O last week, someone familiar with the Trump campaign's internal polling from March- sorry, true, That's your cold open sounds like a cartoon, but it really was, hello and welcome to the five hundred and thirty eight politics podcast. I'm dealing group, the lineups for the first democratic primary debates are set. Twenty candidates made the cut and they'll be debating on consecutive nights next week, The democratic National Committee tried to ensure that there would be an even spread of top level candidates across the two nights, but it doesn't really look like it worked so well Scott's what the lineups mean for how the debates will play out. Also, President Trump is kicking off his reelection I mean this week in Orlando or reason study showed that during the first two years of the Trump presidency, fifteen

Don't have Americans shifted their views of the President one way or another, so we're going to discuss the question who exactly persuade rible voters are in twenty twenty and here to do that? Our editor in chief Nate Silver how's it going mate? It's going well welcome back from Brazil yeah. At this point. Twenty four hours ago, I was on a beach even in the beach I was something I bring it up in a beer with the penguin logo, and here I am at the podcast And it's an this- is just so much better than good right, because it's the same? No, let me make a little promo for Latin America folks, like jet lag, and you want to like go to Latin America, then go to Latin America. Press vol outline convinced I'm kind of american that lie. But even like numeric controller yet, but I'm surprised that people don't realize, like it's so nice to be able to go to like true or Brazil or Colombia, which I haven't been to an like, not have to do with jet lag. If you can sleep on planes, you can literally do like a three day weekend. It's quite plausible,

alright. Also here with us, is senior politics writer Clare, Malone, high. I was in New York over the weekend. Where I live. Is there It lays around the world would like to plug before we move on to Micah now remain neutral today. Alright, Switzerland, yes, here with us as managing editor, Michael Cohen, welcome back. We missed you, I missed you guys too, like I would like to plug the Jersey shore. Well anyways. You would like to play. I was in Brooklyn over the weekend, which I was saying before. The show which I feel like me going to Brooklyn is equivalent for me of make going to South America. This is MIKE. I just like playing up how much of like a terrible Manhattan that yeah you're like while the parochial. Now I just like. I was actually I'm in and two nights this weekend, which is extremely rare for me, see so we switch it goes. It goes both ways, but only except that she comes to Manhattan every day of the week, almost yeah well Smith, on my phone,

I'm sorry Latin American Latin American Travel Association reach out to us. If you want to sponsor the show, then alright, we are, trying to get into the two topics I just mentioned, but before we do it, let's ask one of our favorite questions: good use of polling or bad use of pulling an today's example comes courtesy of a leaker in Trumpworld. So last week someone familiar with the Trump campaign's internal polling from March leaked Trump's, head to head number against Joe Biden in key states, and they gave that data to ABC News. The New York Times an other outlets as well. The polling show Biden leading Trump by sixteen points in Pennsylvania, ten points in Wisconsin and seven points in Florida and the list goes on as well. The campaign has since cut ties with three of its five pollsters, Oh, I know that you are not mind readers. I don't think that you are

in the room when all this happened, but if we can hypothesize, why did somebody leak such a bad numbers for Trump, who was presumably involved in some way, the deep state it in the polling process? or know somebody involved in the polling process I mean. Maybe they wanted to prove how much of it eight they were. For bothering to pull the horse race in June the year before the election I mean so head to head poll don't really mean very much right now, holes. I think one of the most overrated things that is covered by the media right in These internal polls are always meant to spend some angle or another. You know you don't usually get a lot. Formation, what they actually said when you read a rumored character, they should have internal polls, I mean gosh. People have trouble characterizing what public polls say and so for us a poll is useful. We actually are congressional forecasts using. Post. We actually give the details of which pollster conducted it. What the dates were, what,

warframe was whatever else. Then that's fine right, but so that's my general prior is like I'm not really sure that this is much of it. News right, so I understand the perspective that the data is not useful, but I guess the use of polling we might Kian on here. Is somebody used this poll by leaking it? What were they trying to accomplish, or what were they potentially trying to accomplish to give some clicks to it's on a slow newsweek. Now I don't know, look I think. They're probably never said you ever seen it yet. You wanna sit obviously had some kind of personal motivation for it right. So the way this unfolded was the New York Times. I think, had a story about Trump Freaking out about internal polls that reportedly showed him down to bite in a bunch of states. Then George Stephanopoulos in that ABC Interview with Trump as Trump About it and Trump was like those don't exist, bro I'm beating I'm beating everyone everywhere.

And then ABC News got some of the top line data and then other people got the data, So I wonder if it was leaking the actual data? 'cause the original leak was about. Trump's reaction really right yeah, but the only reason why you would leave the pole is to be like. No, this guy is wrong and the polls are really bad for him, which to me, doesn't indicate a person fully in support of the person that they're doing pulling no totaly. But that's why the simplest explanation is that is that they were sort of leaking it. Show that these actually existed. I mean. Is it also Oh somebody being like hey trump, you need to pay attention on what your numbers look like and try to improve them. I mean some people leak stuff because yeah they want to scare the candidate straight. Sometimes it leaks stuff because they are kind of like a false flag and maybe, if you're one part of the Trump polling operation, and they have like a lot of different cultures that work for them and you want to like somehow make someone else. Look bad Maybe you can get your within the campaign fired, so I'm not really stuff just because

