue. But for the most part, it was Nikki Haley being technically a better debater and sort of commanding the room as a result. And so I'm
I would guess that this furthers the trends that we've already seen. That Nikki Haley continues to inch up, DeSantis continues to slip, and
And the question is, is any of this happening fast enough or to the degree enough that it would make any difference whatsoever in the primary with the answer being likely no. To me, the criticism from Chris Christie of these other candidates not attacking Trump is a little bit silly. I think he's mainly referring to DeSantis and Haley.
Because what ends up happening in this primary is if you attack Trump the way that Chris Christie wants to attack Trump, which is on democratic norms and being an authoritarian and, you know, the 2020 election not being stolen. Basically, he is aligning himself with the liberal critique of Donald Trump. Now, it may be true that he broke a lot of norms and claimed falsely that the 2020 election was stolen. But
But the way that this is read by Republican primary voters is folks like Chris Christie, Asa Hutchinson, and Mike Pence are all aligning themselves with Democrats in the way that they critique Trump. And if they do that, their favorability rating is going to mimic those three candidates, which is be underwater with Republican primary voters. So the way that they have to attack Trump is
is on a different axis, which is the conservative axis, which is that he didn't actually take care of the border problem. He didn't build a wall. He didn't reform the asylum system. He didn't take on China, as Nikki Haley described tonight, in any real way except for on trade. And it's those kinds of ways. I mean, the deficit, right? They talk about how he spent
$9 trillion was the number that Haley cited, and then one of the moderators cited more like $8 trillion. But essentially, attacking Trump on issues that Republicans care about, not attacking Trump on issues that liberals care about. And so like Chris Christie is basically asking DeSantis and Haley to dig their own graves in terms of the way that they would take on Trump. That's my reading, essentially. I'm curious if y'all think differently. Yeah.
DeSantis and Haley have a different theory of the case, that they don't need to take on Trump. They just have to present themselves as the alternative. But they're banking on enough voters, Republican primary voters right now being open to an alternative without Trump.
in any way changing their opinion of the former president. And Chris Christie is making a case that there's not enough of them unless you start to actually change some minds about the former president. And, you know, I,
I guess, I don't know. I mean, in some states, sure, we see the polling where Trump is leading, but not over 50%. And so that would suggest that DeSantis and Haley are right in their theory of the case, as long as they're the single alternate sort of candidate, they're running ahead of the rest of this pack and they can coalesce the rest of the vote. There's a path. But
In other states where Trump is over 50%, I mean, Christie's making arguably a fair point, which is unless you start to chip away at that, what are we all doing here? Yeah, that seems right to me in the sense that you have a situation where you have two candidates who are fighting to be the chief rival to Trump. But we know from the limited head-to-head polling we have that if Trump were to take on either of them head-to-head, he would likely demolish them.
And so the current challenge for Haley and DeSantis is to bring in some people who currently say that they're going to support Trump. And of the two candidates, DeSantis is the only one who has polled fairly high at any point nationally, right? Now, obviously, he has lost a lot of ground. But we know from looking at sort of the breakdown of the Republican primary electorate,
DeSantis is still the one who has the highest ceiling. Like Haley needs to win over Trumpier voters than what she's currently winning in like a pretty major way. And I think that's the huge question mark to me is like, can Haley sort of raise her ceiling and,
uh, and, and, and actually attract some of those voters, um, that currently would probably say DeSantis is their second choice, perhaps because they even at one point supported DeSantis. Uh, so, uh,
There's just sort of this overall challenge of becoming the main alternative and then actually finding any sort of path to winning. And so maybe you do need to take at least some part of Christie's criticism to heart and say, we need to figure out a way to attack him. But at the same time, you notice if you attack him on sort of the democratic norms thing, you're going to get –
bunch of Democrats like Galen was talking about. So I do think it is a version of some of the attacks we saw tonight. DeSantis actually articulated a case where he said, we need a younger alternative, turn the page in terms of a dynamic younger alternative who can carry things forward, who can serve two terms and et cetera, et cetera, without saying
that Trump was unfit to be president, which Christie was trying to press him on. So it is a really tough needle to thread. There's no question about it. And it's been true the entire primary. Yeah, I think to add some data to what you're talking about is like Nikki, if you look at the crosstabs, Nikki Haley overperforms with college educated voters within the Republican primary.
The challenge for her is that college educated voters make up about 25% of the Republican electorate, a little bit more in depending on sort of which elections you're talking about, because the share of the electorate that they make up changes from, you know, election to election. But that's a significant challenge. You're not going to win with college educated voters, period. But the other thing is that,
Donald Trump is still winning a large portion of college educated voters, right? It's something like nationally Donald Trump's winning like 48% of college educated voters and then 65 or 70% of non-college educated voters. And that's how you get him polling at say like 59% nationally.
