Loading summary
Transcript98 lines
- [00:01]
Steve Hayes
5:00am I'm up with a crisp Celsius
- [00:03]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
energy drink running 12 miles today.
- [00:05]
Steve Hayes
Grab a green juice, quick change and head to work.
- [00:08]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Meetings, workshops One more Celsius.
- [00:10]
Steve Hayes
No slowing down.
- [00:12]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Working late, but obviously still meeting the girls for a little dancing. Celsius Live Fit.
- [00:17]
Steve Hayes
Go grab a cold refreshing Celsius at
- [00:20]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
your local retailer or locate now@celsius.com
- [00:25]
Steve Hayes
it's not just something you made. It's the privilege that you get to work with your hands. It's building something that serves a purpose. Proof that that you have the grit to keep going. At Timberland, we understand you take your craft seriously, and we do too, which is why our products are built to the highest quality. We put in the work so you can perfect yours with purpose, in every detail and crafted with intention. Timberland built on craft. Visit timberland.com to shop. Welcome to the Dispatch Podcast. I'm Steve. On today's roundtable, we'll take a long look at gambling and prediction markets in America. What's led to their rise, how prevalent are they, and what's the government role in regulating them? Also Iran. Are there differences in the objectives of the United States and Israel? And if so, how much do they matter? And finally, not worth your time. Can a pro vegan candidate win statewide in Texas? I'm joined today by Dispatch co founder Jonah Goldberg and Dispatch contributors David French of the New York Times and Megan McCarthy Cardle of the Washington Post. Let's dive in. Welcome everyone. We are recording this on Thursday morning, March 19, the day that the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament really gets underway across the country. We have tens of millions of Americans who have filled out brackets to take part in March Madness, as has been the case for decades. But when I go to CBS Sports homepage for March Madness, I've got many more options than I used to have in the upper right hand corner of the page. I can choose watch for streaming to watch the games. I can choose Fantasy or I can choose betting. And if I click on betting, my options are betting news, betting apps, sportsbook promos, DraftKings promo code BET365 promo code BETMGM promo code FanDuel promo code Fnatic sportsbook promo, DFS apps on and on it goes, including a link to casinos. Twenty years ago, gambling in the United States was mostly limited to Vegas, Atlantic City, Indian reservations, and neighborhood poker games. Now it's everywhere and easily accessible on our computers and phones. And we can bet on virtually anything. Horse races, basketball, blackjack, cornhole elections, military strikes, McKay, Coppins has a terrific piece in the new Atlantic, and he reports that in 2017, Americans legally bet $4.9 billion on sports. Last year, that number rose to at least $160 billion. David, I'll start with you. Why has betting taken off this way? And where was the public debate about whether this ease of access to betting is good for the country?
- [03:40]
David French
Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, the first part is easy to answer, is that it's a lot of fun for people and the way that betting has evolved. When betting first became more legalized on a widespread basis, I would be what you might call betting curious. I hadn't thought it through fully. It wasn't one of those issues that was front and center on my radar screen. I had agreed with the Supreme Court decision that sort of laid the groundwork for all of this. There were some real problem, legal problems with the framework before. And I remember a friend of mine gave me, I did a miniature tiny version of the McKay Coppins experience where he was, you know, given $10,000 by the Atlantic to just sort of gamble it away and just see how the experience goes. A friend of mine, you know, did one of these like Betmgms or DraftKings, like invitations where I got the free $120. And you know, I thought, I'm more on to basket into basketball than the average person. I'm exactly the kind of person who should clean up at this, like just. And I think within three bets it was just 100% gone. But the experience was fun. You're monitoring several games at once and you know, the prop betting aspect, when you're betting in real time, in the real moment about, you know, is this pitch going to be a ball or a strike? Sort of introduces almost a slot machine effect while you're watching. And so, you know, it's challenging for people, it's fun for people, and it's easy to see why they slide into it. And for me, that I then my, my quick realization was very similar to McKay's, which was, no, I'm not the kind of person who could do well here. I am exactly the mark. I am the one they're making all the money off of, which is the person who pays, you know, close attention to sports, who really loves sports, but is not anywhere like a bookmaker or a real expert. I'm exactly the person. I have enough sports ego to think I've got real insight into the game, when really all I am is just a fan. I have a fan level insight into the game. And just would get blown out constantly in betting. But some of the stuff. I'm sure we'll dive more into McKay's story that's fascinating is how the system is really rigged to do this to you. I mean, this is what it is. The house is going to win here. But yeah, absolutely, it is. It's spreading because it's a lot of fun for people. At the same time, I think most of America was like me. This was just not a front and center issue. You were vaguely aware, you know, that there are these changes happening in gambling, but it was never like big front page news. We had a million other things going on to worry about politically. And it just kind of spread in a very stealthy, quiet way in a lot of ways around the country. And we woke up one morning to this just completely changed sports landscape that has got really negative radiating effects across the country.
- [06:50]
Steve Hayes
Yeah, I mean, just my own experience with fantasy football. I've been doing fantasy football, I think, for 25 years and forever. I would listen to fantasy football podcasts. There was some advantage in sort of the pre. Sort of hyper Internet days to being able to compile your own statistics and you could do your own analysis and that could prove an advantage just in your little, you know, home league. Now, of course, it's everywhere. And the thing that struck me over the past decade, really, but really over the past three, four or five years in particular, is it's almost impossible to listen to a fantasy football podcast that's pure fantasy football.