they like to share and they like to gossip and your drinking buddies with someone, and you promised them a scoop in exchange for some reciprocal treatment later on not 'cause you, there buddy, I didn't intrinsic value of like how much she learn from internal polls at this point in time is quite low and I was Most time you hear internal polls leaked, they tend to more favorable numbers for the campaign, and that is it Brad Parscale as I how it's pronounced. Yes, these the running comes through campaign, at least on the data side. Here kind of a way that I thought was funny, which is like. Oh, those were real name. From March, and now things have shifted dramatically. I mean nothing shifter dramatically You look at kind of an amount river ratings, it's always around four thousand two hundred and forty one. It's got bob to forty two one slash two or forty two point. But now or something like that right like not, that much has shifted that was kind a strange reaction, but in general I think a campaign is

wasting its money if it like, spend a lot of money on internal polls right now. Well, the interesting thing, though, because I tend to agree with Nate that this was sort of much ado about not much for a I'll, but reportedly now Trump is sort of firing ziling three of his pollsters in response to all this, so that so it could have real consequences for the the campaign yeah, although they're, I think they're still working for like one of his pack, so it's not clear how should work yet to are going of one of the packs, but one I think the person says here with the polling company, which is like Kellyanne Conway Staying, is as of now not going but reportedly in these are fairly well reputed pollsters that he let go right. In my opinion, it probably does come a lot of good to have I have more traditional long standing, pollsters willing to work for him trump. I thought actually did a good job in twenty sixteen where he spent time in the states so to Brad Parscale. For that I do is more recent communications, he's kind of

I'm a guy who seems like he's drinking the Kool aid a lot and like that's a big risk for Trump. I would think that, like all us, Kellyanne Conway or I don't know whom ever write something to say when it is ready, which is not in June of twenty nineteen right, but when it's September of twenty twenty, someone like you're, going to lose Elizabeth Warren unless you kind of change your tone right, I would one could say that, instead of trying to spin and say, ok, well, the public polls have you four points down, but we all know those polls are often are polls. Have you ahead, like that's, like literally the least helpful thing catatan. So the fact that Trump Camp, maybe that a kind of let's be fair? The man I mean if If someone was leaky and they were

stuff out all these reporters then like. I can understand why someone would be fired fair enough, but I do think one of the big takeaways here is like what message does this send to other people on Trump's on the Trump campaign's data team, about delivering bad news? To the president, because even before he fired these people or reportedly fired or exiled or whatever these people, he was really pissed about the numbers. An his team was like doing work. To get him a kind of better spin on those numbers before we wrap up here. I do want to circle back to the topic of head to head polling at this point in the race anyway, so We believe these internal polls that the data is solid. We don't know if it is, we don't know what the methodology was exactly at center as a mention, even if it was and again. This is also only Joe Biden how accurate generally our polls conducted a year and a half in advance of the

general election, so accurate. You wouldn't believe you wouldn't believe you wouldn't believe in fact, not at all accurate o Perry looked at this last week, following up on something Harry or IP man to clarify he's not dead. He just works. For CNN I mean, what's the difference in how we had looked at this running up in the run up to two thousand and sixteen, but basically we looked at every election. We had polling for going back to nineteen forty four, an pulls in November and December of the year before the election. So we're not even talking about now we're talking about like five months from now, had an average absolute error of eleven percentage points. Not the margin of error, the margin there's about two and a half times out. So twenty five points right right, so it's sort of like it's in exact to the point of uselessness and some years,

the absolute error. Again not the margin of error was like thirty points, and this is again pulse of the eventual actual match up. We don't even know what the actual match up is going to be at. So I don't know that people shouldn't do general election polls now, but the people who look at them shouldn't take a serious. I yeah yeah there couple of issues here. One is that if you're measuring the president's approval rating that can shift a lot within a year or year and a half to the point where the presidential ratings two years beforehand at the mid term are like not predict at all they're going to be actually at the general election right. So that's how we can shift side you don't know who the nominee is in their popular. You can shift a lot. We saw periods if you look at the whole trick of the twenty sixteen race. There are periods, Hillary Clinton at the start of the race was quite popular and it became deeply will her by the end of the race, and so so the stage select then in terms of how well known the candidate, is and kind of, are they a target of incoming?

tired from one party from both parties, neither both whatever that's pretty important. You know like again name recognition to be a little bit of is something which can matter a lot maybe in the abstract, a Biden versus Trump polls, uh but more meaningful and like a Buddha touch versus Trump poll. If you look at the years when pulling this, out was a little more accurate. I have been like studied the systematically, but I was just looking through the years and it tends to be yours as night was just getting out where both candidates had really high name recognition really early. So if it does it, if it does eventually end up being bottom verse trump, you would kind of expect. Okay. The polls would have an easier time, picking up on the eventual contours of the ray ACE, because Biden so well known as Trump is so well known. Alright. So let's move on to our next topic. But what do we? How do we want to label? That was the

