#AIS: FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver on how gamblers think
40:01 Share

We're really excited to have our next speaker here. Next, silver is the etr and chief of five thirty eight. And he came to our poker game recently.

Name.

came to our game, come on at night.

ran the game over. See morning.

he.

Was the who was the big loser that night?

I think what .

who was the big loser is.

right? He was the big.

or I was basically try.

I think I donated a little bit to a nate servers, new model .

moto model lib.

and you get the money that coming to the game, this was the largest poker when you ve had in your life.

largest cash gin. Yeah.

by a factor of five.

two, two. okay.

Well, we're happy to donate. You're getting, by the way, you're speaker fee. I just cancelled IT o but latest and gentleman nates were on the mind of a gambler er door.

Winter, man.

We are sort .

the fan. I'm really excited to talk to yet today i'm working on a book about gambling, risk and rationality. I, for the term of critical thinking to rationality, it's probably involved of talking to people about global societal risk.

So talking to people about the risk of nuclear war, which is like not very cheery conversations, by the way, but also people who take risk for a living or at the very least managed risk and have real skin in the game, and not just some actually getting a cellar. Their assessing risk of making big decisions financially, mostly based on on that assessment. So i've started out talking to poker players and sports matters on my former poker player myself.

I still play recreation in a lot, apparently. I think number of three, one of the global poker rankings is not. They look at up every morning, but most of the examples of talking to other fantastic poker players and sports spitters about their process.

And i'm also talking now more to VC two founders to hedged fund managers, for example. There are a lot of similarities, ties. There's a certain type of person that's when talking about today, personality traits, modes of thinking and even effects, maybe their political of use a little bit.

And you see a lot of things in common. So gave you some this context already. This is a work in progress.

I mean, the book is kind of halfway zero percent written, about fifty percent of research. So things may change and evolving and learning and corrupting things, but it's fun to write a book. It's going to have great conversations with the best use other people and really kind of experiences this first hand.

So i'm going to start with some things that I think are relatively straight forward and obvious and then getting things that are maybe less so toward the end. But one really obvious one is that successful gambling ers think probabilistic ally, it's not just a matter of understanding probability, but being comfortable with uncertainty, being willing to take bets on an uncertain basis, this kind of table sex, getting into any field involving risk. In poker, at least you probably also need a fair amount of mathematical ability.

There are now these things called solvers in poker that come up with a game theory, optimal charge for every situation. It's a very complex situation, is way too hard to memorize. You have to kind of develop a mathematical intuition behind IT.

But even players with where exception feel help, if might be the one exception actually, right? But even players who are known as being few players or exploitive players, people who rely on tels and psychology and table talk. I talk today in the ground, for example, one of the probably five best book place of all time.

And hey told me about four years ago, he realized that these solver kids, as he calls him the math wises, were were Better than him, at least at certain forms of poker and he totally remade his game to look at computer solutions to be more studious and mathematical and its improved his results quite a bit in the VC feel. I don't know you if you necessary doing as much modeling as I might in election model, for example, but very leased people understand the intuition, and the intuition is you need both. But I think the intuition is more important than the than the application.

Number two, this one ought to be really obvious, but IT needs to be said successful gambling ers are highly competitive. Things that you hear from people over and over again is I want to kind of prove people wrong. I want to out smart the competition um I want to show who's best.

It's almost more of this motivation than financial motivation. I think it's partly the a matter of you can't settle for being average as a gamer. The average poker player loses the money to the house, so as the average orts Better.

So therefore, you have to deviate from average in some ways. But kind of one conclusion have come to to be for this book is that human beings are are competitive species, right? To get people to get along in society is pretty hard.

One good thing about capitalism is that you have some managed type of competition. Democracy is kind of a type of competition, and that's only a Better way to kind of chAllenges these conflicting urges we have then, things that are too centrally planned. But certainly people in this room, people like talk to you, are on the high end of the competitive scale.

Successful poker players and sports matters have to care a lot about small edges. It's the nature of placing bets. And they feel where you lose money on average.

So a very good sports Better might win fifty five or six percent of hester herbs. You have to win fifty two and half percent to make up for the house cut for the rate or the pig as different names. That means you can't afford to make one percent errors, right?