- [07:30]
David French
Yeah, right.
- [07:31]
Steve Hayes
That doesn't immediately get into betting and parlays and odds and prop bets and all of these things that I'm just. I just have never been interested in. Jonah, you may not remember this, but the first time you and I met in person was gambling at your house. A poker game.
- [07:51]
Jonah Goldberg
Well, I remember you being at my house for poker games. I also remember meeting you at the blackjack table when we were both in Vegas to do Yucca Mountain stuff or something. But that's the first time I met you.
- [08:01]
Steve Hayes
Yeah, that was later. Yeah, you had me to your house with your little homeboy poker game. This was like in the pre NRO days. And you had me over. It was sort of a friend of a friend. And I think you had me over once. And I was such an easy mark. I mean, I lost so badly, I did not know what I was doing that you kept having me. And I was like, man, this is great. These guys must really like me. And I don't think that was the reason you kept inviting Me back.
- [08:30]
Jonah Goldberg
We could do the, you know, it's funny like on the Odd Couple. They're like six episodes changing when they first met. We could do Memory Lane on this offline look. I like gambling. I've always liked gambling. It is good that I don't follow sports very closely in work because it's a good filter to keep me from betting on it. I am deeply intrigued by polymarket stuff because I think I'm pretty good at predicting how things are going to go sometimes with various things.
- [08:56]
Steve Hayes
Can you explain in lay terms what's polymarket?
- [08:59]
Jonah Goldberg
Yeah, so polymarket and this thing Kalshi and more. They basically let you bet on anything and everything. Like there's a guy, the second Coming. Lots of people are betting on that in all sorts of ways. But what's his name? Alan Cole. A guy who's written for the Dispatch bet basically all of his non retirement savings, all of his money that Doge would not lead to less federal spending and he won like $320,000. There is someone who bet that. Guest appearances of Lady Gaga and other developments during the Bad Bunny halftime show in the Super Bowl. And there's no way this person could have just randomly guessed that. Oh, I bet you that so and so comes out and so's whatever. It was obviously a security guard's brother or a security guard or someone in Bad Bunny's entourage or a PR person who called a friend. Anyway, the point is, is that it's turning all of life into places where you can monetize insider information. And I think it's a very good example. There are a bunch of examples. I just gave this big speech, the title of which was the Revolution will be Group Chatted. But there are all sorts of ways. AI is probably the most discussed in which the institutions, formal and informal of modern liberal democratic capitalism were built up around technologies that are now phasing out. And we'd like to talk here a lot. If we had a jar, we had to put a dollar every time one of us said something about how Congress doesn't do its job. We could have a really nice dispatch
- [10:34]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
happy hour maybe at the new Poly Market bar that is opening in D.C. called the Situation Room. I think it's just a pop up. I think it's probably just this weekend.
- [10:44]
Steve Hayes
It's a three day bar.
- [10:45]
Jonah Goldberg
Yes, maybe we'll go there and bet it all. But my point is that the Supreme Court paved the way for this. I can't really gainsay the Court's reasoning, but rather than say oh gosh, we are now on our way to insert gambling into every nook and cranny of American life and potentially ruin collegiate and professional sports in the process. Congress instead, basically, in broad brushstrokes, took money from casino lobbyists to do nothing or less than nothing. And I never thought gambling should be made illegal, but we were better off when it was contained essentially in a few discrete geographic locations. So that if you went, if you wanted to have a big blowout gambling weekend, you went to Vegas or you went to AC or maybe you went, I think we're on too many Indian reservations. But that's a more complicated thing. But you didn't live with it day in and day out, right? Every waking moment wasn't a prop bet opportunity. And I think this is going to end disastrously. It's going to ruin a lot of lives. It's already ruining lives and it's cowardice on the part of Congress that it hasn't done anything about it.
- [11:54]
Steve Hayes
Megan, you are probably the purest of pure libertarians in this group. What should libertarians, what should small government conservatives think about the proliferation of gambling and about government's rule?
- [12:09]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Well, some disclosures. Number one, I like gambling, but I don't like gambling very much. When I started dating my husband, he became extremely worried because there was a period when online poker was the legal in the US And I was playing a lot of online poker and he was becoming increasingly frantic and unable to contain it. And he didn't say anything. And finally he was like, I am extremely worried about your gambling habit. And I was like, honey, come look.
- [12:37]
Steve Hayes
Was he worried about the time or was he worried about the money?
- [12:40]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
He was worried that I was going to, like, lose all our money. And I was like, honey, come look. And I was playing the micro stakes tables. It's the 1 and 2 cent bets. I think it had a cap bet of 25 cents. And I was like, here's the $4.50 I won last month. Here's the $12 I lost the month.
- [12:55]
Steve Hayes
That's where it all starts, Megan.