of that internal polling? A good use of polling or a bad use of pulling. I have it this bad use of polling for just doing the pole, an doing a general election poll. Do some do some other pulse, wait for what for Trump's campaign? What else are they going to pull? They should like him bill. Well now they should like I'm sure they are doing this, but they should be like testing messages right, identifying voters and blah blah blah or you could test liabilities. For the Democrats, you can kind of try to figure out, like Our messages you want to drive on biting, should he be the opponent or Warren? Should she be whatever else bad use for the substance of the pole, the focus on general election, matchup pull, I said, look I say good use for for leaking it, because the present it's a sad that had lied about leaks, yeah, yeah, we're journalists, one also the president had lied about this pulling existing. So it corrected the record there we go, we've got a good use and a bad use in

the same example: let's move on and talk about the democratic primary debates, but first today's podcast is brought to you by zip recruiter find your job is a lot of work. But what, if you have your own personal recruiter to help you find a better job now? Is it recruiters technology can do just that, for you just download the Ziprecruiter job search app, let it know what kind of jobs you're interested in and its technology starts, doing the work, the zipper critter out, fine, jobs you'll like and put your profile in front of employers who may be looking for someone like you if an employer likes your profile, Ziprecruiter? Let's you know so. If you're interested in the job, you can ally No wonder Ziprecruiter is the number one rated job search app and based on a third party survey, seven out of ten people. Found a new job on Ziprecruiter increased their salaries. Those were the result.

Two thousand and seventeen US survey of over five hundred Ziprecruiter users who got hired for a job they found on Ziprecruiter, download the freezer, recruiter job search app today and let the power of technology work. For you don't wait the sooner you download the free, zip job search app, the sooner it can help you. Find a better job. The first democratic primary debates are scheduled for next Wednesday and Thursday, and the lineups were determined last Friday. The Democratic National Committee to ensure that both nights would have equal importance and that there would not be a jv and varsity debate, so shows the lineup semi randomly but ensured that candidates polling over two percent would be evenly divided across the two nights, and here are the line. Ups Wednesday night is warranted. Booker club, which are work Castro De Blasio, Delaney, Gabbard, initially and Ryan, and then Thursday night is by then Sanders Harris, but a judge Yang, Jello Brand Hickenlooper Bennett

Williamson Swalwell. I think I finally learned how to pronounce all those names correctly pleaded Swalwell. So Let's start with this: did the Dnc S qualifying criteria work as intended? Well, it doesn't seem like the main attractions or the top pohlers, are evenly split up between the two nights night one seems to have become sort of defacto. The quote unquote jb although you could point out that, like Elizabeth Warrens, perhaps pretty stoked to be the only top tier contender on that night yeah it's gonna be a little more give we should. We should have it. We should have a fight about. I think now. It's gonna argue that people won't watch the first night. Yeah you'd rather be in that sort of like big time. Or like she won't get to show off her. You know debating skills like yeah. I would just put down that. There's no debate there.

Talk for probably five minutes total and it doesn't like it doesn't matter. Well, I don't know Let's get a little bit more into whether or not this is good for war, So this is good or bad form, but before we do that, first of all, can we put some numbers to how this attempt to divide up the top pulling candidates did zero. When this all came out, Nathaniel Jeffs Kelly from our politics team, basically looked at the average of polls that the Dnc used for qualification and just kind of summed up each night's support night. One hundred and twenty one percentage point of support average support two points. Night too. Sixty four total percentage points of support average support six one slash two points, so it's like a big disparity now

so it's going to be somewhat of a disparity because because of biden- but this is like a pretty pretty big- disparate actually are quantitative. Editor, Laura Bronner was like playing around with the data and found that this distribution of support it is among the most lopsided. You could have had possible. Nine, are you telling us that are unlikely things happen? It's not to say was, unlike the it's just to say that, like this is like really lopsided relative to to what was possible said. In that sense, the Dnc didn't get what it wanted. Purportedly

I do think they got what they wanted, or I don't know I maybe I put it to you guys in terms of having an inclusive first debate. That's still left a couple people out, or should I go back and forth on this like in terms of not which night the people are in, but just in terms of who qualified do you feel like the Dnc is happy. I think everyone would probably be happier if there are fewer people in the debates. So the Dnc probably isn't happy that this many people are running for president and met their qualification standards. I don't know, if that's the answer we were looking for. I mean the question: is actually encourage people to run on the set is relatively low, low back fresh Alton. I know now it would seem like the Dnc by having for the third presidential debate, which will be hosted by our partners at ABC News, the up the stairs quite a bit that we kind of cut half the field out, and so I think I think it's kind of a asset acknowledgement that, like maybe this was too loose. I also think it would probably say you know what we probably wants to

like the governor of Montana debating. If we had our druthers there's a for experience, we would not necessarily want Marianne Williamson or someone debating so they try to elusive and, like you know, I've criticized the Dnc for some stuff that they've done. One thing is, I would actually prefer to have had an actual jv debate. And a heavy weights debate, I'm not sure why they were so reluctant to do that. But that aside, like no matter what they would do, they're were going to get criticized you by the way that the parties did not have a role, and it was the network, so ABC News would decide in their debate and NBC in their and whatever else. Maybe it's better honestly. That way, the party isn't like looking like it's trying to set the rules. It's hard to set objective criteria to kind of match your kind of subjective, you of what should be in without looking like you're kind of putting your finger on the scale. Now that we've discussed the structure of the first debate, let's get into the actual,