You really have to squeak every last drop of expected value or E, V, out of any situation that you're in. This next, people are very, very, very detail oriented. Poker players tend to be very studious, ous about their craft that really kind of love poker.

You can't just get the big things right in poker. You have to get the small things right too. It's too compared a field right now.

This might not be asty by the way of VC. The average investment makes money. You may not make above market return, but you will make money, which is not true for the average power ham that you play.

Um by the way, as two, if you talk to casino executives, you might think you walk in a casino and everything that you do is maximized, ed, and that to make the maximum of revenue possible. Not really right. They are pretty good at the big stuff.

They protect their downside risk a lot, but they're not maximum as much, do you think? Because when you have like a license to make money, you don't have to get the small surf right. But in poker, where only ten percent of players probably make one in a long run, you have to be very, very detailed oriented.

Number four, you see here A A polygram thread about elan. Actually successful gambling ers are concentrating, at least to some degree. And again, i'm kind of repeating myself a little bit, but there's there's no edge of someone ever.

Everyone does the same thing in the same way. You have to have some angle that you think makes you Better than what the market things in the markets pretty good. What's a hard thing to manage? I think risk kers tend to view themselves as outsiders.

Where they they are or not is probably an open question. But they think of themselves thinking differently from the rest of the world. potentially.

This can also make them potentially like a little bit annoying, like outside of investing and gambling context, right? Where if you're kind of always a person who says, well, actually that can get kind of push back in social settings, for example, or on twitter, but you can't kind of settle for having the average view because the average view you doesn't do Better than than the market. There is a fine line between being ahead of the curve and a permanent contrarian in sports betting, there's a line that's constantly misPriced.

And I can just bet that I don't want market to correct itself. I want to keep exploiting that error in pricing right in VC. I mean, you might want to find a founder or a sector or companies under value by the market, but eventually you want that sector to grow.

You want to attract more talent, you want to attract future fundraising rounds. So you kind of our more being ahead of the curve by um by half a year to a year. I think in some ways, it's analogous to real estate.

We are trying to kind of vent anticipate where the market will be in the future, and that's suddenly different skills LED in being maybe contrary and pursue, but related at least number five. And again, this might be a little bit redundant, but successful gamblers tick shots. And this is very intuitive in VC where you have to feel where you might might only have a unicorn deca corn you know one percent of time or tempts the time, of course, of a whole portfolio.

IT may not be that risky in the aggregate um but you have to be willing to make decisions under under pressure and be somewhat fearless as a result, right? Timing is important. You want to be first to market and poker.

You have a financial time you can spend on a hand in practice, sometimes he'll take these risks in a calculated way, right? I talked to sandbag and freed for the book, for example. He's like, yeah, news would have like a only if a chance of succeeding.

But their pay f was so high, I would take IT. Some people just kind of more intuitive ly just kind of want to put skin in the game, want to take risk, get some excitement or pleasure from IT. Again, we're talking about the very extreme tales here too, right? The people who are a super uber successful maybe are almost taking on more risk.

And they maybe should. You can instead, like live a very happy in complacent life as investment banker, or something that people were crew entrepreneurs, and think at scale, and think and think very, very big. I should say, one chAllenge of running the book is that talking all the successful people, you risk survivorship bias, right?

So kind of which people fell along, by the way, side. If you know unsuccessful investors or gAmber ers, then send them my way. I need to talk to some of them as well. Number six, successful gambler ers, especially in poker, work well with incomplete information.

One thing that differentiates kind of people and academic a and academy is very useful for basic research and for advancing science and things like that, right? But like, but you don't get months and months and years and years to develop a hypothesis when there's actual money on the line. By that time, the people who are faster, we already have moved.

So the scale is kind of doing what information was available at the time you made the decision. I think there is a limit to how useful, like an after action of you might be if you kind of pretender, though you had perfect hindsight, right? We can say, what would we have done about COVID now if we had no one of things we know now about IT back in february twenty, twenty, and that would be an easier problem to solve.

But like that's then how the real world work. So this making under uncertainty, I think understudying and appreciate appreciate topic. You can be too much of a control, certainly a game like poker. Um you can lose your temper very easily. Emotional management of big part of people were successful in these fields.