And Ron DeSantis, you don't see a big gap in terms of his support. Like Nikki Haley, the gap is very large. Um, you know, I'm, I'm looking at a center for politics article and they cited the gap in Nikki Haley support as 20% with college educated voters and 7% with non-college educated voters. That does not make a winning coalition. I mean, obviously it doesn't make a winning coalition anywhere, but certainly not in a Republican primary. Um,
You would say as a starting point, you ought to be winning the majority of college educated voters. They aren't. And then from there, your challenge is not college educated voters. So it's just really mathematically like, what are you going to do? But doesn't that go against what you were saying? That the only path forward is to chip away at the former president's support. And to that point, I thought it was very interesting that
I actually thought it was more interesting that she didn't bring up Joe Biden more. Her best argument is the electability argument. And we, of course, hear from Republican voters they just want to win. They're convinced of an electability argument or convincible of an electability argument. And
I was surprised that tonight she didn't hammer that harder because I still think it's her best argument. She has data to back it up. And I just didn't feel like she went there. She should have talked about Joe Biden more. Wait, I agree. But I fully agree that they need to chip away at Donald Trump's support.
I just don't think the way that they are going to do it is the way that Chris Christie says they should do it, which is on a liberal axis. What they need to be saying is like, it didn't work. Even if you liked his ideas, there's no wall at the border. There was no reform of the asylum system, but you didn't fire. If as soon as you're out of office, you're,
Yeah, DeSantis did a lot of this, actually, which was interesting. Exactly. I mean, I started noting in my notes as we were going through areas where they were actually attacking Trump because everyone says, oh, you know, no one attacked Trump. They never attacked Trump. Okay, so here are the places that I...
I noted on China, Nikki Haley says this is where Trump went wrong. He was only good on trade. He wasn't good on security, fentanyl, any of that stuff. But it was only I should say I marked this as well. It was only 40 minutes in that they started to attack Trump on policy. Nikki Haley again. Trump did nine trillion. So basically everybody never going to forgive us. You know, yeah.
Then we got some from DeSantis. We got maybe he's too old. He didn't deliver on many of the things on immigration. But I hear what you're saying that...
attacking him on the Democratic norms, you end up feeling like you're doing Democrats work for them. And we saw that tonight. We saw Democrats instantly clip Chris Christie soundbites, right? Calling Trump a dictator and a bully and an angry, bitter man, right? Democrats are loving it. He's making their own ads. So I hear you. But on the other hand, I do think some Republicans worry that
The criminal cases are baggage, an electoral drag on Trump. And I think that Chris Christie, that's a part of what he's saying. He can't, Trump can't win with this baggage. And I actually think there would be a smart way that someone like Nikki Haley could say, there's too much baggage. That makes him not electable. I am electable. Yeah, no, I buy the electability thing. And I think that's a good point.
You're a podcast listener, and this is a podcast ad. Reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Lipson Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements, or run a reproduced ad like this one across thousands of shows to reach your target audience with Lipson Ads. Go to LipsonAds.com now. That's L-I-B-S-Y-N-Ads.com.
You're a podcast listener, and this is a podcast ad. Reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Lipson Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements, or run a reproduced ad like this one across thousands of shows to reach your target audience with Lipson Ads. Go to LipsonAds.com now. That's L-I-B-S-Y-N-Ads.com.
There were a couple of data moments in the debate that stuck out to me that I do want to get to because they were just sort of interesting. And I don't really know how to make heads or tails of them. So at one point, Nikki Haley cites this statistic on TikTok. She said, quote, 30 minutes on TikTok makes you 17% more anti-Semitic.
I don't know how this study would be conducted. We did find the data on GitHub, but it's unclear to me the kind of study that you could do to come to this conclusion. Jeff, do you have thoughts on this?
Yeah, I mean, to be clear, the source of this information is a guy named Anthony Goldblum, who is the CEO of Kaggle, the world's largest community of data scientists. It doesn't seem like necessarily a bad source. I don't know exactly how they determined what...
I can see how they may have looked at like the timing, like that someone spent on Tik TOK, but I am curious about how they measured, uh, what, like the, the dependent variable, like anti-Semitic or anti-Israel views. Like what, what, how, what exactly showed that I guess is the question. Um, so I'm not a hundred percent sure, uh, what to make of that. Um,
Um, but it, it certainly makes for a tidy soundbite. Um, there's no doubt about that. Uh, but I will say that, uh, just maybe just not even related to the study necessarily, but,
While watching the News Nation debate, I saw a couple of different TikTok ads where they're like, TikTok is good. And I was like, the the the like contrast here between what you're hearing on the stage and like this positive TikTok ad is is a little much. But anyway, with the study, I just think it's it's kind of hard to say without knowing more. And I haven't I haven't been able to like dig into it really.