substance Claire, you started to say that Warren was probably hey, that she was well, let's just say, She is the only top five candidate on Wednesday night, the first night so clear. You were saying that she's probably happy about that. Can you lay out the argument why that would be good for Warren. What the advantages are, as you see them, well, the advantage is that she's not competing with any with multiple other headliners? That could be the pro side argument, and so in a debate where people probably only get to speak for a few minutes She could potentially be the person who people know already. Let's assume that she performs Well, because she does this stuff a lot in the form of like town halls, and she stops all the time that she comes off. People are kind of like oh yeah, Elizabeth Warren, really commanded that debate stage. She was the person I was impressed by whatever and then there were some other people that I kind of knew I'd, also

that she's, like a person who Democrats are going to attack like, I think the second night could have the potential for people to kind of come at Biden say as one of the more moderate people. So if you're looking for an upside for warm in the first date debate, it's that she's kind, the big kahuna? Or do you guys think about that? I mean. Let me ok. I have a fairly elaborate theory is there one? A one b, a one c, so I think they're like four tiers of candidates, right okay, but we know what those are so here. First of all, I think this debate, which is a moment this first debate, are these, for sets of debates are a moment, a potential vulnerability for Joe Biden, who has been atop. The polls by a pretty good Margin, since he began running but traditionally kind of been debates. The candy through the favorite to the front runner. First debates are moments of vulnerability for them where it gives candidates kind of literal equal status on a stage with them. This is more of a guess. I do not think

Aiden is going to be an especially good debater, although we have some experience to to the v p debates. Obviously, but like yeah, he has been that code and past the bay yeah I think he's probably I mean I think- Probably you know, probably a plus debater, and I think the media narrative is relative. What ' It's really these debates. What do you mean? he's gonna be like a well. I I'm thinking about he's. No, I'm talking about like the two last two like marquee presidential debates, he's had to do a vice presidential, the Sarah Palin one his his sort of task was to not look like a bull here, is ok now one yeah but like his but his ask, was sort of to be like people kind of knew. She didn't have a great grasp of policy and he was supposed to be to convey the idea that he was knowledgeable without across is a bully or condescending condescending, and I think Paul Ryan. When I honestly don't remember as well maybe maxim looking back on this CBS News, instant poll that had died fifty percent Ryan thirty one percent. So I guess people the time. Maybe Maybe I'm maybe expertise

they are too low, but, like I think there is also a thing where, like the media is red, like a chain a story from billions of frontrunner. Frankly, it's been pretty boring the past couple of months. Thank you for listening to podcasts through these boring times very but anyway so here's my theory Biden as the front runner, probably it's to avoid any of the other top tier candidates. You kind of can't mathematically right, but you'd rather kind of have. It seemed like the clay Car approach where there are many Democrats are kind of like the blasio or something like wild swings at him, and he is on a pedestal, elevated and just like, be there sky right and not deal with the more fermentable and some of whom are potentially pretty good debaters so you're saying this setup is bad for Biden Thank you would rather have been in position. You know the thing I I genuinely don't know, but the thing that what that I think sounds wrong to me about that Nate. Is that supposes that the way these debates affect the elect?

in is like quite literal and about what expires on stage and what transpires between whom and how so, in other words like to exaggerate, understanding of how it would work. It would be like if right. One Cory Booker does really good job of attacking Amy Bee Club. Then we will see after the debate bookers pulls rise at the expense of Clova Shar, obviously not saying it works that way. But to me it's like these debates are all about. Who has a good moment? who has a good media coverage coming out of them and therefore probably don't depend that much to what I was saying earlier about. Does not really that much back and forth. It's mostly just the candidates talking. They don't really depend that much on who's, in which the bait does that make sense. It's more just like who

forms well who knocked the question out anymore, either talking about like something that It effects someone's odds of winning nomination by oh point, one percent or something right, we're not talking about, but don't don't you form your perception of who somebody is relative to everyone else like isn't that why people are saying Biden is a moderate because everyone else is on like we talked about this in a recent podcast, where Nate we're saying that well, objectively, he's a liberal but when you're on stage with a bunch of people who are, you know further to the left and of course you see more moderate in comparison and your behavior on stage, not just in policies but also demeanor and style are going to be viewed in comparison everybody else: yeah, that's fair and like if Warren, if we're, if we that Warren has been paired with, like the the also ran,

candidates. Maybe that helps our, but I'm not sure that the support translates into like how someone looks on stage as a debater. In other words, like some of these people who are getting less than a percent in the polls might still be really good. On stage yeah I mean the first night debate does have a potential for it to be for someone to like steal the show from Warren right like what, if I mean something like Jay Insley horror. I guess called Afshar Booker who have been getting less attention. You probably ' you're, probably super happy to be in that debate. I would think because to me it's like there's more of a chance to like steal the gold star from the front runner and to like have a bit of a break out. Rather than get lost in the morass of what potentially the second debate could be could be, which is like Oh Biden is to moderate. The first debate has a lot of underachievers, people who have ng, resumes got a lot of hype

