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.
Hey there, listeners. Galen here. I wanted to share a little note before we get started today. You might have heard that there were significant layoffs at 538 last week. And so first and foremost, I want to say that I feel for all of my colleagues who were affected. Times like these are never easy, and we're a small, close-knit newsroom. For anyone out there who is hiring, please consider me a reference.
I also want to say that I am still here and still dedicated to bringing you a informative and rigorous and whenever possible fun podcast each week.
We're going through a period of transition, and I want to try out some new things. And I also want to hear from you about what you want out of the podcast. My mailbox is always open for feedback and suggestions at podcasts at 538.com. So please share your thoughts with me.
Most importantly, you listeners are why I do this podcast and why I've been doing it for so long. And so I really do want to thank you for sticking with us, especially in difficult times. So with that, as they say, the only way out is through. Let's begin. ♪
Hello and welcome to the FiveThirtyPolitics podcast. I'm Galen Druk. President Biden announced his reelection campaign last Tuesday, which was widely expected and also brings us one step closer to a possible rematch of the 2020 election. Today, we're going to talk about Biden's campaign specifically and broaden the conversation out to the possibility of Biden going head to head once again with former President Trump.
Also last week, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned its decision from just last year that banned partisan gerrymandering. It clears the way for Republican lawmakers in the state to redraw the congressional map from a 7-7 Republican-Democratic split to, well, whatever they see fit.
We'll take a look at how this fits into national trends surrounding redistricting. And lastly, we're going to take a data-driven look at the makeup of high school cliques. What percentage of Americans were goths or jocks or nerds? Not us. We were definitely not nerds. And would you reliably tell a pollster which category you fell into?
The people on this panel did not know what the topic was for that poll at the end. So please do not look it up, folks, Amelia, Nathaniel and Jeff in the intervening period of time. That is called cheating. Anyway, here with me are senior elections analyst Nathaniel Rake. Hey, Nathaniel. Hey, Galen. It's good to be with you.
Good to have you. Also here with us is senior reporter Amelia Thompson-DeVoe. Hey, Amelia. Hey, Galen. And senior elections analyst Jeffrey Skelly. Welcome, Jeffrey. Hey, Galen. Okay, so like I said, do not look up that poll. Our enjoyment of that segment relies on you not previously knowing the answers. But let's begin with Biden's announcement this past week. And we're going to play a clip from his campaign launch video to kick us off. Freedom. Freedom.
Personal freedom is fundamental to who we are as Americans. There's nothing more important, nothing more sacred. That's been the work of my first term, to fight for our democracy. This shouldn't be a red revolution. To protect our rights, to make sure that everyone in this country is treated equally and that everyone is given a fair shot at making it.
But you know, around the country, MAGA extremists are lining up to take on those bedrock freedoms. Cutting social security that you paid for your entire life while cutting taxes from the very wealthy. Dictating what healthcare decisions women can make. Banning books and telling people who they can love. All while making it more difficult for you to be able to vote.
All right, Amelia, to start things off, what message is Biden trying to campaign on based on that clip we heard and also what we've seen from his campaign so far in general?
Well, he's making a couple of pitches, but one of them is simply this idea that Americans' freedoms are threatened if they opt for four years of a Republican administration, whoever wins the GOP primary. And I thought it was really striking, you know, in the first few seconds of Biden's announcement, we see images of the Supreme Court. There's a
clear call to what happened last summer in the Dobbs versus Jackson women's health decision. And he's basically making a pitch that your freedoms are already being taken away and you need to elect me for four more years to ensure that, you know, you don't lose more freedoms and I'm here to try to get those back.
Why make this pitch? Of course, oftentimes you hear from people who work on campaigns that it's the economy is stupid. This was not a particularly economically focused launch message. It was leaning into American ideas and that sort of thing.
Yeah, I think that's not too surprising, given that Biden's approval ratings on the economy are not good. His overall approval ratings are already not good. And if you ask specifically about how he's handling the economy, it tends to be even lower. So it's not necessarily going to be a winning argument, although obviously we are currently in, I guess now it's May 2023, and a lot could change on the economic front there.
between now and next November. But yeah, it's kind of a continuation of his, you know, take back the soul of America message from 2020, except now, of course, he's the incumbent. So I think his video ended with something saying like, you know, we need to finish the job.
But I think it's not too surprising, especially given the results of the 2022 midterms, you know, that he is focusing on this message of kind of quote unquote MAGA extremism and all the things they're doing regarding, you know, democracy and LGBT rights. And he also threw in Social Security there, notably.
Rather than focusing on the economy, again, which isn't strong for him, but the 2022 midterms showed that this kind of messaging on extremism and, of course, the kind of abortion, the overturning of Roe that Amelia mentioned was mentioned in the or alluded to in the video as well. And that goes into this message of emphasizing social issues over the economy, which is better for Biden and Democrats at this juncture.
My question there, though, is, like, is that how that works? If you're polling poorly on the economy, should you just not talk about it that much? Or should you try to reframe the issue? Because I think something we also came away from the midterms with is that the midterm electorate is quite different from a general electorate. And it tends to be...
a more sort of high information voter base. They're more likely to have a four-year college degree and may be more likely to be the kind of voters to turn out based on these kinds of social issues that you're describing and maybe think less about the economy, but that a general election electorate could look different and maybe care more about things like inflation or the economy or what have you. So is that like
a missing piece? I mean, obviously he's got a lot of campaign staff thinking about this, but what, like, what's the calculus there?
Well, I think he's going to have to start talking about the economy when general election voters are tuning in. I mean, the reality is right now, if he had good things to be saying about the economy, he would be saying them. The issue is just that he came in in the middle of a pandemic that really messed with the economy. Inflation is still not under control. There's all this talk about a recession that...
you know would probably is probably something that would be induced by the fed's efforts to get inflation under control and then there's all of this all these banking issues lurking in the background so i mean if i had to guess i think he's leaning into the issues that he knows plays well with his base right now which are these social issues
And that he's hoping that a year from now we'll be through whatever mild recession the Fed will have caused. The economy will be on the upswing. He'll be able to say things like we're adding jobs and we've gotten inflation under control and look how good the economy is. But it's just not really a message that he can send with a straight face right now.
