Pivot - "Free Speech Warriors," EU's AI Act, and Guest Dan Pfeiffer

Episode Date: December 12, 2023

Kara and Scott discuss Tucker Carlson's new streaming service, Elon letting Alex Jones back on X, and whether the criticism of Google's Gemini demo video is warranted. Then, UPenn's president resigns after that Congressional testimony last week, will the other presidents follow? Plus, the EU moves forward with its landmark AI Act. Finally, our Friend of Pivot is "Pod Save America" co-host and "Pollercoaster" host, Dan Pfeiffer. Dan gives us insight into the latest election poll numbers and shares some advice for Biden and the Democrats. Follow Dan on X at @danpfeiffer. Follow us on Instagram and Threads at @pivotpodcastofficial. Follow us on TikTok at @pivotpodcast. Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or at nymag.com/pivot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic. Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey. Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in. On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working. Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast.

Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

And Scott, you better tread carefully. It's my birthday today. Really? Yes, of course. Wow. Happy birthday. Thank you. Thank you. Well, Kara, in honor of your birthday, I have a great stat that I think you're going to love. Do you realize, and this is true, in Japan last year that more adult diapers were sold than baby diapers? It's coming. It's coming. Yeah, you'll need them. I won't need them. I'll be taking care of you. I like the idea of that. I'll be putting them on you. I need it.

I am not easy. I just got a visual. It's okay. Walt Mossberg took me out to lunch. Yeah? I guess your former business partner, right? Your ex? How was Walt?

He's great. We went to a lovely Jewish deli called Atman's near his house in Potomac, and it was fun. We had a great time. Oh, that's nice. He's really doing great. Yes, yes. And what else were you doing for your birthday? Oh, I had a big dinner party on Saturday with a bunch of friends. Oh, really? Just, I assume, very close friends. Yes, only close friends.

It's funny I did not hear about that. I would invite you, but you never show up when I invite you. It was, it's this thing called movable feasts that I like this, this dinner preparation thing from cool restaurants across the globe. And it was, we had a good time. And then for the day yesterday, Amanda, this was the present I wanted. I got to be left alone all day so I could clean the basement, which is one of my pleasures cleaning the basement.

That's exciting. I did. I was so happy. I organized things. We're doing some renovations, so I want to get everything in place. It is my happiest place is to sit around and clean. And so she gave me that as a gift. And today, we'll have cake and stuff today.

My happiest place is to sit around watching other people clean my shit and yell at them. Is that wrong? I'm a really good, it's not wrong. Is that wrong? I'm a good cleaner. I like it. It calms me down. It's my quiet moment and I just sit there and think and it's good.

It's good. So that's what I did. When I first moved to New York, I bought this big fat loft and I didn't know anybody and I used to get really high and clean it and finally I'm like, oh my God, I've become so pathetic. Oh, wow. See, you like it. like it it does it's coming it's coming to I agree it's kind of fighting the inevitable which is death right like it's not gonna be here I I think about it a lot when I'm cleaning I think oh look this will be here long after I'm gone prostitutes and fast cars has a similar effect for me as you cleaning. I think cleaning is less expensive.

That's what you do for your birthday? I will be, you know, I, of course, do know when your birthday is and I will be there for it. But in any case, it's a nice day. It's so nice. I got lots of nice greetings from lots of different people. That's nice. Which was nice. I'm happy for you. Happy birthday. Except for you. Anyway, what did you do? I cleaned. What did you do? How was this weekend? I've been feeling kind of down. I don't know if it's the weather or everything that's going on, but I didn't do a lot this weekend. We watched the Tottenham game. I spent time with, oh, what was my favorite thing? We went to the Harrods Food Court, ranked as the third best food court in the world. Oh, I love that place. You like that place. You went with

your son, right? Yeah, we went with both sons this weekend. That was a ton of fun. And by the way, just an observation on the economy, Harrods, which is, I would argue, not great value for money, or I guess you could argue it is good value, it's just expensive. It was a fire hazard in there. You couldn't move. It was so crowded. Yeah. It's so pretty in there. They have all that stuff all packaged up. London is booming, Carol. I don't know what it's like in D.C., but people can't seem to spend enough money. Booming. Everybody's out and about.

Everywhere I go. You know, I told you, I was at Hudson Yards, it was booming. It was like, which was usually, you know, a ghost town. But it just seems like people are out and about. You're right. They're out and about. So, you didn't spend the weekend listening to Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, Alex Jones, and Vivek Ramaswamy peeing? You didn't do that?

I don't know. You're actually, I think, pretty good. I've noticed. So compartmentalizing. I think you're actually pretty good at compartmentalizing. When I see you, I find you always able to laugh, focus on business, the issue at hand. you're always able to laugh, focus on business, the issue at hand. The only time I've ever seen other or something else start to kind of really seep into your mood is actually a few times on Twitter. I've noticed that sometimes when you get attacked on Twitter, it does rattle you a bit.

I don't know if you feel this way, but from zero to, I'll call it 30, I wasn't concerned enough about anything. I was sleepwalking through life. I almost got kicked out call it 30, I wasn't concerned enough about anything. I was sleepwalking through life. I almost got kicked out of UCLA. My career wasn't going that well at a certain point. I didn't care. I was totally impervious and not worried about anything, not worried enough. From 30 to 40, I think I was worried just the right amount.

And from 40 on, I started embracing the teachings of Stoicism, but lost the ability to practice them. And I'm worried about everything. And between COVID, Trump, Israel, Ukraine, I'm a chocolate mess about stuff that I never thought of, things I have no control over. Here's the two things that get me annoyed. And I said this on threads. What happened is, for some reason, I made $1,905.75 on Twitter for some reason, which was interesting, because I was just trying it out. I still don't understand how it works. It's so confusing. hook parents, because Elon let Alex Jones back on them. Even though he said he would never do so, he did it, of course, because he's in consistent chode. And so I gave the money to that. And I just thought, and so I just said it, I was like, this is what I'm going to do with it. And every time I make money here, I'm going to give it to a trans group or just like, let's do something

positive out of this terrible place. And I have to be on Twitter, I've got to see what's going on there. I've got to watch it, if I'm covering it et cetera. And all of a sudden out of the woodwork, a lot of people are like, good job, good idea. Make lemonade from lemons, et cetera. Lecturing me on how I should conduct my social media and what I should get off to be a leader. And I was like, it's none of your, one of the things that drives me crazy about, and it's mostly liberal people, is this is how you should do it. And I was like, it's none of your fucking business how I should do it. And by the way, I spend more time fighting ignorance and cruelty than you ever do. And I don't really want to be told how I'm doing my job, right? Exactly. And I think it's important to be there. So that really irks me. Lecture dads

on both all the social media platforms, I think it's hysterical to let Alex Jones, you know, say all kinds of falsehoods. They think it's fine. And I don't think it's fine. I think you can say it, but I do think it's indecent to say it, to let that happen. And so I'm going to say that, and I think it's appropriate. And I think it's a good thing to get bent out of shape about at my advanced age. I like the fact that you're kind of unafraid and back in people's faces. I personally, I agree with the people who say you should get off of Twitter. Not because you don't have the right to be on it. Not because it doesn't make sense. I have found that selling my Tesla, I generally find I can't escape this guy and it bothers me.