- [12:57]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Yeah. No, I don't. This has always been true of me. The first time I ever gambled, I went to Atlantic City with a guy I was dating who had the same name as his grandfather and whose grandfather had been a compulsive gambler who lost the family business. We got comped. It was great. But then we went and I played blackjack for the first time. And again, I like playing blackjack at the $5 tables, which is why I no longer play black. Blackjack because they basically don't exist, right? I like taking fifty, seventy five, a hundred dollars and being like, this is what I would have spent on cocktails and like going out tonight and instead I'm going to spend it at the tables and when it's gone, I'm leaving. But we were playing. We, I, we won a bit. And there was a woman there who did not look like she was having fun. She looked exhausted. She was wearing. She also did not look like she could afford to lose the money she was losing. She was wearing like denim overalls. And he told me when we left the table that and I had fun. Like I learned, you know, people were coaching me how to make, where to hit and so forth. And. But when we walked away, he said that he'd been talking to the dealer during a lull when they were, you know, changing the money over or the card decks or something. And the dealer said she'd been there for 48 hours and had lost like $30,000.
- [14:09]
David French
Oh man.
- [14:10]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
And this is one of the problems with gambling is that there's a real power law, is that most people who gamble are like me. They gamble on a set budget, they have a little bit of fun and then they stop when they're losing money. I cannot imagine. I really like having like a tiny stake in what's going on. The tinier the better. If it's 4 cents, that's better than 10 cents. But I really, I cannot emotionally access the excitement some people feel at the idea of losing money they can't afford to lose. Right. And I have like, I, I don't do sports at all. My husband also doesn't do sports. Once referred to someone non ironically told someone I was the sports nut in the family because I watched the Olympics and like, so. But I once won a ton of money on a Super bowl pool at the office. It was like a hundred dollar pool. I worked only with guys because I was in it at the time and my boss needed to fill two squares and so he pressured me into taking the two squares and so I took them. I had no idea what I was doing. I didn't have any choice of the numbers because the others were all taken and I won and it was great. And then I was like, I know this is how it starts. And I in fact was never again tempted to bet on a Super bowl poll because what the hell do I know about the Super Bowl? But so that said, I think we should keep this in perspective. 160 billion sounds like a lot of money. It's about what Americans spend every year on their pets.
- [15:39]
David French
So a lot of money?
- [15:41]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Well, yeah, but also, no, we're not worried that pets are going to bankrupt Americans and like ruin their lives. It is going to harm the small number of people who will become compulsive and unable to stop and will lose money they can't afford. But like, those stories tend to get blown up out of abortion. Most of the people who are betting are probably just gonna bet some money, maybe lose a little more than they should, but not necessarily more than they would lose by going to bars or buying a beagle. And so this is actually not that big a threat. I think it tends to get apocalyptic because it's new to Americans, but this is really common abroad. And in fact, there was a guy on Twitter the other day who was like, why have Americans gotten one shotted by gambling? And I actually think we might be a little more prone to harm from this both because Americans are selected. We are the heirs of people who have unusually high risk appetites. That's how they got here. They were like, yeah, I should definitely like hop on a ship, go far from everywhere. I know probably somewhere I don't really speak the language. Let's see how that goes. Most people won't do that and those people are back in Europe. But that said, we also don't yet have the social technology to handle this right. You know, as with anything, when things are new, like, so with addiction, actually there's a really interesting phenomenon where you get waves, if you've noticed. Like when I was growing up in the 80s, cocaine was the big drug, right? And I was fortunate because I really am phenomenally addicted to stimulants. However, I did not have cocaine money, and for that I will forever be grateful. But cocaine kind of rose a lot, you know, the crack epidemic, but also, you know, normal cocaine. And then it kind of burned out. Why did it burn out? Because people watched other people. I had a friend who OD'd and had a heart attack and died at the age of 21. And a lot of people saw stuff like that and they looked at that and said, no thanks. And you're now seeing the same thing with the opioid epidemic, where people are not young people are not initiating because they have seen the devastation that it wreaked on their elders. And gambling is a bit like that too. You know, like right now, this is all new. You're going to see some horrific stories, but those are going to serve, at least for a while. Is a bit of an inoculation it's not going to stop everyone. But there have always been people who flew to Vegas and lost their house and so forth. That has always been a thing that was true or worse, gambled with, you know, local illegal operations whose collection mechanisms left something to be desired, let us say. But people will see that and then they will think, no, I should not do this. I'm enjoying it too much, and they will tamp it down. That's not to say it will totally solve the problem, but the problem. I think people are freaking out because of the growth numbers. But this is not something where it's just going to continue forever until sports gambling consumes the entire US economy and bankrupts everyone in the country.
- [18:31]
Jonah Goldberg
That's not the most reassuring defense, I have to say.
- [18:37]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Well, but like, I mean, drinking is like this. Should we ban drinking? Because I will go out on a limb and say many, many more people will wreck their lives one way or the other with alcohol than they will with sports gambling. Because the ways that you wreck your life with alcohol are much more permanent. Right? You destroy your body and you are permanently damaged and. Or you get in a car and you hit someone and kill them, or you get into a fight and you damage someone else's body permanently. Like, the alcohol is incredibly associated with crime. It's incredibly associated with all sorts of other pathologies, and it's not good for you. But we look at this and we say, yes, this is a bad. People should not drink to excess. But it's a manageable problem.