So that's the economic piece. I mean, he could say things, right? Like we still have historically low unemployment rate. And when he does talk about the economy, he seems to bring that up. But this personal freedoms thing, it is a little bit different from what we've heard from him in the past. And the number, I think he says freedom six times in his three minute launch video.
Is this a poll-tested message? Like, why? I mean, it probably sounds ignorant for me to ask, like, why talk about freedom? It's probably the thing that most cuts across all aspects of American society, supporting the idea of personal liberty.
I mean, I think it's easy to see that as a potential motivation for why they're going for this. The language of liberty and freedom, I think sometimes maybe there's a conventional wisdom that Republicans sort of maybe own that language a bit more. So perhaps part of Biden's thought here is I have a lot of ammunition to work with on Republican moves to infringe on the right to abortion or liberalism.
what books can be used in schools and just these various things that he can say. They don't pull very well necessarily, so I should attack on this and I can use this language of freedom and liberty and that sort of thing to emphasize. He's playing to his strength and he also can use language that the other side likes to use. So that
That's not exactly triangulation, which is like the thought of taking some aspect of your opponent's platform or approach and then trying to sort of make it your own. I mean Bill Clinton was sort of famous for doing that in the 1990s, especially ahead of the 1996 presidential election. But maybe the – at least from a linguistic standpoint, maybe it is a little bit of that.
Yeah, I mean, it takes it off the table, or at least makes it harder for Republicans to use if he establishes kind of early in the campaign that what freedom means is the right to vote and things like that, like, you know, then Republicans can't, you know, it's harder for them to kind of pop up and be like, you know,
freedom to do our own things because then people will will think if they've been kind of properly acclimated by a consistent biden message to be like oh and ron desantis mentions freedom like what about like his anti-lgbt you know bills and banning books and things like that and disney
Actually, okay, so I just pulled up a poll. Try Googling freedom poll in America and this is what you get. And it is actually valuable. So PRRI conducted a poll back in 2021 about what it means to be
American, what it means to be, quote unquote, truly American, as they ask it. And believing in individual freedom, such as freedom of speech, is the highest rated thing. 95% of Americans say so. There is virtually no divide between Democrats and Republicans. And then the second highest is believing every citizen should be able to vote in elections. That's 93% of Americans say that. For a lot of other things like
believing in God or being born in America or speaking English or believing in capitalism, you see a divide amongst the public. But on things like individual freedom and voting in elections, there's no divide. There's overwhelming support. So I guess maybe from a from I don't I'm not sure if the Biden campaign has seen this poll. All they would have had to do is Google Freedom Poll America. But hard research. Yeah, exactly.
But although, Galen, I mean, to Jeffrey's point, I did a similar deep Google dive in the past 30 seconds and found a Morning Consult poll from July 2021 that asked Democrats and Republicans to talk about their parties in open-ended terms. And the Morning Consult says that Republicans were more likely to use or most likely to use some kind of, they say, iteration of the word fraud.
freedom, and the larger share of Democrats talked about people. So I think what Jeff is saying about sort of trying to take this word that has become more associated with the way that people think about the Republican brand, maybe, and seeing what's been happening with abortion rights and LGBTQ rights and everything else, and trying to kind of take that
back and also make an appeal to people who are, who are even, you know, who are more to the right, but are skeptical of what the GOP has been doing on something like abortion, which, you know, is a, is a not huge, but also not insignificant group of people. I think that could, that could also be what, what he's doing, sort of taking this word that does tend to appeal more to Republicans, but then trying to use it for his own ends. Yeah.
Okay, so looking beyond the actual messaging, and we will learn more about the kind of campaign that Biden intends to run with as things progress. But looking back to 2020, Biden referred to himself as a bridge to the next generation and even appeared to leak the possibility that he would only serve for one term. He's, of course, 80 years old and would be 86 at the end of a second term. So, you know, why run for reelection, to put it bluntly?
Because he has wanted to be president his entire life and he is finally there and virtually no president voluntarily does not seek reelection. Didn't say how long a bridge he was. You know, you could say he was a four year bridge, could have been an eight year bridge to the next generation. Yeah.
Yeah, I think to Nathaniel's point, the last time an elected president didn't seek re-election after just one term was Rutherford Hayes, who was elected in the very controversial 1876 election and did not run again in 1880. So if you get elected to your first term, you almost always go for the second term. And I think with Biden's situation, knowing that his approval is not
It's in the low 40s, but he also remains fairly well liked by his party. And there is very much the...
the obvious possibility that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee and Biden defeated him in 2020. And I have long thought that if it seemed like Trump, there was a good chance that Trump could be the Republican nominee, that that would make Biden more likely to run because he may view Trump as easier to defeat than some fresh face, for instance. And he also may view Trump as an especially dangerous opponent, you know, in the sense of he wants to keep Trump from coming back kind of thing.
Well, and I think there's also an argument that he could make that this is what's best for the Democratic Party right now. I mean, you know, he has an incumbency advantage. If Trump, if he's going to be running against Trump again, if Trump's the nominee, he's beaten Trump before. And we all saw what happened with the Democratic primary in 2020. One of the things, you know, I'm sure we'll talk about how Democratic voters are not especially hot
on Biden running again. But one of the issues there is that there just isn't an obvious successor to Biden. And so you could imagine an even messier primary happening if Biden decided not to run that could really divide the party and put Democrats in a weak position going into the 2024 election. So he may be seeing this as a
you know, an area where he's coming in with some advantages. And, you know, they just want to use this as an opportunity to kind of get past Trump once and for all. And then the party can have its reckoning on who that new generation of leaders is going to be in 2028.
So from a nuts and bolts perspective, based on what you said, what is the incumbency advantage for a sitting president? I think the numbers are like we've had 45 presidents before Biden and 11 have failed to win reelection when they campaigned or chose to run for reelection. But what exactly is it that makes it easier to win reelection as a president? And has that changed at all in recent years?
Well, Trump was the first, I guess, incumbent president to lose since 1992, right? George H.W. Bush. So, you know, I have a thought that like being an incumbent, there is an advantage in the sense that usually your party, at least in our more polarized age, usually your party is pretty much lined up behind you. And
You tend to benefit from anything that positive that's going on. Obviously, anything negative that's going on could affect you too. I mean George H.W. Bush lost perhaps in part because of a recession, as did Jimmy Carter. As the Fed was raising rates. Yes. And so obviously you're going to own whatever it is. But at this point in time, this early on, you can't really know how that's going to shake out.