But you know all the value is in making the hard decisions, right hard because their education, hard because you have some information but not others and you're going to get some things wrong. But otherwise, if it's easy, then everyone else started going to do what there's no excess returns to be made, I think, relate to this is that successful gamblers focus on process much more than results. One thing I ve found good for the book and refreshing is people who ask them kind of what makes you take? What's your advantage? They're quite thoughtful and deliberate about IT.

They stepped back and think about what skills do I possessed? What's the bigger kind of problem that i'm trying to solve? Again, emotional displacement is a big part of this. I'm not saying that you're supposed to be totally emotionless. I mean, emotion can help to guide intuition must talk about in a bit, but IT doesn't.

You have to be willing to like, lose poke ham, lose ten thousand bucks and then play the next hand as best as you can, right? Or have an investment or many investments that go sour and still be on your kind of best state of mind for making future investments. It's pretty hard.

Most people aren't very good at this at all. You can go too far and sometimes make excuses. There are lots of different ways to get unlucky in poker or investing.

But having that focus sign kind of what was my thought process IT seems in two to people in this audience may be, but it's not in puter for the average person that different different its successful gamblers quite a bit. This next side here you may have see this video online where there are a bunch of girls bouncing basketball. They ask you account how many times the best ball past back and forth.

And during the video, kind of unpronounced to the watcher, a gorilla walks on stage like things change colors where things happen, and the points of turn say, okay, well, you were so focused on counting a basketball thing pass that you ignored the gorilla in the room, so to speak, right? I think though, that if you're instructed to count the number of passes, that actually a sign of intelligence that you do focus on that, right? If you're an airport ffc controller and you're trying to like land planes at my in the airport and you get bunch of text messed from your teenage daughter, right? You shouldn't be distracted by that.

You kind of focus on the task at hand. But the points that people have an amazing ability to vary what they are paying attention to, especially in the moment and impose, is very important. Because most of the time poker is pretty boring, right? Good players fold seventy percent of their hands for the most part, right? A lot of decisions are fairly automatic, but maybe once an hour or once a day, you have a decision for tens of thousands of dollars or we'll be knocked out of the tournament or win the tournament, right? And so having that kind of knowing where you focus your attention ons and undertake scale that I think people who are at least and poker are pretty good at.

And by the way, one thing I noticed is that used to kind of think of poker players as being kind of quite sloppy and sloppy, and some them still are. But more and more, the good players are focusing on physical and mental fillings. Fitness IT is like a demanding game.

It's a bit demanding physical to kind of keep your composure and not give away information from from your mental state into really concentrate is like actual lot of work in the kind of famous studies of chess players and how magness cars from the lose you know five pounds of the course of a chess match. Just thinking which might be ridiculous but like but if you're really playing poker at your a game, at your a plus game, which you don't achieve very often, and I often find that when I am able to do that rarely, i'm completely wiped out afterwards. IT is a fiscally demanding game, but in general, kind of being having your year to the ground, looking out for opportunities and being flexed domain adventurous opportunities is an underrated skills set.

Number nine, successful gamblers apply practiced intuition. So i'm forty four, one of things about becoming midday age. Do you start to kind of potentially trust your gut a lot more, which can be which can be risky?

In some ways I think people can, in matters that happen on the occasional like a presidential election, people think, well, my god, is that so when so will win, you don't haven't have, have practice at forecasting elections are really for that to be very useful. But with one election every four years, if you're a poker player, though, you're playing tens of thousands of hands every year. If you're a VC, you're hearing thousands of pitches every year, right? And part of what experience does is kind of take things that we're once hard and they become more automatic, right?

I mean, here people say, oh, I made a decision very quickly, right? I make staff decisions. You hear someone give a pitch and you decide maybe in thirty minutes they're not to fund them or not who examples like that, but that doesn't really reflect the fact that this person has spent years and years and years holding their insight and listening to pitches and that that produces value down the line.

It's intuition of a store, but it's practiced, refined, well calibrated intuition that involves working really hard and learning, right? I mean, poker, you to go through cycles where where you kind of remind ding and get Better at something, you feel like you achieve some condition of mastery than you kind of slip. You get complacent and me, you tilt a little bit, having a bit like step back and reevaluate your game, like grand you or someone and say, look, I have to make some adjustments here.

Maybe i'm doing playing Better than ever have, but now I learn different flaws that I have, right? My appeals are getting Better to the bottom. This chart here, we reevaluate and grind back up and expect that gonna have to keep doing that for your whole life, Frankly, different of successful people, I think number tens is one of the more subtlety es, I think.