I do think the moment did land for her because she got to lean in talking about being a mom. You know, she really capitalized again on being the woman on that stage. You know, she was talking about a mom worried about social media. And I think that's effective for her.
Yeah, there were a couple moments where she talked about being a mom. Actually, there were, you know, going back to Google Trends data, some of the moments that she talked about her own personal experience were her highest peaks in Google Trends data. So the first... So the two...
highest peaks in the first hour of the debate for anyone were Nikki Haley. The first one was when she said that her parents immigrated to the United States legally and described how, you know, illegal immigration was unfair to legal immigrants. That was the first peak. The second peak was when she said that
Her daughter, who just got married, was having a difficult time buying a house because of the structural challenges with regard to supply of houses, mortgage and interest rates more broadly.
And I've, you know, as you said, I mean, the immigration story doesn't depend on her being a woman. But I think talking about her personal life are areas where she does get at least more interest from the public. Also, though, those are more general election topics, right?
hate. Like we're talking so much about the data, what it will take to break through a Republican primary. But interesting that as soon as the debate ended, Democrats jumped on the fact that healthcare barely came up there. They, they pushed again, the president's healthcare ad, you know, you're talking about immigration housing. I mean, these aren't,
these aren't small Republican primary issues. Those are the moments that cross over. And I don't know. Actually, it goes back to the electability argument, right? Who can effectively talk to a general election audience or at least convey to Republican voters that they're in a better position to then talk to a general election audience? Yeah, I mean, the thing with the primary electorate is that they tend to believe Trump is electable.
And that and we've seen this in polling. I wrote about it earlier this year, but we've continued to see it in other polls since then, that if you ask Republican primary voters who they think the strongest general election candidate is, they'll say Trump. Now, how much of that is Trump?
that they're tending to support Trump, so they're going to answer Trump anyway. But it's just, you know, it's something that we've continued to see. So that makes it maybe tough to make that electability argument and actually have it break through. And I think, you know, a fundamental part of that is that a lot of Republicans don't think the 2020 election result was legitimate.
And if you don't think Trump lost in the first place, maybe it's harder to make the case that he's unelectable. That just may be a fundamental challenge there.
One final question I want to get to, because maybe this does weigh on where things go from here for the person who's been ascendant, which is Nikki Haley is the beginning of the debate. A lot of the attacks were about the endorsements that she's been getting and, you know, wealthy donors supporting her folks from wall street. It was brought up the fact that she was on the board of Boeing and,
And on Monday's podcast, Elliott did mention he said that he thought the Americans for Prosperity endorsement was a negative signifier, basically, to voters, which I think you can debate. But in a Republican Party that has sort of been inspired by Trump to view the establishment as corrupt, is this a real liability? Is this line of attack something that does blunt her views?
heretofore rise in the polls? I guess I'm inclined to say that the money is helpful. You know, if you're Nikki Haley and you haven't been as prolific a fundraiser, she's not been a bad fundraiser, just not as prolific a fundraiser, knowing that there might be some really serious outside support in the weeks ahead of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary and
Is potentially useful. I mean, of course, it depends on what sort of messaging they use and what have you. But I think it's kind of hard to know. I will say that I don't think it's like an unalloyed good or some sort of certain bet. We see a lot of these articles about –
Big time donor X is going to back Haley now or big time donor X. Actually, I saw one today is sticking with Ron DeSantis or switching over to Ron DeSantis. I don't remember who it was now, but I was like, oh, because that's different from the narrative we've been hearing. So it caught my eye. But, you know...
Is this in and of itself going to dramatically reshape the race in some way? Probably not. I mean, I think if we had an open primary with no one like Trump in it, I think this would matter a lot more, potentially. But with Trump in the race and with so many of his supporters so locked in,
it's a bit more like trench warfare, right? And Trump's been the only one gaining. I mean, I know Haley's been gaining, but in the grand scheme of things, Trump has gained nationally and has held basically the same position in the three early states that we have significant polling from. So I just think that these are storylines that we automatically sort of run to because they have been important in the past, but
In part because of what you're talking about with like the establishment, whatnot, but also just because Trump, this is not your normal like open primary where the electorate is more movable with spending a lot of money on ads, this and whatnot. But part of it is whether we talk about the primary as a foregone conclusion is how many Romney Republicans will or will not show up on caucus day.