It does seem historically that the American people have tended to more often not side with the incumbent.
Yeah. Amelia, you mentioned Biden standing with the Democratic Party as a potential hurdle that he has to overcome. In a recent NBC poll, 70% of Americans said they didn't want Biden to run for reelection. 51% of Democrats said so. And of that larger 70 number, half of those who said Biden shouldn't run for reelection said a major issue was his age.
So how are we thinking about that as an impediment? Is it the main impediment? Is it like is it as significant as the economy? I am a bit skeptical that Biden's age is it's definitely not as important in my mind as things like the economy, potential scandals, war, you know, things that are, I think, more classically considered important.
big deals and could shape public opinion. I mean, I do think the fact that people are worried about Biden's age is clearly a potential weakness. Let me put it this way. I don't think voters are necessarily going to be like, I can't vote for Biden because he's old. That's not going to be a thing.
But in certain ways, the fact that he is older could affect how voters view him in terms of his competence, in terms of his ability. If you see – I mean I can imagine thinking back to what, September of 2016 and Hillary Clinton had like that pneumonia episode and how that might have caused a downtick in her polling. And like I could imagine an incident on the campaign trail in 2024 with Biden where he shows his age in some way and that leads –
uh, to people wondering about his capacity to be present. Like it's not necessarily that unlikely. I also think this is an area where we shouldn't necessarily take voters at their word in terms of, you know, they saying they don't, they wouldn't vote for Biden because he's too old or he's too old to be president or something like that. In fact, by, you know, I, Galen in the, you mentioned the 51% of Democrats who feel that way, like they're like, that's good for Biden because like,
Democrats probably are sitting there being like, well, I wish, you know, there was some, you know, young, obvious successor to Joe Biden sitting there and we can make that transition right now and it would be, you know, nice and clean. But like there isn't. And like these people are not going to not vote for Biden in the general election against a candidate they probably despise in either Trump or DeSantis because they're worried about his age.
By the same token, a bunch of Republicans think that Biden, say they think Biden's too old to be president, but that's not really the reason they're not voting for him, right? It's because he's a Democrat and they're Republican. So like, you know, it boils down to, I think the fact that like,
Will you maybe be able to find a voter in a diner in Wisconsin in 2024 who says, you know, yeah, Biden's too old, so I'm not voting for him? Sure. Is that actually the reason that he will lose if he actually loses? I am skeptical like Jeffrey. Well, I think it's tricky, right? It matters what the choice is. So if it's like Biden versus Trump, then the age challenge is disempowered somewhat. But if it's Biden versus Trump,
not saying this will happen, but like Nikki Haley or DeSantis or Tim Scott or what have you, then like, right. And Ron DeSantis also from an image perspective, he's young. He has a young family. He has young kids. I mean, I would have to think, I mean, you kind of made fun of the idea of the independent voter in Wisconsin who like won't vote for Biden because he's too old. But you have to think in an environment where he's running against somebody who's young, it matters a lot more. Well, but
Well, but then there's also the question of whether, I mean, like, can Biden somehow turn his age to an advantage in that situation? You know, I mean, I'm sure there were plenty of people, if he were running against DeSantis, who would say, yeah, Biden looks really, really old. And, you know, DeSantis is the new generation. But on the other hand, Biden has an opportunity to point to DeSantis and be like, this guy is...
is totally new to national politics. What experience does he have? Look how young he is. I've been in American politics for as long as basically any of you can remember. And do you really want to turn over the wheel to this whippersnapper? And that's an argument that might resonate with some people. I also think sort of in that context that if you wanted to connect
sort of things that DeSantis has been helping lead and accomplish with the Republican controlled legislature in Florida. You know, if Biden wants to talk about being like a steady hand and then cast DeSantis as this young, like right winger who wants to completely, you know, overturn everything in the country. And, you know, people generally do like stability that sort of connecting it to his like
It's maybe tangential, but you could connect his youth and he's this upstart from Florida who has led this right-wing charge in Florida and he wants to do that to the whole country and when what you need is a steady, experienced hand like mine. I could see that contrast being something. It's funny. Ronald Reagan had a very famous, amusing debate line in 1984 because he was actually the last president to really face serious questions about age and potential capacity to do the job.
where he very amusingly said to Walter Mondale, who wasn't young, by the way. He was like in his mid-50s. He's like, I'm not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience. So I could imagine like Biden trying to also –
Kind of make fun, be a little bit, you know, self-deprecating about it. Like it's a, it's an elephant in the room. You got to, you know, acknowledge it. Well, we don't cover the White House correspondence dinner on this podcast, but he did try to make those jokes at, you know, during his quote unquote standup routine.
Well, but I do think, though, you know, he's got to be aware that all of these questions are putting a bigger burden on him to seem vigorous when he's out on the campaign trail, to not like seem like he's in his 80s, to not seem like, you know, he's going to be super old and have health problems when he gets into the White House. And, you know, I think it does just create kind of an aura of risk for
that wouldn't necessarily be there for a younger person. So it's totally possible that this doesn't end up being an issue for Biden, but I think it's just...
It's just something that his campaign is going to have to be aware of and thinking about and guarding against. And also there's just an element of, you know, like bodies are fragile and aging is hard and you don't know what's going to happen, especially when you're going through something as physically grueling as a presidential campaign, which is going to happen in person, by the way, at this time, which is not really what happened in 2020. Yeah.
When we were in the middle of a pandemic and kind of big in-person events were not possible. So we'll have to see how that goes for him. But I think it just adds a kind of texture of unpredictability to all of this.
A Fox News Democratic primary poll released last week showed Biden at 62% support compared with 19% support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and 9% support for Marianne Williamson. So that's only one poll, but this poll definitely caught folks' attention. Nathaniel, what should we make of those numbers and also of the broader risk to Biden of facing
either a serious challenger, you know, in terms of actually losing the nomination, or at least a challenger who can really distract from Biden's clear attempt to really only focus on the general election and not an actual primary campaign.