But successful gambling ers are structured thinkers. They want to understand the process behind the outcome. We're again in poke. It's two complex the game, just to purely learn through memorization and vote still, right? You want to understand how things adapt, what the underline kind of curvatures are and everything heuristics or rules of them are are pretty useful, right?

Like a poke, a uris tic might be that you should call with your medium stange hands, right your best hands you raise um your worst hand you for or check right then you kind of call with your medium stange hands. Acceptance of that neurosis s only goes so far. The kind of change of this is like, so at this conference is a lot to talk about investing in gambling, but also politics.

I do think when you're kind of a highly structured philosophical thinker um that politics is very frustrating, right? People in the other world I work in, which is no burn a website I talk to people in politics stuck to academics. You're trying to get on c TV and stuff like that, right?

It's a lot of very hypocritical and ad hawk thinking in politics, right? It's instrumental reasoning toward trying to win an argument at that moment. In that day, you see why someone like I must make IT very fed up with the kind of hibernate nature of political discourse.

That's another conversation when I have in the q na. But but I just like to some personality clashes. I think the last one here, which is may be a little bit counter intuit, but i've kind of learned I think from observation is that the most sucessful gamble lers don't actually care that much about money.

Um you know they tend to be, for the most part, very generous. They are always going to pick up the tab. They're na spend a lot on good wine and things like that, right?

They're in IT really for the love of the game. And when they get bored, they tend to quit. I think this might different change the o point one percent or open oh one percent and like the one percent, certain you want to manage your money carefully in poker.

But still, when you have people whose network fluctuates by the amount that poker players does, like in poker is basically like, you know three states, right? Superrich, somewhat rich and dead, like not a lot in between when that's the nature of your field. You've been in those states for different parts of your life, and many good poker yers have had periods with their broke.

You tend to recognize the federal nature of success and to celebrate life in the moment a bit more. So that's all. Thank you very much. Look forward to q and I know.

Ladies and gentleman, may I know, was this in the introduction that you run five, thirty eight, like everyone know the site, like during the election cycle, nate does the best job of anyone on earth gathering together polling data and then using statistical models to represent a distribution or set of expected outcomes, and making that known on his site in a way that super, I think, informative, Better than anything else is out there.

So thanks for that. Now I get really addicted to them leading up to elections. I'm like, I got to go in and check what nates changed on the site every day and I know a lot of people did. Then what I observed on twitter, which I think speaks to your first point here, was a lot of people followed your prediction on the triple action, right? And they're like, um nate made a prediction that trump was gonna in.

But what you said was that there was a forty three percent chance that trump would win and therefore people assumed he was going to lose and that the nature of a lot of people's understanding of things is very determinist. They can binary. It's like win or lose as opposed the hate.

The future is not binary. The future is not deterministic. It's there's a set of outcomes that may occur and you can get a Better sense of what that set is. You make that determination enough times you you'll be right most of the time. You'll be wrong some of the time. Do you think most my question for you, based on how I saw people react negatively yeah to your polling, which was crazy because he was like he gave a really good set of statistical model.

No people blamed you.

But my question is, like, do people have the ability to think probably tics because you say you need to think probably ticket, or that a minority of people that can really get themselves there because so many people just want to just no answer. They want to say this is the future. This isn't. They don't want to think about the distribution of outcomes.

which is really the way the world work. I mean, I think people think probably really all the time in real life friday, if you're like warning late for a meeting, you have to decide should I speed, what's the rest of getting into accident, what's risk getting pulled over or things like that? I think um you don't .

realize they are doing that.

Yeah I mean, they they don't know they're doing that. Like I think I think part the answer is that I think politics kind of breaks people's brain, right? Because like before this twice election, we ve got a lot of criticism from like liberals for being to bullsh on trump.

The market Prices about fifteen percent we have at thirty percent, right? So we are very bush trumpery to to other people. But like people thought, we were like playing with the numbers to try to, I don't know, affect turn out somehow or or try to cover our access, things like that. And so so I just don't think that like politics, these as people to think critically and it's like that part of that is like they're nothing probably sly, but it's more like people want to see their kind of .

priors confirmed what was IT like when people blamed you for truman.