enter the race but who have not really perform that. Well, so I think all these people. I mean I was a bad always been in in in a world of hurt lately in terms of his polls in as many narrative Booker, I think, should be very capable. Debater club char should be a very capable debater Castro is a can? Who I don't understand why he hasn't gained more traction and ins is another one. You know so that's kind. Groupon Jilla brand in the second night, would be in that group he's a kind of one exception, but so like. If you look at not the polls, what kind of how much raw talent there is, I think It is not that easy and you could very easily imagine if Booker as well or better or any of these Castro right that people could say, hey, look kind of Finally, these are interesting candidates and how can they have not been getting more attention, and you know club, which is a former prosecutor. She's, probably pretty good extemporaneous speaker,

so I don't know. I think it's like not necessarily like it easy task for for Warren. So do you disagree, we've kind of US allies that potentially bite and has something to lose going the second night in that he can take jobs from the other. Level candidates? That night? Do you agree or disagree with Claire about war and being happy with the with going on the first night? We disagree because I think, like she actually has other opponents, the story of night wind right, but there are certainly ways we can work out for her. One way it could work out nicely is, if it looks like Biden, is being attacked from all sides and hold up relatively well Then I could look like okay she's. The one who sailed through was focused on policy, didn't have to get personal, whatever else was the bigger woman, bigger person and that the other debates kind of this food fight that could make her look good right. So there's like a ugly,

the second debate, then okay, maybe Castro has a breakout moment. Okay, you can live with that right. So I mean again. This is this is pretty marginal of but in general she has. Rising. Polls in in people's estimation. So now I prediction markets use the second most likely Democrat to win after biting an assessment. I think I tend to agree with that. Chili. So it's like kind of this moment where well, who all that in there just as little as some rather take Bernie. No, I I I said over the weekend near PETE. I said over the weekend that if you squint at recent polls, you could almost convince yourself that Warren is in second place now yeah you have to squint and it's uh post, but so maybe this is a little bit of an addendum to our last weeks, podcast, where we debated whether or not she was surging. That kind of advantage in the polls seem to become clearer in the time since, but go ahead click. So let me ask a question for the people around this table, all of whom will be live blogging

this debate. That is a plug for the live blog folks, but many other news organizations will be doing the same but will be doing it better. How much affect do we think our live blogs and the write ups of the debates will. Or in pulling over the ensuing couple of weeks following that debate, given I'm assuming that not everyone in America will be watching the two night extravaganza. So I'm asking how much are our fingers on scales? It's, I think, maybe most difficult events to cover, if you're part of the media, because, like the media perception influences a lot of it. We have a can. We announced the thing we're doing. Let's announce it here yeah, so we actually have a somewhat surprising store which I'm ruining going morning. Consult we have, with their help, does in polling around the debate when they were trying to see actually is so how much of who people won the debate or perform well has to do with who voters ahead of time who?

really changed mine, so we're doing, I think, different types of pulling that people have seen. Ordinarily, you will not be ready right uh, but I think we're going to say. Ok, here's our view, as in these ten person debate, what kind of reduced to playing the role of pundits, and I think we'll try to do that by number. One being aware of the media circus around a debate and how our judgments can matter and number two kind of sense of humor about it, not take it super seriously, but we are going next morning after each debate, have a bunch of innovative of polling about how people did. We may even be able to look at kind of how things evolve over time. Was there a split and how people who reacted right? After the debate reacted versus people who got up the next morning, and then read news about the debates and how that might have changed. I mean I do feel like war might have been a moment where she had a really good debate. Then people will be ready. To crown her is like, oh actually, maybe she's, not two, maybe she's, actually the most likely Democrat to win. If by It seem vulnerable, or else and now she can't have that direct path. I mean who There's right. It's it's June,

being coordinated. The front runner in June is not that or maybe even harmful in some ways. So to answer your question Claire about the all that the media plays in perceptions of the debate. It does play a role yeah, it's a it's a huge role. Even if you just look at how many people watch the debate, I think most voters encountered the debate through the media, not through the debate itself, but I'm not sure there's anything to do about that, except be conscious of it for ourselves right and then and then, as they were saying we as part of it. We cover how the media is covering the debate Is that what you think you think it has a big effect or not want to provoke conversation and thought? You know who I think had the worst draw for the debate? Booted? Who did it? I think Mayor PETE would have really benefited from kind of being in Warren's position more, where I think I'll get crowded out somewhat by the heavy hitters.

He's also on stage with many older people. But it looks like that because you have the other yeah. The other thing is like for people like, say July brand someone who could I put herself, in contrast with Biden and kind of have a breakout moment or blue to judge you. Be like I'm kind of making a similar argument to Biden, but look I'm young fish that could be like a Positive thing you could argue up and down for, like every person for where that for the spot, they have for being good or bad being good or bad yeah. I know, and when, when this came out, our politics Oct Channel, like Rob, did in Take it like a real wereshark test: full disclosure- I don't love, live blogging things I don't know if I should that, but I do actually think that this is going to be a really interesting watch, because it'll be interesting to see what people strategies are like if they're going to come out and just sort, ignore everyone else on stage and introduce themselves to America or if they're, going to like come out