I mean, I think the chances are basically nil. We've talked on the podcast before that because there is this kind of, oh, I wish he wouldn't run sentiment among many Democrats, that theoretically, if some large party figure wanted to challenge him, he could be vulnerable. But he seems to have the elite part of the party really locked down when he announced his campaign of
bunch of people came in, a bunch of Democrats came in and endorsed him. The risk that a serious primary challenger will emerge is basically non-existent. And I think at that point,
You know, I don't think anybody's going to make be making much hay about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Marianne Williamson. First of all, the Kennedy polls are, I think, very much inflated because a lot of Democrats see the Kennedy name and think, ooh, a Kennedy. And they don't know about his, you know, anti vaccine views, for example.
And so I don't think he's going to get that much support in real life. But also, like, incumbent presidents face, like, primary challenges from people you've never heard of all the time. Like, did you know that in 2012, Barack Obama only got 57% of the vote in the Oklahoma Democratic primary? He only got 76% in the Louisiana primary. Like, we don't remark upon these things because, you know, those were protest votes in conservative states. And that's going to happen from time to time. But it's not...
actually something that Biden or Obama in 2012 actually paid any attention to that it but distracted him in any way as you as you put it from the general election message
Well, OK, but so you said that RFK Jr.'s polls might be inflated because of his name, but that's still that's still a thing, right? Like, is Biden going to have to take time and energy to, like, run against RFK Jr. in the sense of saying, you know, he's an anti-vaxxer or whatever? Like, is he just going to ignore that 20 percent? Is that 20 percent anomaly? Yeah, you're just ignoring. No, it's neither an anomaly, nor is it anything he has to worry about. Interesting.
Yeah, I don't... If you're winning like 60% of the vote in every state primary, why would you even bother? I don't see... And 60 is on the low end. I would be pretty surprised if the Biden campaign directly addressed RFK Jr. That seems just... It would just be... The fact that Kennedy is not going to actually pose a threat to his nomination and maybe New Hampshire because... Actually...
We can get into this in a second, but it's it would just be kind of a waste of resources. Right. I mean, that's that's the other thing. And it probably it could be also a Streisand effect situation where you give it even more attention than it would otherwise have. It's like, oh, the Biden campaign responding to RFK Jr. Instead of just being like, yeah, there's this guy who's like an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory guy who has the last name Kennedy, who, you know, is is running against me. So I'm just not going to bother.
Now, I will say that there is kind of a potentially tricky situation that is building up in New Hampshire because if the New Hampshire Democrats choose to not obey party rules regarding the scheduling of the state's primary and they go along with what the state actually does timing-wise and goes ahead of South Carolina, Biden probably will not be on the ballot in that situation because it would violate party rules to actually file their –
So you could have people who don't, say, care about losing delegates for filing there, like RFK Jr., Marianne Williamson, running in the New Hampshire primary that's getting a lot of media attention. Obviously, the Republican one would be the one that most people are focused on. But at the same time, you would have maybe a situation where Biden wins as a write-in. And that actually kind of reminded me a little bit of 1968 because LBJ –
famously only narrowly won the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic primary, which was part viewed over Eugene McCarthy, who was against the Vietnam war. And that is viewed as one of the reasons why he shortly thereafter said, I will not accept nor seek my, my party's presidential nomination. But he actually won that as a write-in, which is something that people often don't bother to mention during that process. So like I could see Biden winning as a write-in and it being like a three day story. I don't know.
But it's it's I just think it's kind of a weird situation. It's something that we're going to have a larger issue with if the two primary calendars aren't really aligned. Yeah. And with, you know, the media presumably going to be preoccupied covering the Republican primary, like there's just not going to be that much room left to talk about the Democratic primary, especially since it probably is not going to be interesting in 48 out of 50 states. Like I remember in 2012, just in our experience, you know, we
We noted that, you know, Bill Weld was running against Donald Trump, you know, on the Republican side. And, you know, it was vaguely interesting. But at the end of the day and when the results came in, like, you know, the Democratic primary was the interesting one. And obviously, Weld never made a splash. And if he had, then we'd probably be remarking on it. But but yeah, I actually don't know how much of the vote Weld got in Hampshire, but I would guess maybe 20. And that I don't remember there being many media stories about that.
Not even because Trump got, I compiled this earlier, but Trump got 84%. So his opponents didn't even get it.
20. So. All right. So those are your thoughts on the Democratic primary. When it comes to the general election, Alex Samuels looked at the data back in March and found that in an average of polls at the time, Biden did a couple points better than Trump in 2024 polling and was about tied with Ron DeSantis. And there were still a lot, a lot of undecided voters in both scenarios.
I mean, can we say anything more specific about Biden's odds of reelection at this point than, you know, what that data shows us, which is basically a close race either way and maybe a slight advantage over Trump?
Not really. You know, I think the smart money is we're in an extremely polarized time where the two parties are about at equal strength, at least certainly when accounting for the electoral college. And so I think and people, you know,
despite all of us talking about the strengths of different candidates and how much x issue the economy and age and stuff will matter the vast vast majority of voters are just going to file into their partisan camps and things are going to look pretty darn similar to the last several presidential elections that we have had so at this point i think it's going to be i would personally call it a toss-up either way i would probably
say, based on Trump's poor electoral track record in the past, that he would have a slightly worse chance than than DeSantis would. But I would call both races a toss up.
And I mean, we have to see how the Republican primary goes. You know, everyone's talking about DeSantis, but he's unproven. We need to see what he actually does when he's out campaigning and trying to convince people to vote for him at a national level. And then there are the questions we were just talking about, about Biden's age, you know, the consequences.
is a huge question mark. Like if the Biden administration does manage to get inflation under control and if we do have, you know, even if we have a bumpy landing, but we have a recession and then the economy is actually improving a year from now, you know, that's going to look like a very different situation for Biden than if we're
the inflation is not under control or we end up in a much worse recession than some economists are predicting and you know let's say that you know we are in a worst case scenario where inflation is not under control but also unemployment is going up and then that's really bad for biden so i think there are just so many unknowns at this point um you know we know it's going to be close but a lot depends on just what the national environment looks like a year from now and i
would not put money on that for anything because it could look completely different depending on what happens. All right, let's move on and talk about the redistricting decision in North Carolina last week.
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.