I generally find I can't escape this guy, and it bothers me. Yeah, it does. And when he decides, and this goes to our story, when he decides to put someone, Alex Jones, back on the platform on the anniversary of Sandy Hook, that is nothing to me but an affront to parents who have experienced the unthinkable. And I think, and I start thinking, why would he do that? I can't even imagine. I sort of occasionally understand why Trump does something. But it's not only a terrible person. The definition of stupid is something that's bad for others and bad for you. This will be bad for him. This does not have any upside for him. I agree. He's occupying too much of your mind space. It is sort of my job to cover him. So I'm going to be there, and I'm going to watch it, and I'm going to say something,

and that's all. By the way, I don't sit around getting angry all day either. I just do it. I get in, I get out. I'm like an assassin, essentially. That's what I do. I shoot. I take a shot, I leave. Speaking of really loathsome people, Tucker Carlson is launching a streaming service expected to go live as we tape Monday. Interestingly, he's doing it from his website, although he's going to continue to put free content on X, but he was all tight with that. But I think he's understood where the real money is, which is not to Elon Musk. Tucker Carlson Network will host at least five different shows, including interviews, short-form videos, and monologues. He announced it on Megyn Kelly's show. It's what she did, too. The subscriptions will cost $9 a month or $72 a year. That's a pretty good price. He'll probably do very well.

He's still under contract with Fox. I don't know what's going on. I think it'll take a lot for them to sue him, but they might have to. You know, this actually was the right way to do it on his own, where he controls the situation. We'll see how he does. Glenn Beck does okay. Megyn Kelly does well, I think. You know, Ben Shapiro's got his own. This is all in the right-wing universe, essentially.

Ben Shapiro's got his own little media company. I mean, it's the right way to do it. You know, he got some, I think he got some funding. I forget, $10 million,, 12 million, something like that. I see this as almost like when football players become commentators. And that is, nothing's going to create the economic value or the stardom of when Troy Eckman had, you know, 45 incredible players surrounding him and trainers and front office and marketers and fans. him and trainers and front office and marketers and fans, that when they go solo, they're usually—I just see this everywhere, Cara. I have so many friends who, for example, worked at Goldman Sachs and were big ballers there, and they leave Goldman and think that they're going to start a huge

investment bank or get invited to do deals, and without the Goldman card, they find out people just aren't as apt to call them back. And I think Megan is a bit of an exception. You name the people who have done the best job of getting... I don't know their finances. I bet they do. I do know a couple of people on Substack and not just right-wing people. Some have done well, some haven't. And that's what this is. Well, we know their economics. We're kind of in that business ourselves, but we came at it, we didn't leave a platform to do it. You know, these folks will, they will make, I know what they'll do. First off, this network, if he's smart, he won't spend a lot of money on it because he won't get anything back. But Fox is a juggernaut of production values, smart people, ad sales people.

You know, the non-famous people are outstanding. I think Neil Cavuto is outstanding. You know, these people, they do a really good job. And they have people researching in focus groups. And Tucker is a big brand. But all of almost, I think, you know, Chris Cuomo is an enormous talent. The people I met with at CNN all described Chris the same way, whether they felt good or bad about the way he left. They all said, this guy, the teleprompter could go out and he could carry a 30-minute show and make it hugely entertaining on his own.

And striking and smart and strikes the right balance. on his own, and striking and smart and strikes the right balance. Most of these folks, when they leave the platform, the McLean-Stevenson leaving MASH or Shelley Long leaving Cheers to go be movie stars, and that is they do The Money Pit with Tom Hanks, and then they show up 20 years later in a cameo on Modern Family. They just, they underestimate the power of the platform. It depends on, I agree with you. I agree. Most don't make it i the i think one of the things that say here i am complimenting ben shapiro but i think he's creating a larger media organization where he has lots of offerings right and so if carlson is smart here he's he's hosting five different shows including interviews short form but if it's all tucker that'll be a problem right

because first of all he doesn't go that far. So if it becomes a business, I could see it because it's got to- Need other voices. There's not really- Need other voices. Yeah. Yeah. Need other voices. I'd even put a liberal on there. Other products, newsletters, events. Yeah. But it's still hard. It's still incredibly hard. And it's actually, the right-wing side is super fucking noisy over there. And I mean that there's too many people. You know, you got Tucker's thing, you got Megyn Kelly's thing, you've got Ben Shapiro's stuff, you've got Dan Bongino.

There's a lot over there. It's super noisy. And so I think that's one of the problems. So how is he going to break through as creating a real media company? And I honestly, I'll be honest with you, I think he's too lazy. I think Megyn Kelly works her ass off. I think Ben Shapiro works his ass off. I think this guy doesn't. He's used to being patted and moved around. Is that right? I don't know anything about. I've only been on his show once. He's not entrepreneurial.

He doesn't strike me as entrepreneurial. So, because I think he enjoys the good life. And you really have to commit yourself to creating a real media company. And that's hard. You and I know that, right? It's really hard. But we're entrepreneurial. And so we'll see.

We'll see how it does. I just don't think everyone's dying. He'll do fine. He'll do fine. It's just, I don't quite know where the big, there's just too much noise. I don't know what his big idea is here. But maybe they'll consolidate all of them, et cetera, et cetera, and feed off each other. Who knows?

There's been a lot of these. I mean, think about it. I remember at your Code, or no, at our Pivot event, when we had all those bright-wing social media companies rumble and getter, and it's like none of them have gotten any traction. And essentially, that's, I think, where Musk is trying to head right now. Yeah, well, it's interesting that he's not doing it on Musk. Let me tell you, I know, I'm following Linda Iaccarino's movements. She is very much trying to get various and sundry, well-known people onto that, trying to

do deals with them, ranging from left to right, trying to get them to sign deals with them. And this is interesting that he didn't do this. He's smart. He shouldn't. One of the people who called me, who's a well-known person who they're trying to get on Twitter, I said, what do you need them for? Like, that's my, I was like, and they were sort of making the argument. I said, well, I just want you to think about that question. Do you need them or can you do it on your own? Or can you, and I actually even recommended some other places to go that are already up and running that would have more impact. And then the negative part of him bringing back Alex Jones on the anniversary of the shooting at Sandy Hook is what's going to tarnish you. So anyway, it's an interesting time to create media companies. There will be one that succeeds or two, and mostly they will not, as you noted.

Like George Clooney made it out of TV, for example, right? He did okay. Yeah. Compared to Shelley Long. He, right? He did okay. Yeah. Compared to Shelley Long. He's done really well, yeah. Right. So there's always one George Clooney for 20 other people. Also, Google's demo video for its AI model Gemini,

which was very impressive, was not conducted in real time, and some people are upset. The six-minute video features spoken conversations between a user and a Gemini chatbot and highlighted Gemini's ability to recognize visual photos and objects. We talked about it in response. Google said the video is an illustrative depiction of the possibilities of interacting with Gemini based on real outputs in testing, which means it can do all these things, just not in that seamless, beautiful way. I thought it was a sort of a purification of it.