- [19:20]
David French
We also spent the vast majority of American life banning gambling without the problems of prohibition. I mean, we've banned gambling not in toto. Like, we've had Vegas, we've had Atlantic City, but we've spent a very long time with this under much more degree of control than it currently is. The issue isn't just how many people are addictive gamblers. It is what is gambling doing to the sport itself. The atmosphere of threat that athletes are under now is absurd, just absurd. The incentives for athletes to cheat, especially in prop betting, are skyrocketing. We've had multiple arrests.
- [20:00]
Steve Hayes
We've seen those.
- [20:01]
David French
Yes, yeah, we've seen. We've had multiple arrests. There's still investigations ongoing. So, you know, the prohibition argument, you know, one of the key reasons we repealed prohibition was because we tried it. It was horrible. We'd actually tried less widespread gambling our whole national life without the problems of prohibition.
- [20:23]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
I mean, there's a reason. There are a lot of movies about people being chased by gamblers for Gambling debts by people who want to break their legs or worse. Right. That's not just something the movie's made up. That is a thing that was pretty common under illegal gambling and as was corruption of sports. I mean, the Black Sox are the most famous example. But there have been point shavings scan. There was a point shaving scandal, I believe, in the 70s in college basketball. These things have happened over and over. I think the decline of the mob, sort of for various reasons, left a vacuum. And one can argue that vacuum was good. And now we have sports gambling filling that. And it's bad. But I think you do have to offset it against. Well, some people are enjoying this. Right. Like the. It's the same with alcohol. Yes. It has social costs. The. We think the social benefit is that people like drinking and it brings joy and gladness to their life. And I like. I wouldn't ban drinking even if I thought we could get away with it.
- [21:25]
Jonah Goldberg
Yeah. So maybe this is just me showing my scars from 20 years of being the pro drug war guy at a magazine that called for the end of the drug war. And arguing with libertarians about all this. I find the argumento ad alcoholum technique of limited utility, insofar as you're absolutely right, it works insofar as an analogy to all sorts of things. People will say. Our friend Katherine McWard, who I've argued with about this for years, will bust out the alcohol argument and say, well, and so therefore we should legalize heroin, or therefore we should legalize fentanyl and all drugs and all that kind of stuff. And part of my response to that is that alcohol has been part of western culture for 5,000 years. It is very difficult to take out. We tried. It was disastrous. That doesn't mean that regulation of vice of any kind is equally disastrous or the same thing. And one of the things I would say about this gambling issue is we spend an enormous amount of time talking about the dangers to children and dangers to adults, about being permanently online, about being way too plugged into our phones and distracted and thinking that the online world is the real world. And now we are on the cusp of monetizing all of it in a way that they can tap into even deeper reservoirs of addiction. And my problem with the libertarian argument about almost everything having to do with issues of addiction, whether it's gambling addiction, drug addiction, any kind of addiction, is that it is the most fatal weakness in libertarianism. Qua libertarianism, insofar as the whole point of the philosophy is to assume everyone is A rational actor and is making rational decisions. Now you, because you're, you can get addicted to online poker and never go more than a 10 cent bet. And that is why you are a literally a better person than me.
- [23:32]
Steve Hayes
But I mean, there are other reasons too. We should be clear.
- [23:36]
Jonah Goldberg
Like one reason they're talking about how terrible alcohol is. I am drunk right now. No, but the thing is most people can't do that, right? Most people cannot. Maybe even most people can. But this has always been my point about like legalizing heroin. Is that even under the rosiest scenario possible, you are admitting that a non trivial number, somewhere between I would say 2 and 10% of the public will be consigned to a miserable and chemically enslaved life that will end prematurely in sorrow. And you can say, well, yeah, but the 90%, they really have a good time with heroin.
- [24:17]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Okay, so let me actually say, as you know, I do favor legalizing fentanyl, but my arguments are not the same as my husband's esteemed boss and she makes other arguments.
- [24:29]
Jonah Goldberg
I'm not trying to drag her into this too badly.
- [24:31]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Wait though I do, I would be fine with banning fentanyl. My argument for banning fentanyl is actually that the stuff is so potent that the supply problems of not knowing what you're getting and the contamination are so deadly that I think there's an argument for just legalizing it so that people don't get like too powerful doses. So they're working with known doses of clean stuff. But if I thought you could ban it safely, I would because I do find like opioid addiction to be a kind of uniquely destructive thing. And it isn't worked into society and we don't have, by the way. I mean, one thing is, there's an interesting thing someone told me. I have not personally verified this, but it seems broadly true, just like from intuition that basically alcoholism, it gets worse as you get farther from the Mediterranean. And that's because wine comes to the Mediterranean. It's stronger than the very low ABV beer that people are. And what you get is that people are phenomenally addictive to alcohol and you develop genetic resistance to it. And so this is like allegedly why Jews and Italians have very low rates of alcoholism, where my own people being quite far from the wine climate and having discovered distilled spirits somewhat later, have a much higher and also true, like in the Nordics, very high rates of alcoholism. It's one possible reason for why Native Americans and Pacific Islanders have such high rates of alcoholism simply because they didn't have the genetic exposure, so they have a more hereditary tendency towards alcoholism, obviously exacerbated by other things like poverty and so forth. So look, I basically agree with you that fentanyl is way worse than alcohol. And I actually wouldn't be averse to regulations that try to add some friction because I do think that, like, the completely frictionless experience is problematic. So if you wanted to, for example, ban with in game betting, I would be fine with that. Just say like, no, you can place a bet before the game and then you're stuck with that bet. You should not be like sitting there on your phone the whole game, looking at your odds rather than enjoying the game. If you wanted to cap how much anyone can gamble in a month, I would also be fine with that. And I would also be fine, honestly, with looking at the ways that these companies, you know, like keep their edge by getting people who are any good at doing this off the apps, which seems rather unsporting to me.