On Friday, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned its decision from just last year that the state constitution bans partisan gerrymandering. It clears the way for Republican lawmakers in the state to redraw the congressional map. As I mentioned, it's currently a 7-7 split between Republicans and Democrats. They could probably reduce the Democratic seats down to three or even two if they were very ambitious in the redistricting process.
maybe four Democratic seats if they were less ambitious. Essentially, the argument from the state court was similar to arguments from the U.S. Supreme Court that the judicial system does not have the power to weigh in on issues of redistricting.
The swift reversal of opinion between last year and this year came after conservative justices won a majority on the court in the 2022 midterms, flipping it from a 4-3 majority for liberals to a 5-2 majority for conservatives.
So I mentioned the sort of nuts and bolts effect of this ruling in terms of a Republican led legislature being able to redraw the maps. What effect does this ruling have on the overall composition of the House? What does it mean for, you know, while we're on the topic of the 2024 election, the 2024 election, Nathaniel?
Yeah, I mean, kind of like you mentioned, I think you can assume that Republicans start with a net gain of three House seats in the next House elections basically automatically as a result of this. Obviously, we haven't seen a new map yet, but I think doing a ten four Republican split is basically the minimum.
that we can expect. And as you mentioned, it might be more than that. So obviously, you know, the House is extremely close right now. I think everybody expects it to be another closely fought race in 2024. And so you could see a scenario where maybe Democrats make a few gains and under the current maps would have won back the House, but maybe as a result of this,
You know, it goes back to Republicans somehow, perhaps by an even narrower margin than they currently have, which is difficult to imagine, but possible.
Although this isn't the only state map that is being reconsidered or could potentially change between now and the 2024 midterms. I mean, we're out. And like, in fact, we're not only necessarily seeing it in states where Republicans could gain seat. It looks like we're seeing it in Democratic states as well. What does the landscape look like there? Yeah.
Yeah, that's a great point. You know, New York has also made some noise about redrawing its congressional map. And, you know, that could be worth a couple of seats to Democrats as well. That's, I think, a much more fluid process right now. You also have decisions pending before the Supreme Court over Alabama's and Louisiana's maps and
regarding whether they need to add another, um, Voting Rights Act protected, um, district for, uh, for Black voters, which of course would, would go for Democrats. And then, uh, South Carolina also currently is under a court order to redraw its first congressional district, um, which would make things better for Democrats probably, but, um,
Maybe not enough to to make the seat genuinely. Well, it could be it would be competitive probably. But I think ultimately they can find a way to draw it in a way that Republicans would still win it most of the time. And there's still a chance that that that court order might get overturned.
And oh, and Ohio is also supposed to to redraw its maps. But Republicans actually took while they already had a majority on the Ohio Supreme Court. But a moderate Republican judge who voted against the the the gerrymandered maps is now off the court. And so it's more likely that the next Ohio map will be able to pass muster with a more conservative Supreme Court there.
Yeah. And also, you know, we just had obviously the Supreme Court election in Wisconsin. And there is the possibility that we know actually that that opponents of the current congressional map, which is, you know, pretty favorable to Republicans, intend on trying to bring this, you know, bring a case or addition case before the state Supreme Court eventually. And since liberals now control the state Supreme Court, it is possible that they will
join what North Carolina had previously before this recent ruling and say that the state constitution does not permit partisan gerrymandering, for instance, and you'll see a new map there. So yeah, to Nathaniel's point, there are a lot of states where we could see mid-cycle redistricting. Welcome to the perpetual redistricting cycle.
And it goes, interestingly, both ways, which is people going to the courts saying, hey, this map is gerrymandered. We need something less partisan and one party gaining seats that way. And then the other way it goes is this way, which is Republicans challenge the map in North Carolina, get the state Supreme Court to say, no, you're allowed to gerrymander and then go ahead and gerrymander. And also, that's the same thing that's happening in New York, which was the court previously said, Democrats, you can't gerrymander. And the
The map was very competitive in 2022. As a result, Republicans won a lot of seats that they probably otherwise wouldn't. And now Democrats are saying, okay, well, screw this. We want a gerrymander. You know, we've been covering redistricting on this podcast for a very long time. And there are basically three ways that you can change the redistricting process.
Or once upon a time, there were three ways that you could change the redistricting process. The first was the U.S. Supreme Court. That has been nixed. Supreme Court not weighing in on partisan gerrymandering nationally. The other way is in state courts, which is this North Carolina issue that we're talking about. And the other way is through changing state laws in the legislature or through referenda, etc.,
So I want to talk for a second about the state court one. How common is it that state courts have interpreted state constitutions to mean that partisan gerrymandering is outlawed? And like, how are they doing it? Are there actual state constitutions that say no partisan gerrymandering? What's going on here? So Democracy Docket, which I should say is definitely a left-leaning organization, sort of put together a list of where the state Supreme Court has been involved in sort of laying out either a sort of an explicit argument
like explicit ruling against partisan gerrymandering or in cases where like this something like a constitutional amendment was added to the state's constitution to say that partisan gerrymandering wasn't permitted. So you have Alaska just recently actually their state Supreme Court ruled against parts like basically said that the constitution of the state outlawed
outlawed partisan gerrymandering. For congressional purposes, that doesn't really matter for us because Alaska has one seat. But obviously for, say, their state legislature, that could be very important. North Carolina just abandoned this. And then Pennsylvania ruled against partisan gerrymandering as well. And then Florida, New York, and Ohio have –
state constitutional provisions that their courts have ruled on. However, as we've seen with Florida and now we'll probably see with Ohio, that doesn't necessarily mean that you haven't ended up with a congressional map that is very favorable for one party just because of choices that were made later in terms of appeals to say the Florida Supreme Court regarding the current congressional map. They said, yeah,
We're not going to get our hands dirty. So sort of the impact of these rulings and decisions is sort of up in the air and depends on the makeup of the court.
Well, and it also depends on what state constitutions say. And this was something that we knew when the Supreme Court kind of, you know, washed its hands of the issue and said kind of like the states, this is your problem, that some state constitutions explicitly have more voting rights protections than the U.S. Constitution does. So I think even before this was not an issue that, you know, before this got taken out of the scope of the federal courts by the Supreme Court, some advocates...
were seeing this as, you know, an area where state constitutions offered more protections. And so maybe it was actually a better strategy to go through state courts than to go through the federal courts if your goal was to try to end or kind of quell partisan gerrymandering. So...