I mean, I guess I'm not mad about it, but, you know, I think it's just a very heated AI race and everyone's trying to show how fancy they are. And I do think it will be able to do that someday. But I think, and they probably individual, all the individual things it can do. It's just, it can't do it in that seamless, smooth way that they had it on the video, which was an ad, essentially. So now that I'm in the UK, I'm trying to embrace all things British. And I found this brand called Sunspiel, I think it's called. And it's the brand of 007, the casual brand of 007. And all over the store are images of Daniel Craig wearing Sunspiel. And I would put on the exact same item of clothing. And spoiler alert, I don't look as good as Daniel Craig.

Yeah, you don't. Yeah. I don't. I could have told you that. This felt to me like Guardians of Gotcha. I don't. If Google runs a demo saying it will be able to do these things, I'm confident that at some point it will be able to do those things. Yeah, it was an ad.

I thought it was an ad. I didn't think it was doing it in real time, it was an ad. I thought it was an ad. I didn't think it was doing it in real time. I don't ever. I thought it was impressive. The concept was so impressive. I thought they explained it well. I thought the demo blew me away.

And I was even thinking, the first thing I thought, and I felt like it was investors, not consumers, who that was made for, because the first thing I thought was, I need to buy Alphabet stock. I think Alphabet, and this is, I'm doing my predictions thing tonight. Yeah. How many people? We're up to 22,000. I'm telling you, I think Alphabet, I think it's going to be the Empire Strikes Back around AI.

Interesting. Yeah. No, it's their wheelhouse. It's their, they started it. You watch that demo, you're like, wow, here comes Alphabet. Yeah, conceptually, they really do understand it better than many companies. It's interesting. But we'll see.

On your 22,000 people, are you going to pee on it like Vivek Ramaswamy? I miss that. What happened? Do I even want to know this? Am I going to be triggered? I'm teasing because peeing is something you like to do. I know. It's not something I like to do. It's something I have to be triggered? I'm teasing because peeing is something you like to do, I know. It's not something I like to do.

It's something I have to do. He stopped in the middle of the Twitter talk with the loathsome group, Andrew Tate, Alex Jones, Elon, and peed loudly on the spaces. Yes, that's what he did. You could hear him urinating. Okay, I'm going to stop. Yes, apparently. Really? Because for me, it's like hearing a baby bottle drip a little bit.

It's just... Seriously, I went to the urologist and I said, doctor, I have a drip. And he said, really? I said, when's the last time you had sex? And I said, like three months ago. And he said, does she live near here? And I said, yeah. And I said, why?

He said, you might want to go back. I think you're coming. Oh, my God. That's good. Oh, my God. Yeah, good. Oh, my God. Yeah, I just wanted to get your mind off of Vivek. I wanted to get your mind off of Vivek. Let me just say, I need to do this joke.

He puts the P in free speech. Anyway, let's get to our first big story. University of Pennsylvania President Liz McGill has resigned, as we said she would, following last week's disastrous hearing in Congress. The chairman of Penn's Board of Trustees, who also stepped down, sent a letter that McGill had been, quote, overprepared and overlawyered. Calls continue for the presidents of Harvard and MIT to step down as well, although the president of Harvard has a lot of support from the professors there. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik posted on X, one down, two to go. Elise, calm yourself down. Nobody likes you still, no matter what you do. Anyway, Scott, on our last episode, we predicted we'd see one of the presidents resign, and I particularly picked out her.

Over 500 members of the Harvard faculty have signed a letter urging the school's top governing board to resist calls to remove President Claudine Gay. The Executive Committee of MIT's governing board has declared its support for President Sally Kornbl The Executive Committee of MIT's Governing Board has declared its support for President Sally Kornbluth. None of them were quite as bad a performance as Liz McGill, for sure. And she has a lot more detractors at Penn. So university donors are playing a big role ahead of McGill resigning. Penn alum and Wall Street CEO Ross Stevens threatened to pull a $100 million donation from the school. Mark Rowan from Apollo has been very active. Bill Ackman, who's just become a ridiculous clown on Twitter, continues to post on X about wanting the other two university presidents out, talking about himself rather significantly.

Aside from what happens to these presidents, talk about the repercussions. And let me just go through one or two things. The New York Times has a piece about the political consequences, saying conservatives are seizing the moment with this hearing. And at upper-end campuses, of course, they're, as usual, overplaying their hands, as they love to do. The piece says anti-Semitism controversies may fuel further Republican efforts to defund and restrict public universities. Thoughts? This is your wheelhouse, Scott Galloway.

I think it's actually, I think the moment might represent what I'd call peak higher ed, or at least peak elite higher ed. And I went back and watched the testimony, and I actually think it wasn't what they said. I thought what they said was actually defensible, had they applied that same standard to every other moment of free speech for vulnerable groups. The problem is, the line she articulated in practice is a plaid. And that is dependent upon the group we're talking about, these institutions have a different level of fidelity to free speech. And that's what I think really upset people philosophically or intellectually. But what really, I think, really angered people was they came across as so arrogant and elitist.

And they basically, I think they looked at this conservative congressperson and they were smirking and they were curt. And I think they just sort of came off as representing everything bad about elite education. And essentially, it wasn't Congress, it wasn't students, it wasn't faculty, it was donors speaking. This was, at the end of the day, and not only that, what was also interesting that didn't get much coverage here is that the chairman of the trustees, Scott Bach, also announced his resignation. Now, President Gay, I mean, she's only been in the job six months. I think it's a good moment for these institutions to revisit their free speech policies, their speech policies, their DEI initiatives, what DEI actually means. I think it's a good moment.

But I think all of this kind of comes back to the same thing, and that is, and this is kind of the helm of the bobsled, and that is young people and families see all of this prosperity and see that their kids aren't able to access the American dream. And when you're talking about elite universities, they have engaged in what I would call this casting on steroids, where they say, the way I can pay myself a lot of money and think big thoughts that aren't necessarily consistent and we can all bark up the same tree is by engaging in this artificial scarcity that creates shame and rage and embarrassment across America. And I think people have just had it with them. They've just had it with them.