- [27:05]
David French
Yeah, that was the really interesting. One of the many interesting parts of the Coppins piece was how the apps ban or limit the quote sharps the people who actually are who I thought I was going to be or I thought I could be like somebody who could really game the system and really win at a spectacular rate. Those people are just throttled.
- [27:26]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
And my argument would be whatever throttle you put on, you have to put it on for everyone. The limits have to be the same for every gambler. So you want to limit the guys who are like, beating your lion, then you're going to have to limit the guys that you were planning to rake in money from because they're idiots.
- [27:42]
Steve Hayes
All right, we're going to take a quick break, but we'll be back soon with more from the Dispatch podcast.
- [27:50]
Jonah Goldberg
Nothing brings people together quite like Team
- [27:52]
Steve Hayes
USA at the Olympic Winter Games.
- [27:55]
Jonah Goldberg
From NBCUniversal's iconic storytelling to the innovative technology across Xfinity and Peacock, Comcast brings the Olympic Games home to America, sharing every moment with millions. When Team USA steps onto the world stage, people aren't just watching, they're cheering together. This, this winter, everyone is all on the same. Team Comcast, proud partner of Team usa
- [28:19]
Steve Hayes
There comes a time when you realize it's time to run your business smarter, not harder. Making the switch to Gusto is an easy upgrade that brings payroll, benefits and HR together in one organized place. When schedules fill up and responsibilities stack up, having those essentials handled smoothly frees up your time and headspace. Instead of getting buried in paperwork and compliance tasks, you can put your energy back into building, creating and leading. Gusto makes it easier to manage your business with confidence and a lot less stress. Gusto is online payroll and benefits software built for small businesses. It's all in one remote, friendly and incredibly easy to use so you can pay, hire onboard and support your team from anywhere. Switching to Gusto is fast and easy. Transfer your existing data, get set up quickly, and don't pay a thing until you run your first payroll. It's also named the number one payroll software by G2 for fall 2025 and trusted by over 400,000 small businesses. Try Gusto today@gusto.com dispatch and get three months free when you run your first payroll. That's three months free payroll@gusto.com dispatch one more time. Gusto.com dispatch and we're back. You're listening to the Dispatch podcast. Let's jump in. So let's take a step back on this just to give people a little context on the McKay Coppins piece. As Jonah mentioned or David mentioned, the Atlantic gave him $10,000 and said, you've got a year, go gamble. And he went and gambled. And he sort of walks you through the kind of feelings he has about gambling, the habits he developed with respect to gambling, the odds, the way that gambling works. And it's a very, we'll put it in the show notes. It's a very sort of instructive piece. And I will say, as somebody, I don't do, you know, I've played blackjack over the years. I don't know that I've played blackjack in the past 10, 15 years, but always low stakes, $5 tables. I dabble with fantasy football, daily fantasy. So I'm putting together teams that are not my sort of league teams. But I don't do prop bets. I don't do any of that. And I still can identify with a number of the sort of urges that he describes in the piece. And you know, David, to your point, yeah, I did do a lot of this analysis on my own and it helped me in my 10 team fantasy league. The fact that I did that kind of analysis I think gave me an advantage for a little while. The challenge or the problem for me in that league is now that analysis is available to everybody and it's done by people who are a lot smarter than I am about this stuff. So the advantage is gone. But I think, Megan, to your point, on the sort of the sum total, I grant you that $160 billion in the whole scheme of things isn't that much. I mean, we spend more on a lot of things in our lives than $160 billion. To me, it's the. If I did the math right, and may not have 3,100% increase from 4.7 in 2017 to 160 billion today, which suggests to me that something new is happening. And I think, you know, we could probably strain the alcohol analogy beyond usefulness, but the fact that kids can do this and adults, because they have their phones in their pockets and they can have multiple apps that allow them to do this, you know, when they're sitting on the toilet, when they've got a break before they board an elevator, what have you. And that these companies are constantly creating incentives for the users, the gamblers, the would be gamblers, sort of all the time. You're constantly being fed this information that says, you should be doing this, you should be doing this more. And the equivalent would be for alcohol, I think if you could put a tap on your phone, and I don't mean like an FBI, like a beer keg, Yes, I might have done that in the past. But I mean, it's the constant availability combined with the ease of use and the lack of friction. I mean, as with everything, you want to take away friction for people to use these devices. And I think they've sort of perfected that.
- [32:39]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Look, I think one thing we should keep in mind is that we don't actually know how much overall gambling increased because it went from being illegal to legal. Right. And so this is what statisticians call a dark number.
- [32:54]
Steve Hayes
Fair.