That's another element. And obviously not every state's constitution is the same. And some state constitutions are written in ways that are more friendly to people who want to attack partisan gerrymandering. So that's an issue here, too.
This all seems very fickle, at least in terms of how to pursue a partisan gerrymandering ban through the courts, right? Like just last winter, the North Carolina Supreme Court said that the state constitution bans it. And now this spring, they're saying that it actually has nothing to say on the matter.
So is that outside of the norm, Amelia, that a court would break precedent almost within a year of creating that precedent? Or are things on the state court level just more fickle in general because they have partisan elections?
I mean, I think there's just been a lot more attention in the past few years to the power that state Supreme Courts have. So this is certainly not the only example that I can think of. I mean, a really prominent one is that for a few years, there was an Iowa State Supreme Court ruling that said that abortion was covered under the state constitution. And then the makeup of the Iowa Supreme Court changed. And last year, they ruled that nope,
Actually, abortion is not covered under the Iowa State Constitution. And they actually addressed the issue of precedent. And they basically said, you know, this is a new precedent and we're not especially not obligated to follow precedents that are so new and are part of this kind of shifting political landscape.
And certainly, you know, in the Wisconsin state Supreme Court election that we just had, there was a very, very explicit acknowledgement of what that election meant for key political issues in the state going forward. So, you know, this has kind of always been a
thing with state Supreme courts, you know, whether the state Supreme court justices are appointed by governors or by legislatures or whether they're elected, they're much more explicitly political bodies than the federal courts are. And so I think there's always been this kind of tinge of, you know, if the state Supreme court decides something, then you can vote those people out or you, you know, there can be like campaigns against them. Like there were again in Iowa, um,
with same-sex marriage years and years ago. But I think with more attention to the power that state Supreme Courts have, with more of these questions like on abortion or redistricting ending up in state courts, and just with more money going into these races, I think we could see even more situations where, you know, one court says the state constitution says this,
And then there is political organizing against the people on that court and the composition of the court changes and the court says something different. I think that's absolutely something that we could see more of in the years to come. Almost its own mini legislature. So I should say there's another issue at play here that pertains to this North Carolina case.
And it's the independent state legislature theory, which has made its way through the federal courts, but pertains to the power of the North Carolina legislature to draw congressional maps.
Amelia, can you lay that out for us a little bit and sort of how this ruling does or doesn't affect, you know, the independent state legislature theory's future at the Supreme Court? So we don't know at this point, but the background is that there is a Supreme Court case that was argued earlier this term that has to do with the earlier iteration of the North Carolina Supreme Court ruling. So the ruling that threw out the North Carolina map.
And basically Republican lawmakers came to the Supreme Court and they said, look, the North Carolina state Supreme Court overstepped its bounds when they threw out these maps. And they used what's been called the independent state legislature theory to justify that argument, which is essentially the idea that under the Constitution, state legislatures are the bodies that have the power to regulate
regulate and oversee federal elections and that state courts don't have a place in that and that other people don't either, that this is the legislature's job. This is a theory that was really, really fringe until very recently. It got a lot of traction really quickly. The fact that the Supreme Court took this case at all was a pretty big deal.
But it's possible that now that the North Carolina Supreme Court has gone the other way, the U.S. Supreme Court could essentially back off and say, do something called mooting a case and say that they, you know,
You know, like they shouldn't have granted this case. The legal issues aren't in a position for them to decide. And they're not actually going to render a decision on the independent state legislature theory because the state Supreme Court went the other way. It's not a guarantee they'll do that, but they asked for briefing from the parties themselves.
about what would happen in that situation when the North Carolina Supreme Court, with its new composition, decided to hear this case again and set a hearing for it. So I think that's certainly something that the justices will be contemplating, whether to issue a ruling on the independent state legislature theory questions at all. Of course, it's not hard to imagine, Eve,
even if they choose to moot this particular case brought on those grounds, that you could have a situation where, say, the Wisconsin Supreme Court throws out the current maps in that state for the U.S. House and the Republican-controlled legislature there decides to sue using the same argument. Oh,
Totally. I mean, just because they say this case is moot because this specific dispute is resolved, this is not the last we have heard of the independent state legislature theory. I mean, this is something clearly that some of the U.S. Supreme Court conservative justices are interested in. It's a potentially really powerful vehicle for Republican-controlled state legislatures in particular. So I think it would be, you know, if this case is...
declared moot and we don't get a ruling this term, I think we're postponing inevitably the U.S. Supreme Court weighing in on this. I think it's hard to imagine that the U.S. Supreme Court would back off from this just because of what happened with the North Carolina State Supreme Court, but it might be that we don't get a ruling this term.
Yeah, and just to understand sort of the like scope of this, if they were to establish this – that there is this independent state legislature doctrine, that could have much greater effects beyond just the question of redistricting. We talked about –
state legislatures overruling the popular vote because they are the end-all, be-all force in federal elections, for instance, when you think about the presidential elections and the electoral college and the intellectual votes. So depending on a potential ruling on this issue in the long run, there's a lot of things that this could affect in terms of our political system.
Over the past decade or so, there have been significant efforts from mainly Democrats and good government groups to try to find avenues to outlaw partisan gerrymandering across the country. And there have also been legislative efforts,
referenda, etc. It doesn't seem as though that fight is going very well for people who have pursued those efforts. I've increasingly heard from Democrats who say, you know, like, screw this, we're not going to unilaterally disarm, we should gerrymander. And you particularly see that argument in New York, where the New York State Legislature
passed and made law a basically a ban on partisan gerrymandering and is now saying okay we gotta we gotta go back to the courts and try to ensure that we can gerrymander the state you know another state that democrats control where partisan gerrymandering is banned is california and of course that's a huge number of congressional seats is there more of an effort now to say like
screw this, we're all just going to partisan gerrymander? Because the tides seem to be moving in the direction, of course, while I was reporting out the gerrymandering project way back when, it seems like the tides were turning in favor of trying to set up nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions and root out the extreme partisanship in this process. Can we say at this point that that battle is kind of over? Yeah.