guns blazing yeah, who are you most interested to see? Well, I'm like a lot of people great to see whether orc just does his like a work thing where he, really earnest, onstage and and that's kind of what the what he's hoping people remember. Like the telegenic Ernest message, I guess I probably most interested in how club a shard Booker comport themselves, because they are those kind of cost be and in a sea of initially, who, I think is like super qualified, has a single, singular message for his campaign is kind of like an interesting Canada. In that respect, I'm kind of curious if you provoke stuff on stage those were over again and club, which are where, where my teammate, who on I want I mean let's go with the club. Ok, since I wrote her how Amy Clover char can win the nomination Shar Shar Satan,

or false Shar Shar. I think her strategy relied fairly explicitly on being good at the debates. As someone who has certainly been good in scenarios where there's like Senate testimony and questioning and whatnot has a prosecutors- and can, in theory, be kind of born funny. I mean I think this is a big moment for her and on the second night, I'm really curious about Harris 'cause, I'm curious about her overall in her kind of position in the campaign right now, she's also someone who you would think would you Bates is a rallying point. You can imagine, things getting nasty between Biden, and Sanders Sanders by the way they both with a certain amount of pressure. I think by because he's the frontrunner runner his first big test, in Burney, because all the sudden now half the time in these polls, pulling behind Warren, and so that's a problem for him. So you can imagine Harris or maybe booty touch, kind of emerging and saying I'm going to be above the fray, or I don't know- or maybe

you know what I am obviously a better Canada. Now, these old white dudes on stage, and so it's a it's a big night for Harris who's. Favorable ratings are perfectly good and who raised enough money right, but, like seems like she's, behind three or four other people in terms of first choice, support to like actually who she is as a candidate and what she's made of all right well, I had to leave it there and, as Claire mentioned, we're going to be liveblogging. Both nights of debate so tunein for that and we're also going to have a reaction, podcast or two haven't exactly figured out our plans yet, but get ready for that as well. Now, let's

and talk about persuade rible voters in two thousand and twenty, but first today's podcast is brought to you by quip it's time for spring cleaning. In fact, you only have about four days left. I think technically, quips got an easy way to start with that spring cleaning, and it's with your brushing habits. Just two minutes twice a day can help you pave the way to a healthier mouth and now the whole family can get refreshed with quip. The new kids quit has the same two minute: timer an guiding pulses. As their original version with no childish gimmicks, so they can brush just like a grown up. The new brush is the same as their original version. Just tweaked for size down mouse kids are inspired to brush better and more often with oral care. That looks and feels like the product, the adults in their life. Brush heads are delivered automatically on a dentist recommended schedule of every three months for just five dollars.

Well, over one million happy healthy males, love. The quip quip starts at just twenty five dollars and if you go to get quick dot com, slash five, three eight, that's the number is not the letters you can get your first refill pack for free, that's your first refill pack for free at get quip dot. Com. G e t e q. U I p dot com, slash five three eight! Today's podcast is also brought to you by we work. We work to flexible work, space for businesses of all sizes and industries. We work spaces are designed to help maximize workplace efficiency, employee effectiveness, team collaboration and creativity, it's the solution for medium, large and enterprise businesses that intend to expand into new cities and continents with ease looking for

as with the view of Lima London Melbourne on them by we work now has over four hundred locations in one hundred different cities. Worldwide membership plans are completely flexible and work spaces are designed to grow. With your team, we worked for mapping. Technology is used to build a custom private floors for larger teams perfectly designed to fit your business is continuously evolving needs. We work, pay special attention to the culture and energy in each of their locations, designed to foster amazing partnerships and call operations, both within teams and across companies head over to wework dot com, to find a location near you and learn more about? We works custom workspace solutions for larger teams as Democrats gear up for the debates, President Trump is gearing up for the general election he's kicking off his real in campaign, in Orlando, on Tuesday and for all the New it's come out of the Trump White House over the past couple years, his approval has been relatively stable so as trump

focuses on reassembling his winning coalition. We want to know who exactly the campaign is trying to convince and, of course who Democrats are trying to convince as well so we're going to talk about those persuade rible voters swing voters whatever you want to call them just out of the gates here, do you guys have a conception of who the persuaded by voters are in twenty twenty, what they look like both either politically or demographically there you go bomb a truck, but right I mean that's my visualization of them, so people who were historically Democrats who voted for Barack Obama and who switched over in twenty sixteen most of them still like Donald Trump, but I think the twenty eighteen midterms showed that there was room for Democrats to actually perform well among those voters, and I think they were places in swing. States like Pennsylvania, where Democrats perform much better than two thousand and sixteen, and so I think that that's where the movement is perhaps in a super polarized,

America do we view also Romney Clinton or Romney Third Party voters, as per sway. Voters in twenty twenty last I think they're more solidly. Moving towards Democrats is my trend impression. I think it's mostly take to be overly narrow in your conception of who persuade Rible. Voters are so one thing I've tried to do in the past is you'll. Take a big survey and you're gonna demographic regression. Saying ok, here are a bunch interest. We know about someone everything from age and gender and religion to what part of the country they live in two: are they in a union or the military veteran? Are they day all the stuff right, and you can say, okay, who come out closest to like fifty speak in terms of the electoral voting for Democrat Republican. It's actually pretty good mix right in general. You can like mix any. Characteristics say someone who is an hispanic but working class. One of those projects, Democrat