- [32:54]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
And so we don't actually know. It's like how many times last year was someone successfully blackmailed? Well, it happened, I'm sure couldn't tell you what it is because it worked. And whatever it was didn't come out and they didn't go to the cops. And so I am not going to argue that it hasn't overall increased. I assume it has increased quite significantly because it's available. But how much of this is people switching from betting with their friends to betting with professionals or betting with illegal gambling operations to betting with professionals or flying to Vegas to betting with the networks? And the answer is, I don't know. And so while I again, am not trying to do the disingenuous, well, maybe it hasn't increased at all. Obviously it's increased. If you lower the cost of doing something, as sticking it in someone's pocket does, compared to like hopping on a flight to Vegas, then obviously that thing almost always increases. But I don't think we know how much and I don't think we know how damaging it's been because again, like, it's just hard to measure something that isn't legal.
- [33:55]
Steve Hayes
Yeah. I want to turn back to the betting markets that Jonah mentioned earlier. The prediction markets, I guess they're calling themselves, they have become sort of also ubiquitous. And you see people betting on anything. I mean, really, it is anything. I'm on the poly market mentioned page right now. There are bets, live bets on what Trump will say during the Japanese Prime Minister event. What will be said on the next all in podcast. Gosh, what will Trump say this week? What will Mr. Beast say during his next YouTube video? It's very easy to see, just to take the what will be said on the next all in podcast where this can be abused. Where you have people who are on the all in podcast or people who are producing the all in podcast or people who know the people who are on the all in podcast saying, hey, will you say this thing so that I can win my bet? And as Jonah mentioned, you know, one of the most stark examples I'd say in the past few months was this person who bet on the guest performers at super bowl halftime show and hit, I think six out of seven. No way that person was doing this by mere guessing or very little likelihood. You've also seen sort of the poly market bets show up in timing of Iran strikes, the apprehension of Nicolas Maduro. Somebody cashed a ticket about the fact that Nicolas Maduro was going to be taken. And I wonder, David, how much we should worry about sort of the distortive effects on behavior. Well beyond gambling, well beyond prediction, well beyond betting, where it begins to drive consequences in our actual lives is that. I mean, Megan hosts a podcast called Reasonably Optimistic. So I take that she's reasonably optimistic. And Jonah makes fun of me for being overly pessimistic. So fair enough. But I worry about this. I worry that this could turn out to distort behavior because people are betting or cashing bets, making predictions on how people will behave.
- [36:10]
David French
Look, I think you're absolutely right to be worried about this. I mean, what we have learned right now is that we have a system that is almost infinitely exploitable by unscrupulous people at this moment. You know, once you combine sort of the Trump pardon power with Trump greed, you know, we're already seeing what that can result in and sort of like the pardons for sale phenomenon and how, you know, the favor trading regarding pardons, you know, look, we're talking about people within a government, for example, who have just no lines, they have no ethics. And so this sort of idea that, well, they wouldn't distort policy to get rich, would they? I mean, of course. I mean, the question answers itself. And in many ways, this is an even more pernicious threat than just the plain vanilla insider trading that we sort of, you know, worry about with members of Congress. And there's sort of this rising clamor to ban stock trading amongst members of Congress because they're privy to a lot of information the public isn't privy to. And a lot of people are getting, you know, I think, rightfully upset at the way a lot of people in Congress just seem to become spectacular investors when they arrive on Capitol Hill. This is that times 50. I mean, this is. I can actually impact the world. And then before I impact the world, I can bet on the impact that I know that I'm going to have in the world. It's just a. It's a recipe for catastrophe on, not just at a governmental level, but on 17 different fronts. And so this is maybe a larger philosophical question, but one of the reasons why I'm. I have always called myself a civil libertarian and not a libertarian, although I'm very libertarian, ish, is that a civil libertarian really is somebody who's looking at sort of the Bill of Rights and the historic liberties, those that have been recognized as sort of implicit in the concept of ordered liberty by the Supreme Court and say this universe of civil liberties, these are sacrosanct, these are special. But we don't live in a world where sort of what I want to do is sacrosanct and special. Those are different things. Free speech, sacrosanct, my desires, not sacrosanct. And so, you know, when you're talking about gambling, one of the interesting things about the McKay piece, there's so many things interesting was he's really walking through, like, this is not something that if you're going to talk about a fundamental freedom, a something that's implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Yeah, gambling's always been with us in the way that vices have always been with us. But this is not something that any sort of classical liberal formulation of individual liberty would put aside as sacrosanct to be traditionally protect that liberty, to be traditionally protected by the state. And there's a reason why for throughout human history, it's been one of the most regulated activities on the planet. And it's, you know, to Megan's point earlier, we never get rid of it. You know, we did have the Black Sox scandal. The question is, how much of a lid are we able to keep on it and at what social cost? And we were able to, I think, have a pretty reasonable lid without a hundredth of the social cost of, like the war on drugs or Prohibition or you name it. And that lifting that lid is leading to social costs that are much greater than the cost that we had of keeping the lid on. So we're not dealing with a fundamental freedom here by any stretch. We're dealing with more like a fundamental desire, which is different from a fundamental freedom. And so this is not something where sort of classic civil libertarian would say, you're interfering with some, a freedom that's implicit in ordered liberty. This is, in my view, a classic space where government, prudent, government regulation is necessary.