All right. Let me ask you an opposite question. All these free speech warriors suddenly want them not to speak. Why can't they speak? Why do they have to pay the price? I mean, there was a really interesting debate happening among free speech warriors who self-describe, which gives you a problem right from the start when they'd have to do that, because they virtue signal just as much as the people they insult. debate, like, this is cancel culture. It's the same thing. And if we can't be consistent, why are we calling for firings when we were decrying firings on the other side? How do you feel about that? I think it's a different side of the same coin. And that is to say we're, first off, I do think the right position is to say the administration and leadership, they're administrators. We're here to create an environment for free speech and to host and sponsor critics, but we're not here to be critics ourselves. And also, whatever line we

decide, if we decide anyone can say pretty much anything, I think that, and also I think that's a defensible position. I'm not talking about the academics. I'm talking about their critics, like the Bill Ackmans, who go on and on about free speech, but then is trying insanely to get people fired and saying they shouldn't be able to say these things. Well, he's applying the wrong standard or the wrong reason they should be fired. It's fine if they're total free speech, but they can't fire Larry Sumner as president of Harvard when in an academic setting, he starts doing research or questioning the genetic, is there a genetic cause for the difference in

aptitude among males and females? He was basically fired for that. And so, well, okay, that's not only should be free speech, that should be academic freedom, but he was fired for it. So, when it comes to something like that, where there's real sensitivities or for some reason, sensitivities around that group, we apply, we say there isn't free speech. Yeah, but there's inconsistency everywhere. I think they just have to decide where is the line and then hold to it. And then if they're smart, they're going to say the leadership here isn't engaged in that. We're here to schedule classes, raise money, and make sure that, you know, the quad gets clean, but we're not going

to start weighing in on these topics. Yeah. No, I'm just, I'm struck by all the free speech warriors who are now saying, you can't say that. It's just, I just, they're just, everybody is inconsistent here, every single side of this. And I'm consistent. I think you should be fired for saying some things that are problematic and you shouldn't, and you should be able to say a lot of things. I just, I just would like a consistent from all these groups. You know, it reminds me of, you know, I'm for free speech, except for that guy, except for that doesn't suit me. It's not in my interests, right? And then you get all hot and bothered, but you can't get hot and bothered about something else, right? I think it's just all in people's self-interests, every bit of this.

It's all about determining a line and then having one line, not a plaid. You can't. And by the way, if you're going to be free speech absolutist, Rashida Tlaib wanted to speak at ASU. They canceled her thing. She should be allowed to speak. That's right. Yeah. If you're going to be a free speech.

But I could see why you wouldn't have her. But go ahead. Right. And if you want Milo Yiannopoulos, whatever the hell his name is, to speak, then you have an obligation to escort him to make sure he can safely speak. You just have to pick a line. Or you might say, guess what? If anything causes too much disruption, we don't have the funds, we have the discretion to decide. We are not free speech absolutists. That's a position too. But just pick a theme and stick to it. I'm asking you to address the critics

who go on and on and they get on their high horses about free speech when in fact it's also the same thing. Some of the people you have referenced, in my opinion, have made a side hustle and like the prestige

and like their attention they're getting and the power they have of going after powerful people at universities. It feels like they are engaged in, I mean, yeah, they're getting really into it and they're enjoying it. And I don't think they're being friends to the university because I think, I mean, President Gay, I didn't think she handled, I didn't think she acquitted herself well. I think Harvard being ranked as the least free speech place amongst universities and then applying these incredible standards of free speech around other things. saying these qualify as microaggressions and could lead to dismissal. I mean, it's like, all right, we have to have some sort of consistency.

In terms of these rich billionaires who are engaging in the side hustle of going after the heads like trophies of university presidents and also wanting the unmasking of students, it's a little bit of like, all right, it all comes back to the same thing, Kara, unfortunately. There's just too few people with too much fucking money. And we've become their side pieces. We've become their whores. We're so dependent upon their money. They have so much power. We have an individual who can aggregate so much wealth that he can acquire a global media platform and then invite somebody back on on the anniversary of Sandy Hook and wave his middle finger at all parents and all of society. We have an individual who can... Imagine Bob Iger says, I got an idea, Disney AI. I don't

know what it means yet, but I'm going to use AI to launch a series of products focused on family-friendly AI that'll be entertaining and take our IP. And he says, you know what? It's a great idea, and I'm Bob Iger. I'm the most seasoned, famous executive in the world. I'm going to go raise a billion dollars, and I'm spinning it out, and I'm going to own 75% of it. Bob Iger's going to own 75% of it. Well, guess what? The Disney board would be like, sorry, girlfriend.

You're doing no fucking such thing. But if you're so wealthy and you're able to aggregate so much capital, that you can do this with your own media platform with absolutely no checks and balances, or you can start dictating campus policy from afar without even being on the board. I just think this all comes back to the fact

that there's too few people with too much money. And you know who Time's Person of the Year should have been, Cara? Time's Person of the Year should have been money. Over the last two years, Cara, we have had the most legislatively unproductive session in history. And you know who's filled that void? Money. Could the Gulf have ever bought a newspaper? I might accept money. I might accept money, but I still like Errol Swift, but I might accept money.

I agree with you. Yeah, I get your point. I get your point. We get my point. Could 10 years ago, could the Gulf have purchased the newspaper in the UK that dictates Tory politics? Could that have happened? Could five years ago, the Gulf have purchased a U.S. and European sport?

Money wins. Money is literally washing over everything. There you go. Over everything. There you go. It's interesting. I got a note from someone before they heard our podcast that said, was just thinking that Elon raises a billion for his AI project.

I bet he takes a chunk of it to license a firehose from Twitter, creating a big revenue stream that saves him from coming out of pocket. When in reality, that business should be run as part of Twitter, as part of his obligation to his investors. That sounds familiar. Right. Yeah, I know. That's what I said. I said, did you listen to Scott? Anyway, we have to get going, but you're absolutely right. Money. Money makes the world go round. All right, Scott, let's take a quick break. When we come back, the EU makes a major move toward AI regulation. We'll speak with Pod Save America co-host Dan Pfeiffer. scammer. What do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night.

And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter. These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists. And they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better.

One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim and we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other.

Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out. Uncertainty. Self-doubt. Stressing about not knowing where to start. In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out. Word art. Sorry, We've Laughed Lovers.

In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. Scott, we're back. The EU has reached a deal on a major new law to regulate artificial intelligence. The AI Act, it's called, will set a new global benchmark for countries looking to harness AI, while also trying to protect against the risks. The European Parliament will vote on the Act early next year, but legislation will not take effect until at least 2025 moves slowly. So, the Act includes new transparency requirements for general-purpose AI models, though there are some broad exemptions for open-source models. Facial recognition was apparently one of the most contentious toppings, putting the deal together. In the final agreement,

the use of facial recognition software by police and governments would be restricted outside of certain safety and national security situations. Tech companies that want to do business with you will be asked to disclose data and do rigorous testing, particularly for high-risk applications. Companies that violate the regulations should face fines up to 7% of global sales. I think it sounds the right direction. I don't know how much teeth it will have, but it does sound like what Biden was proposing in his executive order. Yeah, my call sign for big tech now is move fast and regulate things. I'm part of the AI accelerator group, whatever they call themselves.

I think you go fast. Is that what it is? What's it called? Yeah, Accel people, Decel Accel. AI Accel. I don't think, I think the West wants to own this, but at the same time, I think we need to pay more and attract the best and brightest. Israel actually does a pretty good job of this, of incorporating the best and brightest oftentimes, at least into their military. I think we need brighter – not brighter.