putting one predicts republican voting for Trump right. Someone who is wealthy but lives in in an urban area or like in a well educated suburb, and then also contradict one of little bit terms of who they might four, and so I think the universe is like persuaded. Voters is broad. I think that ulcers get cute about identifying soccer, moms or or little League ads or whatever else right. Maybe the service, where we don't necessarily know ahead of time kind of where the, where the tipping point, as I agree with that I'm so I would come at this from a few different ways: Obama, Trump voters Rep then I think, according to one of the analyses, we're looking at about five percent of the electorate, You know they've gone from having upwards of like eighty ninety percent approval of trump down to just like a a a small majority so like around sixty percent approve of Trump. That's a huge group of voters, but if that's a meaningful chain German, an important group. I would also look at it in different ways. So, like the democracy fund, voter study group had a thing

showing that just fifteen percent of Americans have changed their view of trump at some point in the last two years. So that's like a decent proxy for whose swing the ball. You know persuade a ball or, like you know, around ten percent of Democrats, The country is on the right track, that the economy is getting better and a little more than that say of Democrats say the family is in a better off session. Financially, that's a group that I would that I would pay attention to, as as maybe one where Trump to make progress, that I would look at multiple groups and not just try to identify demographic groups, but, but also look at questions where you see movement are questions where a group of voters answer conflicts with their partners in default. The other thing I'd say is

catalyst. This really interesting study where they were looking at two thousand and eighteen verse. Two thousand and sixteen an one reason Democrats did so good. Is there was this group that they called surge voters, people who didn't vote in two thousand and sixteen but did vote in twenty eight which is really interesting because usually presidential years have much higher turn out than than mid term years, and so I think that group in my head at least then I don't have proof for this, but in my head a group who was holding their nose and didn't want to vote for either of the polarizing candidates and sixteen, but like voting for more palatable local candidates and maybe were were sort of energized or just engaged in some way by that by the Trump presidency. At the same time, like Non college White turn out, dropped in twenty eighteen relative to twenty sixteen. And so what do those voters do in twenty? Twenty now that now, that Trump is on the

I think strategically. The Trump campaign has a lot of potential turn a super interesting, two thousand and twenty campaign right. The idea that they could go after people who cult The people who were you know the under polled demographics in this two. Sixteen election like, I think they have a lot of interesting places to go as as far as their energy. I mean I'm, who I know. We spend a lot of time right now focusing on the Democrats, but I do think the president's path to victory. That is really interesting and to that point, last week on Thursday I spoke to your republican strategist, Bill Mcinturff and one of the demographics. What he was saying he was looking at in his research, which actually It gets into what Nate was saying about conflicting demographic points were men of colors or hispanic and african american men. He said the somewhat dependent on who the democratic nominee was, but like us,

If it was a woman, he saw fertile ground amongst that group. For Republicans, we have. We seen reason to believe that so far in the polling truck a higher than expected, latino turnout actually. Well, I think it's, I think it's kind of debatable. I think it's relying on the exit polls, I think they're, not necessarily all that reliable to break down the latino vote would be misguided for Republicans got it or the Trump campaign to think that they could pick up voters in that group. No, I would buy that. I think there are yeah, but let me let me put it really Jen I think there are men who would vote Republican if there's a woman on the ballot who otherwise wouldn't, I think, maybe what that poster that republican pollster is getting at. Is that? Yes, if the? democratic nominee were a woman. There are certain demographic groups in America that are more culturally conservative and that you could potentially like pick off certain

that group by playing up basically on an eight system that might run through those demographic groups write, an observer like white men are already overwhelmingly voting for Republicans anyway, so the more fertile ground would be among those color yeah, exactly there's a concept, it's a little bit hard to articulate, but I'm going to try right, which is that, even if a group overall in the aggregate leans one way or the other plenty of India members of that group can still be swing. Voters right if you do like a chart showing- every white man in America and where they will for like seventy percent for Trump right, and if you need to be very picky about like a, distribution where you show each individual probability of voting, democrat or Republican? You still look pretty thick size of that constituency over the five thousand and fifty mark and I think there's too much demographic determinism in the way people vote, because in the aggregate yeah it's very important that two slash three or seven

ten white voters, vote for Trump white men at the same time, the thirty percent, who don't are really quite important? Actually that's still a big, The thirty twenty five percent of Hispanics who do not vote for Democrats is a pretty big number actually right and so I know I think, there's like too much. Determinism in like in general I have removed black voters in the equation because voters are so democratic that, even if you need like a lot of things, to contradict that for them to consider voting republican and maybe the equipment to black voters is white evangelicals, especially in the south are there. So Anti Democrat, at least for the Democrats that would be nominated for the presidential nomination that, like okay, a few of them are in play. Apart from those two groups, I think it's really pretty even kind of and probably resembles a general population more than you would think in terms of who is persuade. So then I do we see these a

that seemed to be so divided along these demographic lines, where you can look and say: ok, you're, an urban dwelling college, educated white person. You probably voted for Hillary Clinton. Ok, you are a working class. White person in the rust belt, you probably voted for Donald Trump square those two things that actually Lot of america- is persuade Rible, but only fifteen percent of Americans have changed their opinion about Trump over the past two one slash two years and when we actually have elections, it just seems to fall very much along these demographic lines, because it's uh micro versus macro right. When you look macro out yeah, you generally, if you have an urban younger millennial than you, only Clinton, voter or democrat right. Maybe she voters, water, seventy slash, thirty or something, but a tentative level, seven thousand and thirty is still millions of people, and also individually. That consists of be over one hundred and some people forty right and some people were kind of close to the media. It's it's like white little hard to articulate but like, if literally you go into a day