But there was a lot of that yeah yes.

I mean, and why did you pick trump as .

but literally I think they pointed you and basically said you tip the election like it's almost as if like you convince people to go in like how did you how did you deal with them?

You just kind have to say like fuckyou and move on with your life. I mean, I know like i've been very lucky in my life overall, right? Including that like things that I think you're not remarkable like you know saying all the polls are going to write usually, which they were in two thousand and eight and two thousand and twelve like I think i've got wait too much credit for that, but you can't like, I mean, again, we're all poker players here, right? So it's kind of like if you kind of get your money and really good, right and you make a flush or something, like you have to have that attitude about IT yeah so you are able .

to just basically shut red out and say this. And and what about just the fact that like you live inside of an organization now, five thirty eight is owned by A B C.

A B C.

A B C um was that .

before .

the election we were esp. The time to see much and now where A.

B C news currently and so does that change sort of like like how do you make sure that you can actually just do your job no matter how unpopular the answer may be or the of outcomes maybe?

okay. So why am not working on this book? Is friendly because I wanted diversify away from just first of all, I think forecasting sting elections is an interesting problem, but it's not like the most interesting problem, right? But no, i'm not going to spend the rest of my life just like being the like the election forecasting guy.

I mean, you also face different centres. We're like the downside, like we have got some elections like really right twenty eighteen in term, we like nail like perfectly about as good as you could, right? And people like all that's nice, right?

If you get kind of want like twenty twenty primary, like we were very bush, hang jo biden and people thought he was going to lose. And so you don't get like a lot of credit and you do face like a lot of downside for being actually wrong or perceived to be wrong. Um and so yeah, i'm gonna spend the with my life making election forecasts. I hope it's part of the portfolio o of things that I do. But like i'm interested a lot of other questions .

about the world. Do you think about like social markets that are defined about social behavior? People are going to vote one way or another. You then make a prediction, and the met changes the way people vote. And so like and the same is true in stock markets.

I've going to ask you about your experience in stock markets because people have an assumption about rints, the market then reacts to the assumption about right rate ts, then the market tanks. And then the fed is like, let's change the republic system because the markets tanking. How do you think about building probability tic models that account for social feedback loops where the social decision that's made is driven by the forecasts you make or by the the market making forecast?

I think the evidence is that in two way election, so democrat rs republican, that there is no clear effect from. And by the way, like what we do is, is a tradition. There's always been horse ate.

Media coverage has always been polling going back for many years, right? You we think our version of IT is a little bit more grounded and objective in two way races. It's not clear as any impact either way.

Where can an effect is when you're having a multiple candidate race right in twenty twenty when Elizabeth Warren started to fall behind berny standards in the polls, right, if you're leftmost voter who prefers warrant to Sanders, but Sanders to biden, right, you may kind of switch your vote as a result of the poor that can create momentum mathematically trying to to model like a multi way election. We do IT. It's very hard. It's way more complex in part because the feedback loops .

that IT introduced for three and stock markets are the same.

Again, any any financial .

market behavior.

IT is a ny, by the way, that like, if I like lose a thousand books at poker, be like furious, right? Like I lose like much more than that in the stock market. And like like I don't Carry to invest in low fee like true funds and stuff like that. I mean, for sure, I mean, it's I know you guys to know more than I would, but I think there are there are certainly complexities that involve fee back loops for sure.

that we live in a very polar ized world right now. We all spend too far, too much time on twitter, and we're seeing this sort of house of mirrors. And curious how, you know the nineteen percent of people who believe in you banning abortion and their impact, and in their outsize voice versus the far left, and they are outsize voice with you, sort of democratic s socialism, affect your ability to predict what's onna happen in the country. Because the majority of the countries belief sometimes are in start contrast to political things that happened yeah and even on our podcast, people wants to pit you know sax and I as being incredible rival.

You you want to pit, but just to week.

In fact, we agree on almost everything. Yet IT feels like in our society they want to push us to pick very binary belief systems. And i'm just just how that impacts what you do day to day in your job and predicting what's gonna really happen in reality. And maybe you could tell us, based on what you've learned over time, are are people as polarized as IT seems? Or is amErica actually got a majority consensus on most of the issues that we struggle with?