I think there's some really talented people at the very top levels of government, but I think we should, I would like to see more kids from my class at Stern think I would really like to get a job in government, that it pays well, it's prestigious, and I'm going to get to work on cutting edge issues. Because the hard part about regulating this is that by the time the regulations get implemented and have any teeth, AI has kind of moved on to new problems, right? This is just all moving so fast. But it's really interesting, what Europe appears to be leading in terms, and you could argue it's innovation, is around regulation, because the US is starting to look at European regulation and think, is that working? And should we, you know, what can we adopt and what can we model? But the thing that the UK has always had, and it has great education institutions, great culture, it's always had the rule of fair play.

And I think if Europe becomes the place where it's seen as when you deal with an organization or money comes through Europe, there's a rule of fair play here. I think that does result in economic growth. And the old trope that regulation hampers economic growth is not true. It can actually facilitate economic growth. Yeah, you said that. I think these have to be global rules and U.S. should lead the way. That EO was a very good first step. I think we both thought that.

The safety, the rigorous testing, the safety, the protection of open source, I think is important. We do both think is important. There being enough of a fine so that if they're violative, they have a they don't just like, OK, I'll just pay the bill, essentially. And and the facial recognition software, it seems to hit on all the notes. It's just that none of the companies they're regulating were based or or maybe one or two, in EU. It's all US companies, right? And so if US companies are dominating this, and they are, let's leave Chinese companies out of this, it should be regulated in the US much more quickly. And that's a question of how quickly we'll be able to have any laws. It could be the same exact thing that happened in the

previous attempts to regulate the internet, which would be unfortunate. There seems to be more energy here to do something and more cognizance. I just, I was thinking today, I mean, hands down, hands down, the most seminal technology of the last decade, if not two decades, trillions of dollars in market gap. And it's not only, of course, in one country. It's not even just in one state. It's in like 80% of it's in seven miles of SFO international airport. I mean, for all of our shitposting and all of our problems, there's something in the water in America, the agility, the risk-taking, it is nothing short of remarkable what happens in the US. And at the same time, our inability to regulate, our infatuation with

the accoutrements of that innovation, specifically money, leads to people who put Alex Jones on their network. It's just like, we have so much potential, and yet we decide, okay, let's let a few individuals let us start ripping each other apart. A lack of decorum, a lack of character, a lack of comedy, a lack of patriotism, a lack of like just general decency. I just don't think people would have done this shit 10 or 20 years ago. I don't think they'd behave this way. Maybe quietly at least. Yeah, but they wouldn't threaten to fight in Congress. They wouldn't say on day one of my presidency, I'm going to go after my enemies. I mean, it's just like, it feels like all the quorum has basically just got shit canned. Out, that shit canned, shit canned. Well, this is all about money. And that's why it's moved so

slow in the US. But I think our government in a bipartisan way should figure out a couple of key things, pass them, and that's how you start, right? Facial recognition seems to be easy. Safety seems to be easy, you know. And of course, be flexible as things change and not be sort of drawn in by these tech people saying, no regulation, because if any will hinder us. I don't think that's the case. I think they know that's not the case. And they should be part of it too, by the way. You know, they always are. And they usually run the table on our legislators. But it certainly should be.

You know, the problem, again, getting back to money, money makes the world go round here. And they have the money. And so they'll get what they want. But the EU doesn't seem to be as easily bought and paid for as our regulators do. I would argue that the same isn't true in Europe, that institutions still matter. And in the U.S. Yeah, that's what I mean. They're not bought and paid for.

Well, here's the thing. In the U.S., when Congress doesn't legislate, when there is no antitrust, when, you know, money fills the void. And also, it's been that way through most of history. I want to be clear. From 1945 to, like, the present, I would would call was the great era of the middle class and institutions and democracy, kind of a second enlightenment, whatever you want to call it, where we said democracy matters and we're going to pay a lot of money in taxes such

that a group of really smart people that we elect can think about long-term health and well-being for our future, recognizing that all of us digress to individual needs on our own. And I feel like we're going to look back on the era from 1945 to 2000 as this real golden age, where institutions where we said, you know what, let's try and shove people into this remarkable new innovation called the middle class. It'll create mating opportunities, economic opportunities, a peaceful society. And it feels as if we're returning to the way things used to be and that it's much more Darwinian and much more Hunger Games. Well, speaking of that, let's bring in our friend of Pivot. Dan Pfeiffer is the co-host of Crooked Media's Pod Save America.

He's also the host of a new podcast, Polar Coaster, which is launching this week and will feature analysis on the latest polls and voter trends. Welcome, Dan. Thanks for having me. So since you're the expert here, let's start with some polling. Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal released a new poll with voters giving Biden the lowest job approval of his presidency at 37%. In a head-to-head matchup with Trump, Trump beats Biden 47% to 43%. Now, we know it is early. The poll also shows Trump continuing to dominate the Republican field, nearly 60% supporting him. That's not new. But Nikki Haley has numbers that are a stronger general election

candidate, beating Biden by 17 points. So talk to us about this latest one Because there's been a slew like this It's early again Go ahead It is early And there's been a consistent set of These numbers are all kind of in the neighborhood Slight Trump lead Biden under 40 approval rating Trump advantages on the economy

Immigration Crime Israel-Gaza With Biden holding an abortion Holding an advantage on generally generally, abortion and democracy and, you know, civility, those sorts of issues. And I think it is, like, these are the polls that Democrats should take seriously, but not literally, right?

That there is no question that if the election were held today, Joe Biden would be in trouble and would lose. But if you, there's a very simple, I think, explanation, like in pure math as to why Trump is winning and Biden is not, is that in the link of the Wall Street Journal polls, that Trump is getting 92% of his 2020 voters and Biden's getting 87%. And that is consistent across all of the polls. And that is both, that is alarming, but that if you're the Biden team and you're looking for a silver lining, those are the easiest voters to get back are the ones who've already cast the ballot for you. And that's got to be what the focus is heading into next year. It's beginning to rebuild that coalition. If you

do that, then we are headed for a, once again, a very, very close election, but one that is very winnable for Joe Biden. Okay, so we keep hearing also about Nikki Haley momentum, but realistically, is there any scenario where she gets the nomination? I would say no. I think that if you look, Nikki Haley is a non-MAGA candidate in a MAGA party. There is a whole bunch of polling shows that Ron DeSantis is actually a much more likely Republican nominee than Trump in an NBC poll, the Republican primary from earlier this month. More than 70% of Republican voters have Trump as their first or second choice. 54% of Republican voters have DeSantis as their first or second choice, and only 28 percent have Nikki Haley as their first or second choice. And so her universe of voters, she's a factional

candidate, if you will. She is consolidating this minority of the party, and it's actually in a weird way hurting her. Her approval rating keeps going down the better she does in the polls because she's going from being a non-Trump to an anti-Trump candidate. So her net approval rating right now is 12 points. It's 42-30. DeSantis, for who we all very much, myself at least, spend a lot of time making fun of for what an awkward, weird, terrible candidate he is, he has a net approval rating of 45%, right? And Trump has a net approval rating of above 60. So he's the other Trump. He's the other Trump. Right. And if Donald Trump were to go to prison tomorrow, drop out of the race, defect to Russia, whatever else, Ron DeSantis would be the overwhelming favorite to defeat Nikki Haley in a primary. In a primary situation, even though the general it's a real problem for Nikki Haley is, at least as we can tell right now.