- [39:58]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
So can I actually ask about that? Because you bring up something that I've been thinking about with these prediction markets. And I agree there is a real insider problem here. And as David probably knows, and as I'm sure Steve and Jonah know, because they are brilliant. But as some of our listeners may not, insider trading law is a bizarre mess. So one of the most famous cases was that the guy who wrote the Hurt on the street column for the Wall Street Journal was selling what he was going to write about, and then people were using that to make money on it. But the fascinating thing is that the court didn't really know why insider trading was illegal. It's never really exactly been settled what the offense was. And the court decided that what it was, that he had stolen secrets from his employer, which actually opened up the possibility that it would be perfectly legal for the Wall Street Journal to trade ahead of the Hurt on the street column. But. So it's always been a bit of a mess. But it also seems to me that, like, the prediction markets fall within that and that eventually, probably what's going to happen is we are going to get a scandal, a real big scandal, where someone has done something in order to make one of those bets pay off, and Congress is eventually just going to add those prediction markets to SEC insider trading coverage, and that will be the end of that. It won't be the end of it, actually, because insider trading still happens. And for people who do not read Matt Levine's absolutely hilarious Bloomberg newsletter about money, he just comes up with all of these stories where all of these morons, like, they come up. The funny thing about insider trading is how stupid so many of the people are where they're like, if I give my illegal Activity a code name and text it. Text with my friends about it. How would a prosecutor ever see through that? And the answer is because prosecutors are not nearly as stupid as you are. So I just expect that eventually we're going to end up with some kind of insider trading regulation on these markets. And I think that's probably better for the markets in terms of keeping confidence that it's not just a big cheat. And also probably better for society that people are not altering their behavior in an attempt to make various bets pay off. But I'm curious to hear David's thoughts because he's the expert on the law.
- [42:11]
David French
I'm definitely not an expert on insider trading law, but I can 100% endorse that. It's a complex mess. I mean, that much is absolutely true. Which is one of the reasons why, say, for example, in the Martha Stewart case, it was actually much easier to indict and prosecute on the line to the feds charge.
- [42:31]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Yeah.
- [42:32]
David French
Than it was to deal with the underlying, you know, sort of securities fraud or securities allegations. So there, I don't think there's much question that insider trading is a mess and insider trading law is a mess. I'm thinking something about, you know, as far as, you know, blanket bans on prediction market betting by government employees, like just entirely would be something that would be 100% in favor of.
- [42:57]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Yeah. Like I'm not. So at the Ed Board, we were joking about having a happy hour at the prediction market bar and someone pointed out it wouldn't be that fun because we're not ethically and there's no legal rule against it, but ethically we cannot bet on stuff we might write about. I'm not allowed to invest in stocks I might write about. And that is a good rule. And if you work for the government, you should not be able to bet on certainly at least outcomes that your agency can affect.
- [43:25]
David French
Yeah.
- [43:25]
Steve Hayes
But it does get complicated. And the amount of money that these prediction market companies and certainly betting companies have that they are flooding with. I mean, there's a reason ESPN now when I go and check the schedule for Atletico Madrid, which is my favorite soccer team, and I look to see that they're playing Real Madrid next week, there are all these numbers below the teams. I don't even know what these mean, but you know, minus 140 plus two fit. I don't know what any of this means, but I know it has to do with betting. And you know, ESPN SportsCenter now has a segment that they call Bad Beat, which is the worst sort of getting screwed on a bet. I mean, everywhere you look on all of these sports websites and McKay Coppins piece really makes this clear, has been infiltrated by betting. Our friends at Substack, which is where we first launched the Dispatch and remained for three years, just struck a deal with polymarket, the prediction betting website, and were offering their content creators, their publishers, big polymarket money for including ads from Polymarket in their substacks. I know one person who was offered $20,000 for a single ad from Polymarket. Buy these things. You know, if you look at the average salary of a journalist across the country is $60,000 and you think you might be able to get a third of that by running one ad from these betting things, you can understand that the incentives change pretty quickly. I want to end quickly before we turn to Iran for a moment with a story that's maybe even darker. Sorry, Megan, I'm going to, I'm going to continue to try to force you to be reasonably optimistic about this as I take us darker and darker into these possibilities. It's a fascinating piece. We'll put this in the show Notes in the Times of Israel, written by Emmanuel Fabian, who's a reporter for the Times of Israel, wrote a blog post on March 10 reporting that an Iranian missile hit an open field in Israel and soon began getting emails asking him to correct the report. With the people writing these emails claiming that it was just an interceptor that hit and not a missile. And I won't go through all of the details, but sort of one email, they started gentle, gently, hey, can you correct this? It was just an interceptor. It wasn't a missile. He said, no, it was a missile. And these got ever more threatening. And, you know, it eventually got to the point where he was getting real threats to change his reporting, to change what he had reported, to correct it. Because there had been a bet, Israel strikes Iran on question mark. There had been more than $14 million wagered that the date would be March 10, and the rules of the bet stated that this market will resolve to yes if Iran initiates a drone missile or airstrike on Israel's soil on the listed date in Israel time. Otherwise this market will resolve to no. And the clause that these people were fighting over was missiles or drones that are intercepted will not be sufficient for a yes resolution regardless of whether they land on Israeli territory or cause damage. And one of the emails that he got was, if you do not correct us by 1 o' clock Israel time today, March 15th, you are bringing upon yourself Damage you have never imagined you would suffer. This person threatened, that was the President
- [46:50]
Jonah Goldberg
of the United States.