Well, okay. One reason that markets work is because you get feedback in the market right, and you adjust your strategy, a result of negative feedback from consumers, people voting with their feet. I think one problem with twitter and with kind of the political atmosphere more generally, is that both the left and the right are now insulate themselves from from feedback in a lot of ways.

And if you're someone who kind of like tries to call bs, I mean, when there's a twelve car, like having a good bullshit detectors, an implicit theme, but people were successful gamblers, right? If you feel like something like that kind of bullshit, I can't let that sit there. I have to say something about IT even a little piece of my followers like you really get boundary police is a lot and totally yeah boundary police, yes yeah.

When feedback matters is a broken, then you want into potentially some really dangerous outcomes, right? Like I think I think um both the left and the right have become more authoritarian an and certainly I think the type of authority n is on the right is quite a bit more dangerous in the moment. But they're both kind of moving away from kind of liberalism in some kind of classical sense in some ways.

And I think they have to do with the feedback loops that social media end to tend to produce that they are about mediator es like IT really, really flattens things, right? One thing that people in silicon valley get right, for all their faults and self serving this in some ways, right? They kind of get the ords of magnitudes right? They understand scale and social media, and the daily new cya really collapse.

Is that right? So some extremely important problem and some trivial nonsense are kind of created on the same level. One one is one thousand times more important than the other. And and that pretty.

In a feed, it's one right after the other.

Yeah and you know again, I don't know if their ways to redesign twitter to make that Better. But like the fact that you're kind of always on right, I mean, fort ward, the kind of cable news cycle, what you have to look like, some controversy to talk about, things are completely dropped. The next day there's another news event.

I mean, some of this should be maybe actually this thing was terrible, but some thing is like way more important. So we should try to focus on that. And so that's damaging.

I think there a way out of this. Will this pass in your estimation? Is this, you know, an intractable problem?

I'm a little bit barrah concern in the short term. Yeah um to be honest.

Can you see more what does that mean?

I mean, there y're different types of risks that we face, right? I mean, one problem particular is that if we have a close election next time, particularly won this close, where where the democrats appears in nearly win, right? I mean, you're having more and more we're publicity to officials. Are cars a state? Some of the candidates pts of me for governor, for example, who kind of believe the election was was stolen in twenty twenty and like which IT wasn't to be clear and like that's a very dangerous argument to have.

IT may not resolve itself the end of democracy but like that's like you know at risk gets you know in the ten percent ranger may be higher of a severe constitutional crisis in twenty and twenty four and maybe repeated that in twenty and twenty eight and south of and so I think that's the I think the most immediate threat, but also kind of government capacity to deal with big problems, right? You know, I don't this to take the standard line about cobber. You say we should have done this and that imagine that more top down more, but clearly, like state capacity seem to be not so great, right? As we deal with other essential risks, from climate change to a eye potentially, to nuclear threats, a little bit barrier h about sake.

capacity to make good decisions in complex situations, but not perfect information.

You know, everything like being down in miami, you know, or prevent other parts of the world. Do you see like there's more reason to be optimistic, right, where people at least are excited and dynamic and there's something happening and may not be exactly the right thing, but people are are, are happy. But no, I think I think I don't know. I'm usually to stick person and i'm a little bit .

worried about what should we expect them going into the twenty twenty meters.

five hundred two meters m, twenty twenty two meters. So the baseline is pretty strong, which is that the president party loses seats the large majority of the time. And given the democrats majority are so narrow, they're pretty big underdogs to keep both the house in the senate.

With that said, in senate particular, individual candidates do matter to some extent, and you might have enough off the wall geomechanics nominated that would cost them two or three seats potentially, and that might be enough to save democrats in the senate. The house for the candidate are more anonymous and they're more sheets. And play is a little bit tougher.

I do think something like rov weed is important. Democrats wuk a lot about republican chemisant, but a lot of IT is theoretical. It's saying, well, what will happen in two and twenty four would be this for that.

This is the kind of rare example of big social change by the opposition party. And that could think motivate democrats a little bit. But but mid two elections are more predictable than presidential elections. And the base cases that you wind up with, with regular majority of some magnet .

de sc ti dots and mates handy camping of the situation and description of the political climate in, well.

I mean, pretty clearly, the republicans are expected to have big pickup PS in this met term, right? I mean, I agree with you, the senate is tougher for the top because there aren't that many, mostly at rest seats are on the republican side, right? The democratic side.