problem for someone like him. Yeah, Nikki Haley is, at least as we can tell right now, and she's a relatively generic non-Trump Republican in the eyes of voters. But as of right now, she's obviously, I think, very clearly the most electable Republican who is in the mix. Is in the mix. But Trump carries those fans, the fans that he has, which DeSantis doesn't have. Is Biden, they seem unworried in the Biden administration. I've talked to a lot of people. And should they be more worried? Yes. It seems like that's a little sleepy to do. And I hate to use the term sleepy around Joe Biden. But, you know, I think it's just, it's like, should they be more?

You know, but the last time everyone counted him out and there he was. Okay, let's just have grandpa again kind of thing. He's safe. I think my guess is that in reality, the Biden folks are less worried than the general Democratic Party, which is in a state of sort of abject panic at this point. As they always are. As they always are. That is not unusual. The term bedwetter was invented for a reason to describe my party. But I think they are more worried or at least more aggressively trying to shape the race than some of these public comments make, because they spent $25 million in ads in the off year. And that of these public comments make is they spent $25

million in ads in the off year. And that's not something you do if you think this race is going to naturally revert to the mean, where it'll be Joe Biden with a four or five point national poll lead. So I think that they are more worried than we think they are. But I understand why there's no point in panicking, right? You have to go about doing your work. I think they see the path to getting there. But some of the things that they have tried thus far have not moved the needle. And I think that is probably worrisome. Dan, good to see you.

So my sense of polls at this point aren't very good proxies for what will actually happen in terms of who wins and who loses. But they can be really helpful in terms of identifying key issues and messaging. If you were advising the candidates, what messages do you think are bubbling up that weren't there four years ago that they want to focus on? And then I'd be curious for you to do the same analysis that you did on the Republicans on the Democratic side. Is that also a foregone conclusion that Biden's a nominee? Sure. You're exactly right that the polls this far out have very little predictive value of what's going to happen, but they are essential for understanding.

It's taking the temperature of where we are right now. And so we talk all about polls, media polls, the ones done by the Wall Street Journal and the NBC, but campaigns are doing all these polls at the same time. And from everything I hear, Democratic polls are seeing the exact same trends that we're seeing in the public polls. So this is – everyone has the same analysis of where we are. And I think it's a couple of things that would be the advice I would give Democrats and Biden in particular here is one, and you can see them doing this already, is you have to make this more of a choice, right? In all of these polls, people are much more focused on Joe Biden than Donald Trump. And for a lot of voters,

they haven't really thought about Trump at all since 2021, right? You see this in the New York Times Siena poll, the percent of voters who are concerned about Donald Trump's temperament has gone down since 2020. The percent of voters who think Donald Trump is unfit mentally for office has gone down since 2020. And so we have to focus the mind on the fact that Donald Trump is running, and he is going to be the nominee, and he has a very good chance of being president going forward. The second thing is on the economy. We have to stop. Democrats are in this debate of, well, people are unhappy, but the economy is great. And it doesn't really matter what the macroeconomic numbers say. It matters how people

actually feel. And I think this is, I know you guys have talked about this, this is a very, very strange economy for a lot of people and how they experience it. And so we have to shift jobs. The jobs numbers are a low priority for Americans right now. Their issue is not whether or not they're going to have a job. It is what the costs of goods are. It's not what the rate of inflation is. It's the price of things. And I think Democrats need to shift the framework more to away from here's what we've accomplished. Here's what all the progress we've made and focus really hard, use what they've done as proof points for how they can lower costs and raise wages going forward and do that in a very contrastive way with Trump.

In all of these polls, a place where Biden has real strength is that voters think that Donald Trump and the Republicans are less on the side of the middle class and more friendly towards the wealthy and corporations than Democrats. And you want to draw that contrast. So there has to be a choice, not a referendum. And which is a shift. It is a shift, that's right. There's also a lot of prognosticating about what a potential Trump second term would be, which is sort of the fear method of doing that. Trump had the town hall with Sean Hannity last

week where he didn't exactly say no to abusing power in a second term, noting he would be a dictator only on day one, which you can do a lot in a day. You wrote about this in your newsletter saying many of the responses to Trump's comments are playing right into his trap. Obviously, he's playing games. I mean, you can tell it by his smirkiness. How should we be talking about it? I mean, it's terrifying and also, what an asshole. You know, you sort of get that same feel off of Elon Musk or any of these. Like, they're just trying to fuck with you, essentially. Yeah, he very clearly was sort of smirking and Sean Hannity was completely flummoxed at why Donald Trump would not take his repeated offers of a lifeline in that moment. But there is, we have focused, and I think rightfully, on Donald Trump saying, on day one. But what keeps getting

left out is what he said right after that, which he's going to, he basically said, I am going to abuse power to secure the border and, quote, drill, drill, drill, right? So what he is trying to do is to say, I am going to be an authoritarian, but I'm going to be an authoritarian for you. Here's how I'm going to help your life, right? We know that these things people care a lot about, cost of energy and border is at the top of, it's right below inflation on a lot of the polls in terms of concerns for voters. What Democrats should do is not, is we should avoid some traps. First is we shouldn't run around talking about how strong Donald Trump is because strength

is part of his appeal. We have to talk about his, the fact that he is weak, right? Donald Trump has never stood up to anyone in his life. He bows down to CEOs. He bows down to dictators. He's running for president, not to help you, but because he's afraid to face the consequences for his actions in office last time. Make it about his weakness, right? Donald Trump, that is a trap to make us talk about how strong and fearful he is. That's one. Two, we have to empower voters to be the ones who can stop Donald Trump. It's not that it is inevitable that he's going to take over the Robert Kagan column of his dictatorship inevitable. We have the power to stop him. Next, and I think this is

really important, is we have to talk about what Donald Trump would do, how him being a dictator or seizing power or abusing power would affect you. Right. And I think that one great way to do this, talk about abortion. Right. The Heritage Foundation and others have talked about how even if Donald Trump is unable to pass a federal abortion ban, they can weaponize the federal government to put in in fact, a de facto federal abortion ban, right? That they're going to, and you can do that across the board on issues about pollution and protecting clean air and clean water, about helping workers, right? How Donald Trump will use the federal government to make it harder for, you know, the workers who were on strike at UAW or at Starbucks and all of those things. We have to make it matter to people because if we don't, and we just say Donald Trump's going to destroy democracy. We are sort of by default saying that we are the ones who are going to defend this political system that most voters say