And if they believe that it's done, that Trump's run away with it, then they're
then sure, then you can argue none of this matters at all. But if they, I don't know, if they believe that it's still gettable, if they believe that's evidence that Nikki Haley is viable, that they're not going to embarrass themselves in the high school gym in Des Moines showing up again at the Republican caucus, then, then yeah, then it is absolutely a benefit to her. Yeah.
But so to your point, I totally hear you that those were effective lines of attack against her tonight. It doesn't you know, you can land a line about being associated with bankers or billionaires. But the you know, which which Republican voter are you are you playing for? Yeah. I mean, I guess this makes me think the final question of the podcast really is, OK, this was the last debate of the year.
We are 40 days out from the Iowa caucuses. You know, what are we doing here? I mean, does it really feel like we're pantomiming coverage of a campaign that I understand your point, Mary Alice, that we shouldn't signal to voters that this is a done deal because then we're putting our thumb on the scale basically in favor of Trump, you know, by saying, OK, this is a done deal. Nobody pay attention. It's not worth your time.
And in a primary attention matters, right? You you generally gain in the polls if you can get attention. I don't think that that's necessarily been the case for Vivek Ramaswamy. But if you are a little more tactful at how you direct the attention that you get, then it is helpful. And so I do think I do think it's irresponsible for us to just like throw our hands up and be like, it's game over. It's done.
But it does at the same time feel here sitting in Tuscaloosa, Alabama at a quarter to midnight central time that I am pantomiming the coverage of a campaign.
Well, for what it's worth, you are in maybe one of the states where Trump will perform best in the primary. So that's maybe something we should keep in mind. No, I don't want to write off that something surprising could happen, like someone dropping out and support shifting in some way or what have you.
Um, because it is true that Trump is not polling as well in Iowa and New Hampshire or even South Carolina as he is nationally. And those of course are places where people are paying somewhat more attention because they're going to have to vote sooner than a lot of people. So, you know, are the national numbers inflated a little bit because Trump obviously has a hundred percent name recognition and a lot of Republicans have a favorable view of him and maybe people aren't tuning in as much.
I don't know. I'm saying, you know, if you're trying to make sort of the devil's advocate case for why these candidates still have a chance and why maybe Trump's not quite as strong as he seems. So I don't want to like write off things sort of developing in a way that we don't currently expect. But it is certainly Trump is certainly in a very commanding position historically because I was looking at this actually for a previous article and I
at least in terms of national polling, there have only been three other candidates in the modern presidential primary era who, so since basically the 1970s, who are polling clearly over 50% in national polls. And so that was George W. Bush and Al Gore around this time in like December of the year before the primary. So it was Al Gore and George W. Bush in the 2000 cycle and
Both went on to win their nominations. And then Hillary Clinton in 2016 on the Democratic side. Now, Bush did have some trouble in that 2000 primary. It wasn't a done deal. He did lose the New Hampshire primary. It was to John McCain. It was somewhat interesting in that way. And obviously Bernie Sanders ended up being very competitive against Hillary Clinton and pushed her. At least she had to go all the way to close to the end of the primary to actually sort of lock things up. So.
Depending on, you know, primaries are dynamic things. And I so again, I don't want to write it off that it could it could get more interesting than it currently looks is I think a fair thing to say. I come back to my conversation with college Republicans today, the young the young kids on campus.
And they, I asked if they were insulted by the fact that Trump wasn't there. None of them would bite on that, right? But they all said that the candidates that did show up got points in their book. And, you know, we are journalists and we are grateful when elected officials or those that are running take questions. And so I don't,
I do think it's important that, you know, candidates that show up to get questions, get points, right? That's, that's what we do. And look, there could be another debate. Yeah. There, you know, I know it's the last debate of 2023, but you know, there usually has been in the past a debate before the Iowa caucuses. Maybe that won't happen this time, but there's often been a debate before the New Hampshire primary and,
You know, we got Robot Rubio in 2016, for example, at that one. So, you know, I think there could be another opportunity for these candidates to say something at a time when the attention level will be higher, inevitably, right? A lot higher, even than it is now. All right. Well, we will see what happens. Thank you, Mary Alice and Jeff, for staying up late and podcasting with me. Thanks for having me. Thank you, Galen.
My name is Galen Druk. Tony Chow is in the control room. Our producers are Shane McKeon and Cameron Tretavian. And our intern is Jayla Everett. You can get in touch by emailing us at podcasts at 538.com. You can also, of course, tweet us with any questions or comments. If you're a fan of the show, leave us a rating or review in the Apple Podcast Store or wherever you listen to your podcasts or tell someone about us. Thanks for listening and we will see you soon.