I don't think so. You know, I think in a lot of states, there are still efforts to set up independent redistricting commissions like Ohio. You know, they're looking to, you know, they had a kind of a half-baked redistricting reform that went into effect for this cycle, but they're looking to set up a true independent commission. Now, of course, you know, if
if Democrats were in charge of the state, would they be pushing that ballot measure? Probably not. But I haven't heard any rumblings about repealing California's, for example. Um, I think that, um, New York is really kind of where the, the one democratic state where I have heard, um, those rumblings. But in general, I think that, you know, you had a lot of, of new, um,
commissions in the 2021 redistricting cycle. Michigan is another state, and I think generally those were seen as successful. And I think that effort is continuing in a handful of states. But what about a state like Illinois? I mean, there was a pretty aggressive gerrymander by Democrats there. I mean, I think it also, you know, you follow this more closely than I do, Nathaniel, but has there been a push to try to institute a fairer process in Illinois? Yeah.
From Republicans, yes. No, I mean, right. So in the states where Democrats are already in control, right, they're certainly not disarming. But I don't think, like I haven't heard other than in New York this effort to undo the actual dogma or some process. Right, the reforms that have already been made.
I think it's noteworthy, though, that in a state like Illinois, you know, where Democrats, there haven't been reforms and where Democrats are in control, they just really doubled down. And they were just kind of like, we're just going to draw a map that advantages us. Well, you know, I mean, like, if you were listening to Democrats' rhetoric on this four years ago, it was all about fair maps and it was all about, you know, ensuring that partisan gerrymandering wasn't a thing. And, you know,
you know, that's not, it's, it's not something that all Democrats embraced. Yeah. I don't think that's new though. I think it, yeah, it's pretty much a state to state context. Um, and you know, I think about for instance, Virginia, um,
had, you know, voted for a, what essentially is a bipartisan commission. We should not use the term independent commission. Um, but, uh, that got, was overwhelmingly approved when it before the, went before the voters as a constitutional amendment and then was used in this cycle. Um, and, you know, Colorado also recently did this. Oregon, it sounds like there is a push in Oregon, um,
Maybe to even try to implement an independent redistricting commission there. And these are all sort of light blue states with – where arguably these commissions cost Democrats – or at least in Colorado and Virginia, cost Democrats seats that if they had had full control of the redistricting process, they would have drawn more favorable maps.
So the whole debate on unilaterally disarming, I think that's out there for sure. But I do think that you are still seeing Democrats being more likely to push these commissions than otherwise. So I will say it's possible the Oregon one. I haven't fully investigated this, but it's very possible Republicans are interested in an independent commission in Oregon. And so I think it's always worth remembering that
people are going to push to some extent what they think is going to benefit them the most. And that's just how changing electoral rules or political rules has always been. That's like a well-known thing. Yeah. All right. We have reached the point in the podcast where we're going off script. And I have some questions for you about American high school cliques.
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.
This poll came out a few months ago, but I've had it in my back pocket for a while, waiting for the exact right time to pull it out. And today is that day. So YouGov asked Americans to recall the cliques that existed in their high schools and then also share which cliques they themselves recognized.
were part of. So first, I want to see if you're able to guess how Americans responded. And then we'll ask if there are any conflicts in this data. But what clique do you think Americans most commonly said existed in their high schools? So can I ask first, everyone on the podcast, did you go to public high school or private high school? Because I think that matters a lot. I don't know if you got asked about it, but I went to public school.
Public school. Yeah, public. All right, wow. Good for us. American public education, yeah. Okay, well at least we're all on the same page with that. I think that makes a pretty big difference. I'm just going to also say, I think there's probably a really big generational divide on this. So are you asking about Americans overall? I'm asking Americans overall. What do you think was the most commonly responded click? Click.
I think the popular kids. Not necessarily the one that most Americans were in, but the one that they like. The one that people were mostly, I think popular kids. Jocks. Or jocks. Maybe they're the same. Jeff? I'm trying to think of what general, I mean there's jocks, is that the popular kids, nerds.
I honestly, I don't know. I'll go with jocks. Jeff just mumbles synonyms for nerds. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what. You guys, you know America. You got it. The most commonly recalled clique at 50% saying that it existed in their high school was jocks or athletes. And then at 49% was popular kids.
Nice. This is movies. Like, I don't think this is people's actual memories. This is based on people's pop culture. Wait, you don't think that people actually said, like half of Americans said that there were popular kids in their high school? I think that yes, but...
Half of Americans said that there are popular kids in their high school, but I think that that rises to the top of people's memories of what their high school experience was like because it's reinforced by pop culture. Because in every movie you see about high school, there are going to be jocks, there are going to be popular kids. And like, I don't remember all that much about the social scene from my high school years. I've sort of deliberately tried to move on in my life. Yeah.
From that. So I think that's a big part of it. Not that it's not true, but I think people are not remembering the other aspects of what their high school life was like as much because it's not being reinforced by movies and TV shows and everything else. Okay, so then what do you think was the least recalled, given that argument? Least recalled. That's something extremely niche. I don't know, like the newspaper kids? Oh, that's good.
Yeah, or like computer class. Or like something like computer. No, that's the nerds. No, that's going to be the nerds. It's got to be real. There isn't a clique called computer class or newspaper. Like, think a little more broadly than that. There was totally a newspaper clique at my high school. There was. 100%. Okay, okay, okay. So the least commonly reported was surfers.
5%. That is niche. Then, hold on, then hipsters at 9%. Really? And then emo kids at 12% and goths at 14%, which is why I don't think it's entirely pop culture because emo kids and goths, it's like, if you're gonna have the popular kids and the jocks, you've gotta have the emo kids and the goths. Yeah.
No. That was very generational. No, that's very generational. So people in my parents' generation wouldn't have had hipsters at their high school. That was like not a thing. Or like goth kids. That's like very much of a specific moment. So like get into the crosstabs with this one, Galen. What are the generational divides? Yeah, there are significant generational gaps for emo kids, goths, hipsters less,
significant generational divide. Not much of a generational divide for religious kids, theater kids. What about band kids? The preppy kids, snobs, rich kids. Those are not a big generational divide. You see a little bit of a generational divide in terms of 45 and older more likely to report that there were hippies in their high school, which again makes sense. Rednecks, farmers, not much of a generational divide. Geeks, minors,
More of the 45 and older crowd reported having geeks in their high school than the 18 to 44-year-olds. Nerds, though, was pretty cross-generational. Did they distinguish between geeks and nerds? They did, because this is self-reported. So I think maybe older people are more likely to call them geeks. Younger people are maybe a little more likely to call them nerds. That checks out. What about people who don't belong to cliques?