is corrupt and doesn't work for them. And so it has to be very, very specific, because if not, we're just having this esoteric argument that means nothing to most voters. And in some ways, actually undergirds some of Trump's appeal that helped propel him in 2016. in some ways, actually undergirds some of Trump's appeal that helped propel him in 2016. So the polls look really ugly for Biden. So we immediately think, I mean, they're kind of shocking. And so you immediately think, oh, wow, things are going well for us if you're a progressive. But anytime there's an election, whether it's the legislature in, I think it was Virginia or the abortion bill in Ohio, it appears that blue is winning everywhere. What's wrong here? Every time I see an actual election where people don't respond to

a telephone or a phone survey, they actually go in and pull a handle or check a box. It feels like we're doing really well. People have been really trying very hard to square this circle, right? The polls look bad, but Democrats keep winning. And both things can be true at the same time because these surveys we're looking at are surveys of the overall presidential election electorate, which is in most states 30 to 40% bigger than the people who vote in a midterm or even in a, especially in a special election. And Donald Trump does best right now with people who don't vote in midterms. He's doing best in these polls with people who didn't even vote in 2020. That's a huge part of his advantage

in the New York Times-Siena poll, is he's beating Biden by 15 points by people who did not vote in 2020. So these are two separate universes. And as of right now, the presidential election universe is less Democratic-friendly than the midterm universe. And the parties have switched in this regard as the Democrats have become more a party of college-educated suburban voters. When I worked for President Obama, Republicans were a much more reliable midterm party, which is why Republicans could crush in the 2010 midterms and then lose pretty handily in 2012 when Obama was on the ballot. And the reverse is true now. Have you – I just have a couple of follow-up questions. One, since 2016 when Trump won, my guess is 10 or 20 million American voters have died and there's 10 or 20 million new voters.

is 10 or 20 million American voters have died, and there's 10 or 20 million new voters. How has that, so you've lost 70 and 80-somethings, and you've gained 18 to 26-year-old-somethings. How has that changed the electorate? And I would just be curious if you have thought about how the conflict in the Middle East is likely playing out, and does it advantage Trump or Biden? And let me put that, put a caveat. It's a year from now. There'll be a whole different topic a year from now. We won't be talking about this. Right. But go ahead. 2020 was a better, Joe Biden did better in 2020 than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 in the popular vote for many reasons. One of them is the electorate was becoming slightly more demographically friendly to Democrats. Now, the challenge right now for Democrats is Donald Trump has made gains. It is

a question about how much those gains are with younger Latino and Black men. So that accounts for some of the demographic change, where a few years ago, we thought those would automatically be Democratic votes at 85% Democratic, and it's much less than that now. And one of the challenges for Biden is his most disaffected group, the people who are most willing to either sit out the election or vote for a third-party candidate like Cornel West or RFK Jr., are voters 18 to 29. So if Biden was performing at 20-20 levels with those younger voters. You would sort of see that more Democratic shift in the electorate based on those demographics. But that's not being maximized right now because of opinions on Biden. On Gaza, the polling on this is incredibly confusing because the narrative we all get

is younger Democratic voters are very angry at Joe Biden. In the CBS News poll that came out on Sunday, the only group that does that the group with the highest approval rating of Joe Biden on handling the Israeli Gaza, the Israeli Hamas conflict is voters 18 to 29. It's 50 50. And Joe Biden's underwater with all the other groups. They also asked people what to prioritize issues. Only 4% of voters put the Israeli-Hamas conflict as a high priority. It's really interesting. And so I think, but it could have a real impact in some states like Michigan that have a very large Arab-American population, and particularly Palestinians.

And so it could be, if this were to remain, I think Kara's caveat is incredibly important, is if this still were at the top of the news a year from now or 11 months from now, then that's what the impact could be. Recent history says these things tend to fade in the American mindset when they're happening abroad, and maybe that will be the case here. I don't know, but it's very possible, if not likely. I will say, talking to a lot of young people, they are irritated by Biden. They are for sure. And they don't think about Trump right now, but I think they've lived with only Netanyahu. That's why. I just feel like they don't know anyone else. So they don't like Netanyahu. But at the same time, I think once they get a taste

of Uncle Crazy, I think that'll remind them of the same thing, especially around abortion. Abortion is a staying issue. It feels like it is. Yes, 100%. With women, especially. Even everyone says, oh, now they're done with abortion. I don't think women are done with that, putting protections in place. And I don't think they much like book. That's another thing I hear. It's like the book, all the meddlesomeness of the Republicans, especially the religious stuff from Mike Johnson seems to stick in their craw and seems lasting. Axios recently published a list of some of the current Trump vice presidential candidates, including J.D. Vance, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Oh, God.

Carrie Lake. Oh, God. Kristi Noem. Apparently, Melania is advocating for Tucker Carlson. None of these seem like very good choices. If I had to guess among this list, J.D. Vance would be his choice. But any thoughts? Any out-of-the-box thoughts? I mean, in most cases with a normal presidential nominee, you would look at whoever fit in that Venn diagram of qualified, good relationship with the president to be and electability. And I can't imagine

Donald Trump would think about it that way. And could take over. And could take over. Right. And I think Donald Trump is the sort of person who would never hire someone that anyone could think could be their replacement. So he will not pick the best person, either the best vice president or someone who has reelectable appeal. Like if your analysis is I want someone who is never a threat to me politically, personally, socially, you end up with Mike Pence. So I think it's like, who is the Mike Pence of this group? Sort of, you know,

like a kind of a large tub of applesauce, political applesauce is where I think Donald Trump ends up. I don't think he picks like Tucker Carlson because Tucker Carlson could be a bigger star than him or Nikki Haley, who he wouldn't trust or something like that. So whoever is like generic replacement level, any of these, maybe JD Vance, I guess, I don't know. Loyalty, I think, would be high on this list.

And the same with if something, one of the things we were talking about this week in Smile's question was, you know, look, if one of these guys breaks a hip, man, it's entirely possible or goes to jail only for one of them. What happens? Because it could happen in that time period. This could be really fascinating. It's going to depend on whether it happens before or after the convention, right? And if it's before the convention, then we'll have what would be essentially a brokered convention where a bunch of people would try to get to a majority of that convention. Of each party. Of each party. Of each party. And you would keep voting until you got to that person. I would imagine on the

Democratic side, Kamala Harris would have a very large leg up in that situation. And then if it happens after the convention, then it gets very tricky. The DNC has specific rules in which they would go and use the DNC members to pick someone. I imagine once again,

that would likely be Kamala Harris if they've just voted, the majority of delegates that just voted her vice president. Even trickier if ballots have been printed in states. We've been in situations like with Mel Carnahan, who was running for senator in Missouri in 2000, where a candidate dies after the ballots are printed. Anyone.