Yeah I mean, there there are also sets like kind of in the gp held and could lose potentially. But you have like I mean, I don't know how technical wanna get if you have a generic ballot that favors republicans by like two points and democrats can probably keep the senate if you get like six points, seven points, then then the world topples and like there's just too many forces going in the other way. And so yeah so so .

where you where's that right now? Are you looking .

for right now? It's two or three. However, that's among registered voters and doesn't reflect voter enthusiasm.

So typically, the chAllenger party is more motivated to turn out. You saw that in states like Virginia last year. Um that gap seems to be closing a little bit. I do think some of the uh, anti abortion legislation, right, some of the fact the gp kind of is now back on offence on culture wars against L G B T people, right?

I think potentially is going to help moto democrats to turn out right? IT wasn't the stuff Virginia where they were talking about, oh, schools and kind of, I mean, always want to like play counterattack in politics right in a helicon fountain, effective counter attacks with respect to educational policy, certain attitudes where kind of very left in ideas and crept into discuss of education and race, the things right. But now they're like kind of calling like gay listen people and trans people pedophiles and stuff like that, right? And it's like surprisingly mains trade scores and like it's not I don't think politically wise also a little bit dangerous in terms of potentially you know trigger ing violence and things like that. So I don't know. I mean, neither party can really like help itself, I don't think can kind of being like the worst version of itself.

That's interesting a bit. Young kin is in in case, because one year after, by in one that saved by ten, yang can wins out, raised by two or three. So IT was twelve point swing, yeah, in one year.

How in lamar is that of how quickly the mood of the country has changed? IT? Like, I went off because Young, who was a strong candidate against the we candidate? Or does he represent a much stronger generic republican ballot?

I think it's I mean, that's what you might get if you had fifty glen younkers running for for senate, right? He clearly, I think there's usually a pretty big mid term shift, but that was a little bigger Normal in Virginia reflects the fact that you can like model out mathematically. We have lots of data planes.

We have three to five, seven years every two years, right? You can actually see the effective. Being more moderate will gain you next trip, two or three or four points, right? Being less moderate, more radical, in some case will lose you two or three or four points.

And so and so the fact that the gp didn't kind of take that lesson and say we can actually kind of occupy the mainstream and have potentially really large majority, at least twenty, twenty two. And and I think that's kind of kind of this heartening in in some ways. And of course, trump is still a big figure .

in the democrats were the lesson in that way .

either .

because of course.

yeah think because the lesson for democrats would be to tack towards .

the center as well and and of embracing of the the progressive left.

I mean, the democrats are so talking about cancelling student debt, which is a friend issue that affects eight to ten percent of the democratic party, without realizing that IT actually is because IT represents fifty or sixty percent of the working majority of the democratic infrastructure.

Least we sure people are people are people are self serving. And if you don't have good B S detectors then uh you become more self serving, right? Like clearly like the class of people who are uh high student loan that are people who are well educated and aren't necessarily making as much money. And those describe people that are tend to be democrats described like academic. Some people in media .

like I be there but are not democrats used also be the the workers party for the welders, the truckers, the construction workers.

You say, you say, let's forgive up to ten thousand dollars in debt for public university students, undergraduate education, right? That really does capture a lot more people who are who are truly middle class, right? Half a student loan, that is, you are going to graduate school. You know, i'm not that that if we went to darman think out a philosophy degree, masters, masters, right school. Yeah, I gud degree in your single kind of, why shouldn't .

electric bail out the person getting a masters in philosophy?

But like this is kind of a matter of .

like the I mean that that's a reasonable thing to .

say yes doesn't seem party doesn't seem unreasonable.

But you know but I I .

know and again, people are are it's also different. I think if you needed more financial simulation than that might make more sense to find some way to do that. Is that thing that the president can probably do by executive authority is a little bit disputed. But now you kind of have I mean, both parties are are quite self serving. And if you're kind of not listening to critics or feedback, you kind of wallow in in in that self serving this, I think, a little bit more easily.

Everybody, please. Thank makes over 再 请。

What your .

winners, right?

Right, man?

And said, we open sources to the fans and you've .

just got crazy with. Why try?

We should all just get a room .

and just one big, huge or because sexual attention.

but just need .

to release some .

thing.