Were we allowed to choose that?
Yeah. What about the guy from the breakfast club? What's his name? So loners was actually pretty high up there. 36% of Americans said that there were loners as a clique, which I guess is the opposite of a clique, but in their high school. Loners all got together. Only 8% of Americans said their high school did not have groups or cliques. But now we're going to move on to perhaps the more interesting question, which is,
Which group, I've named a lot of them now, did Americans most commonly say they themselves were a part of? I bet it's nerds or geeks because people think that's cool now. Exactly, yeah. I'll go with jocks just because I think there are a lot of people who played sports. Yeah.
Yeah, that's fair, Jeff. Yeah, because a lot of people just do actually play sports. But I don't know if they would identify that way now because that, I think, a lot of it is about pop culture and how you want to remember what kind of high schooler you were. And I think at this particular moment, people are more likely to say that they were like a cool nerd. I think this is like in 30 Rock when Liz Lemon slowly realizes that she was the bully. Mm-hmm.
Oh, yeah. I mean, let's be real. The nerds and the theater kids were brutal. Okay, no. Okay, so. Gailen was both. Yeah, I know. So we have, what's your guess?
Well, these have got to be spelling numbers, right? Geeks or nerds, if I can choose both of them. Oh, are we guessing like what percentage of Americans said they were each of these? Most commonly. No, most commonly reported. No, I think it's nerds or geeks. I'll stick with the geeks just to be different. Okay. All right. The answer is number one most commonly reported click is loners.
I'm not part of a clique, man. Small plurality, I assume. You were catching on to something in some of your analysis here. Okay, so loners at 14%. Thanks, Galen. Band or choir kids...
Band or choir kids at 11%. Popular kids at 10%. Jocks at 10%. Nerds at 10%. And stoners at 10%. Stoners. Stoners. I forgot. Doesn't that cost like a click as much as a way of being? Okay, so that's basically, I mean, that's all within the margin of error anyway. Okay, least commonly reported. Surfers? Surfers. Yeah. Yes. That's an option, yeah. But it's actually not the dead last one. The dead last one is Rich Kids.
That tracks. That does track. So, well, actually, I mean, there's slight variations here, but all tied at 2% are rich kids, surfers, snobs, hipsters, and goths. Goths, okay. Which is a little, I mean, I guess for being such a reportedly small percentage of the American public, they really punched above their weight in terms of cultural significance. Well, they're very distinctive, right? I mean, so...
This is my question. How would you guys have answered this if you had to say what clique you were part of? Because, like, I had a group of friends, but I don't even think we were – I don't think we even registered as a clique. Right.
We just kind of like did our own thing. Yeah, there were definitely like groups that were hard to label because they were just like generic group of like girls or boys or whatever. But I was definitely a nerd. No problems with me. That was actually an option on here. Generic girls, generic boys. Okay, yeah. But I don't know if I would have said I was generic. I was just like a sort of like, I was just a specific kind of nerd.
nerd with my own friends. I think then you probably would have said nerd. No? I don't know. That's not how I thought. I guess I would have said maybe I was a creative writing kid. Is that super hateful? Okay, artsy kids? Yes. 6% of Americans said they were artsy kids. I don't think I was cool enough to be artsy. I really don't. I wouldn't have said I was artsy. I was not cool enough to be artsy. What about overachievers? 7% of Americans said they were overachievers. I would take that. We found it. We found it. Nathaniel and I are just like finished.
I think actually the issue here is that self-identification on this is not going to work. It's how other people view you. Yeah. That's very smart. Like self-awareness to sort of know exactly where you felt. Like for one thing –
In my experience, at least a lot of these things had huge overlap, like different groups, like, you know, draw like a ton of circles for Venn diagram. Right. Where, where there's just a lot of overlap across these groups. And then like trying to self-identify myself would be like, I find very hard. Like I was involved in a number of different things, um,
So maybe I could have been categorized by some people a certain way. Like, you know, it'd be more interesting, I think, to actually hear what other people thought. So I'm going to call everyone you went to high school with, Jeff. The real way to determine this is what was your class superlative senior year? That's how the school viewed you, no? I don't know. We didn't do those. You didn't do those? Wait, you don't remember or you're not going to say? No, I'd say I bleed the piss out of you.
Oh my god, Amelia, what was it? It's embarrassing. Well, mine's embarrassing too. I'll share mine if you show yours. No, you show yours first. No. I had two. I think you did the same time. You had two? Oh, okay. So Galen should share one of his. I'll share one of mine. And then Galen goes the second one. I'm out of order. Okay, one of them was Best Dancer. Oh, that's much better than mine.
Mine was most likely to succeed. Okay, so wait, and you had difficulty categorizing yourself? I just didn't... Just what I should have categorized myself as hateful. Wait, did anyone else have superlatives? No. I seem to vaguely remember that we may have had them, and I just cannot... Clearly, if we did, that didn't make much of an impact, so I don't remember.
I was on the yearbook staff, so I was like... So it was rigged. It was rigged, yeah, exactly. Yeah, if you want me to rig an election, I've already done it. So come here. No, I'm joking. I swear I did not rig my high school superlatives. That would be truly, truly humiliating. But that's why I remember, because I then had to put it all into a spread. God, this is really embarrassing stuff.
I'm just gonna stop talking. Galen, what was your second? My second was most likely to be arrested. Galen, you were so much more fun than me in high school. Nice, nice.
And with that, folks, we are going to end the podcast. Thank you so much, Amelia, Nathaniel, and Jeff. Thank you, Galen. Awesome. Thank you, Galen. Thanks for putting it all on that. My name is Galen Druk. Tony Chow is in the control room and also on video editing. You can get in touch by emailing us at podcast.538.com. You can also, of course, tweet at 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 tell someone about us.
Thanks for listening, and we will see you soon.