Anyone anyway. Republicans have a, I don't know their exact RNC rules, but similar thing where the RNC would just pick someone to be the nominee. Likely, I think in all those cases, if it's after the convention, the VP nominee would be the person. And then they'd have to pick another vice presidential nominee. So it would be very messy and confusing and probably great for people in the content business is my guess. If you were to pick sort of a best or worst exogenous event for either candidate, what would it be? The best thing that could happen for Joe Biden and democracy would be Donald Trump being convicted in the January 6th trial.

And for all the bad news, although I guess the good news for Donald Trump and all this polling is in that New York Times-Sanit poll, they actually asked people what would happen if Donald Trump was convicted. And only 6% of voters switched their vote away from Trump. But that 6% is enough to tip the election to Joe Biden. And I think we do not spend enough time talking and thinking about the very, very real possibility that Donald Trump will be sentenced to prison for multiple federal crimes three or four months before the election. And if that were to happen, that is a, we're not, I don't think we're fully anticipating what a big game changer that is. It could be for sure. Yeah. Anyway, Dan, this is fascinating. Again, you have a new podcast. You're obviously on Pod Save America each week, but your new podcast, Polar Coaster,

I'm just laughing at that. I'm sorry. How did, how long did it come up to take to come up with that? We, Polar Coaster was the term that we would use in the Obama campaigns for the people who were checking the polls every single day. Oh, okay. And we say, get off the fucking polar coaster. Yeah, yeah. We've used that a little bit on Positive America over the years. And my goal here with this podcast is to help people understand what the polls mean and think about what to use it from. I'm completely ignoring polls. I'm not going to be a polar coaster. There are going to be

people in this world who want to ignore the polls, and that's very healthy. But if you can't ignore the polls and you're going to live and die with them and you want to understand what they really mean, this is the podcast for you. I don't buy it. Tell me you do edibles without telling me you do edibles. You came up with that name under the influence. It kicks off. Polar Coaster kicks off on December 14th. Dan, thank you. I like Polar Coaster.

Wait, pass the Doritos. Let's watch South Park. All right. And we're out. Okay, Dan, thank you so much. Awesome. Thank you, guys. I like those Pod Save America guys. Yeah, they're very likable.

They're all very adoptable. They're all like these nice, deceptively good-looking young men. Yes, they're great. Not as young as they used to be, but nonetheless, they are. Anyway, Scott, one more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails. As a FIS member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans, and having your unused data roll over to the following month. Every month. At FIS, you always get more for your money.

Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at FIS.ca. Okay, Scott, let's hear some wins and fails. I'm a big fan of Senator Romney's, and he was on Meet the Press this week, and he said something that struck me. He said that America can overcome bad policy, but it'll have a much more difficult time overcoming bad character. bad character. And he's worried about the character of the nation. And he was speaking about Donald Trump suggesting that day one, he would abuse his powers to go after his political enemies. And I looked up characteristics of people who lack character, and they believe intentionally hurting others is validated, believe they are never wrong, believe other people are responsible for their feelings, and cannot take responsibility

for their own decisions and don't respect boundaries. And I just feel as if there's just such a lack of character amongst some of our most powerful people, and that character used to be there. And I don't know if I'm just getting old and getting sort of get off my lawn, but when we have the wealthiest man in the world allowing people back on his platform that represent nothing but grief for grieving parents, when we have a president saying he's going to pursue his political enemies, it just – when we have presidential candidates, it sounds like peeing on Twitter space. It definitely feels as if there's just a lack of character that infects our most powerful. And I used the term decorum last week, but I do think it's character. I don't know if it's because we've replaced, you know, civics class. I think we need to bring back national service and civics in, I don't know, I think we need to bring back national service and civics in, I don't know,

cotillion or just like general manners. Cotillion? I went to cotillion. Just manners. For God's sake, just manners. I mean, you just don't, you know, you open doors for people. You show them a certain level of respect. You don't, if someone, if you're in a, I remember when I was on the athletic field, one of the first things we were taught in sports is if you do ever get into a fight, the moment somebody hits the ground, the fight's over.

You know, there's just, you just don't, and it feels like we've lost that sense. Anyways, my American story, I'll move on to my win. Something a little lighter, I've been watching, and something that gets me out of these funks is great television, of course. I've been watching season five of Fargo. Have you seen it? Oh, no, I haven't watched it at all. Anyways, it has some real talent. Juno Temple, who is in Ted Lasso, is outstanding.

A new woman who plays a sheriff, Risha Morjani, is really good. And I think Jon Hamm is actually, I think, similar to Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise. I don't think he gets the accolades for his acting ability because he's just so damn handsome. I think he plays the character. He plays a really interesting character in this. Anyways, if you're looking for sort of a guilty pleasure, Fargo season five. All right. Well, I am going to do my win.

It's very similar. The Holdovers, Alexander Payne, one of my favorite directors. It's a wonderful movie about people. Paul Giamatti's in it. There's a new young actor, and I'm blanking on his name. Just an amazing cast of four people that are left behind at a boarding school during Christmas break. And I love Alexander Payne. I love The Descendants.

I like most of his movies. Such a heartfelt, kind, life-affirming movie. Just people that are difficult and unhappy and lonely, but it's such a wonderful, it's a wonderful, you will love the spirit of it because it's, it's about community. It's about connection. It's wonderful.

I love Paul Giamatti so much. And I loved the one it said in Napa Valley that he did. Sideways. Anyway, is that, which is also Alexander Payne. Thomas Church. Thomas Hayden Church.

Yes, that's right. Is in that movie. So Sandra Owen, I just love this movie. And again, Descendants is one of my favorite movies, and it had that kind of feeling

to it, that very problematic and broken people who come together, and I just thought it was great. My fail is the, I think we've had enough with this university president, so I think we should move along. None got fired. They said stupid things.

The thirst for... is repulsive. And I don't like it on either side. I really don't. I really, really, truly don't. And now it's showing your true colors for many of these people. It's all about the hunt. And I think people can learn. I think this, I thought particularly Claudine Gay, she may lose her job.

The board is convening. She's been in her job for six months. Six months. She did a very clearly emotional apology. She got her mistake. Let's see what she can do. And the accusations from, again, Bill Ackman, who's proving himself to be a really unpleasant piece of work, saying that she isn't qualified. Well, guess how he got into Harvard? He's a legacy.

So give me a break. Everyone gets a foot up everybody. And so let's just, let's just move along. Let's move along. But they won't, they'll overplay their hand. And, and it's not because I'm being kind. It's just that there's no plus in it. We, they made a mistake, no question. Anyway, and it was stupid and wrong. So let's get back to a place where we all can talk. And that's why you should watch The Holdovers. And that's what that's about.

Anyway, we want to hear from you. Send us your questions about business, tech, or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. Okay, Scott, that's the show. We'll be back on Friday with more. Please read us out. Today's show was produced by Larry Naiman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Andertott engineered this episode.

Thanks also to Drew Burrows, Mille Severo, and Gaddy McBain. Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod. Again, that's nymag.com slash pod. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Kara, have a great rest of the week. Oh, and happy birthday.

God, you're old. Jesus Christ, you're old. My God. We're going to Denny's. It's a Grand Slam special.