set and try forecast on an. Which will voter level who was persuade Rible. You end up with more diverse definition of persuade above person you would think by looking at macro level data. Is it more than fifteen percent of Americans? I know it's more or less. Maybe fifteen percent about the right number, but remember people all have multiple demographic characteristics. You have is gender religion, age, sexuality, which party until what do you think of yourself as liberal or moderate education, increasingly important one to let people are complex and swing. Voters are complex and often they have contradictory demographic characteristics. Yet so, just just a few things, so one Is the swing here overall we're talking about it's, not huge swing Democrats won the National House vote by, like eight nine points in two thousand and eighteen, so two thousand and eighteen big.

For Democrats win the house. They pick up a bunch of governorships, etc, etc. Right in one the national popular vote in twenty sixteen by two points. So that's like a six seven point. Difference right, even though it's not a huge share of the country to persuade a ball, it's still more than enough to shift elections from what we all would describe as democratic Landslide republican Landslide, at least in the context of of today. The other thing is: there are multiple layers of swinging going on.

Here are. There are some sounds that they're not exactly a program for prime time. There are multiple because it's been turned out and persuasion, in other words, is the campaign and are the candidates persuading people to turn out and vote and then are there is actors persuading people to vote for them or the other person that creates more fluidity in the system than if it were just what do people think Democrats lost rural areas in twenty? Sixteen, a law rural areas in two thousand and eighteen, but they this rural areas in twenty eighteen by less than they did in two thousand and sixteen, partly because of persuasion and partly because of turn out

and that was really important in some house. Races in governor's, races and again could be really important in, like some of these rust belt states. It's just there's a lot more fluidity in comp complexity than just like. Can I convince person, acts to change their mind from you not from Trump to bite in our home ever just close on this, and maybe I don't know if there, an answer, but when looking out persuasion versus turn out in an environment where maybe ten to fifteen percent of people are persuaded bowl, is it fair to say that turn out? is more important than persuasion, or is that kind of like a trap that people fall into when they just However, on thirty made up their mind, so all you have to do is turn out to people who already agree with you. I think it's a bit of a trap one of the storylines that I've seen at least in the democratic primary side of things, for a really long time. Basically, since the last election, is they almost this dichotomy between we gotta win back, Obama Trump voters, and that means we have to nominate a white guy or nope. We have to

a person of color and activate those communities there does seem to be this real bifurcated conversation and not that you need to perhaps consider both options, so I think it is just like a weirdly bifurcated conversation about it's either turn out or it's either persuading those people who switched allegiances. How often does the same party make gains in both turn out M persuasion in election? relative to the last election, pretty I mean they tend to be correlated right if you're doing well, usually both persuading people up for you and and get more people turn out Trevor situations like way too abstract to question. Like that's not answerable, question right, you know, is you know we more important marriage, physical romance or financial security. It's like just way too open ended, romance okay,

Sorry, gold diggers. I we answered the question with that. I easy question: what I do think is that, like the committee wisdom is over index toward turn out in part, because if you're a political parties- and then you can say, ok If I just kind of double down on the things my base likes, then that will actually help me more than trying to pander to the center or whatever and so I think the the Ingram bias is toward since leaving that hey. If I can just kind of turn out the true believers and therefore I'll do better when probably it's a mix of both but think I think more often than not these kind of base strategies, like frankly, like the Republicans, tried in twenty eighteen. More often than not, they they backfire. There are two ways it can backfire. You can either motivate the other party's base or you can anti persuade swing. Voters first, the benefit of like okay. I do my base, but you gain in one way and losing to others, and so therefore, like I think, parties don't often account for that and they forget.

For the most part, the things that rile up your ACE, also rile up the other party's base. Maybe there are some issues like traditionally Control was one way Republicans gained more with their base, because but higher salience. The Democrats it with their base. So therefore, there might be some exceptions to that in a skilled political practitioner identify those yeah. I think the fact that turn out and persuasions those games tend to be correlated betrays the fact that there's like something bigger going on here, we tend to talk about elections as Claire was saying, as if, like the campaigns have these like two lovers, they can pull turn out persuasion, but it's more just like what's going on in the country who's speaking better to that moment- and you know other other kind of Canada characterised x and an economic conditions and all the rest and that filters down into turn out and persuasion We should get out of the habit of talking about the campaign as if these candidates can pull a turnout lever or a

suasion lever and and those things are independent or all that exact all right. Well, I think that is a good place to leave it. So, hopefully, we've answered the question of who is persuaded one, twenty twenty, it's a lot of people. Let's leave it there. Thank you Nate. Thank you. Thank you, Claire thanks Galen, and thank you Michael. Thank you. Thanks for having me back, it's good to have you. You must hear my name gay Landruk, Toni Chau is in the control. Room are in turn, is Jake are low. You can get in touch by emailing us at podcast at five hundred and thirty eight com. You can also, of course, tweet it 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 someone about us thanks for listening and will see you