- [46:51]
Steve Hayes
I mean, it really did damage never before seen.
- [46:56]
Jonah Goldberg
Thank you for your attention to this
- [46:58]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
matter in fairness, as I'm sure you guys have all had this too. Like, I have gotten death threats for free. People make death threats against me for like they don't need any money at stake. It's sort of an occupational hazard.
- [47:12]
Jonah Goldberg
Megan, what I say before we start taping is not for public.
- [47:19]
Steve Hayes
So that's very true. It's good context. I appreciate the context, but you can imagine that these things might be taken more seriously if you think you stand to. I think that the betting on that in particular was $900,000 was one of the individual betters. You might really be inclined to push somebody to change a story.
- [47:41]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
So I'm actually more protective of prediction markets than I am of sports gambling. If you banned sports gambling, I would be sad as a libertarian, but I would not lie awake at night. Prediction markets can actually contain some useful information, which is why newspapers are doing deals with these folks. Because you can get things like political odds. And it used to drive me absolutely insane. Patty Power, the UK gambling titan, used to have odds on US elections and you couldn't see them. And I tried all sorts of ways. I didn't want to bet on the election. I just literally wanted to see what the Patty Power odds were. But they were blocked in the US because of US gambling laws.
- [48:25]
Jonah Goldberg
That's why I use Express vpn.
- [48:28]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Yes, that's right. And so that information is valuable. That said, I think to protect that information, we are going to need legal infrastructure that is going to control things like that. Right. And people, again, I think there's probably going to be a big case of someone who threatens someone and goes to jail. And then people realize that's not a good way to settle their bets. Or several such instances, right, where you threaten someone, you not only go to jail, but the prediction markets realize that to clean up their act, they're going to have to ban that person for life from the sites. Right. I think you will see that evolve because every new challenge like this requires new social technology. But I do think that prediction markets can be quite useful. They're good ways of integrating information. They're not perfect. Right. The number of people they contain is limited. And also some of them are idiots, as that bet and then strategy reveals. No one should bet $900,000 on anything they don't have any control over or probably unless they have insider information, in which case they shouldn't bet for other reasons. But I think it is useful to have them. And so I don't want to see them put out of business. I want us to see us develop the institutional infrastructure that will support clean, healthy prediction markets.
- [49:49]
Steve Hayes
We're going to take a break, but we'll be back shortly. Welcome back. Let's return to our discussion. Jonah, I want to spend one quick round on Iran before we get to not worth your time today. A lot happening, a lot to discuss. We're not going to get to most of it, but I do want to ask you all to address what I think has been sort of growing quietly as part of the discussion about the Iran war and then overnight kind of burst out in the open. It's been the case for the better part of two weeks that Donald Trump has signaled he wants a quick end to this war. He said it repeatedly. He's talked about a lack of targets. He said that the war is over, the war is complete. He's even given timeframes next week or two, three, four weeks. It seems to me Benjamin Netanyahu wants protests in the streets and keeps talking about having created the condition for the Iranians to rise up. And he wants a change in the regime, which is a much more all encompassing end goal. It seems to me these goals are in dramatic tension and at some point they're going to resolve sort of one way or the other. And then overnight we saw Donald Trump send out a tweet blaming the Israelis for an attack on Iran's South Pars gas field and saying the United States and Qatar were not involved in that attack. And Trump basically condemns the Israeli attack or at least makes clear that he doesn't think it was a good idea and then goes on and issues additional threats to Iran. Do you expect that we're seeing sort of more of this US vs Israel tension or am I over reading, sort of reading between the lines on this?
- [51:40]
Jonah Goldberg
So, no, I think the tension has been there from the beginning. I think the example that you're using, it's not unfair because it's like a big news story and all that. But it is more an example of, I think more of an example of Trump being unfair to Israel insofar as it is not particularly credible that Israel would attack this gas field without the approval of the United States and coordination. And so therefore, for Trump to say I knew nothing about it and those rogue Zionists went crazy and now I gotta pull them back is pretty transparent. Cleanup on aisle three stuff rather than an example of real tension. It's more example of Trump scapegoating Israel, but more broadly it is absolutely the case that both countries have different definitions of success. The war also in Israel is generally popular and the war in the United States is not. And just to add to the freshness of this podcast in terms of its staying on top of the news, I watched the beginning of the Pete Hegseth press conference this morning, or as I started being calling it the Broseph McChesty podcast. And he so there's this old rule. I mean, it's too bad Sarah's not here right now. It's nice to have David from ao but you know, but Sarah used to do a lot of comm stuff and there's my understanding is there's some rule of thumb that says if you don't want people to worry about something, don't introduce it in the so like for example, the Treasury Secretary shouldn't hold a press conference saying there's absolutely no reason to think there's a run on the banks. Right? Because then people are like, holy crap, he's worried about a run on the banks. And you get a run on the bank from that kind of thing. There's no reason to think that we have aerosolized typhoid and everyone's gonna die this week. Right. You just don't say that. Right. And Pete Hegseth said he attacked the media, including the reporters in the room, saying they're all unpatriotic. He said that people don't understand that we have a smart president, not like those dumb presidents Bush and Obama. It was really high minded statesmanship on every front. And then he said there are unpatriotic people in the media. I'm paraphrasing, but this is the gist of it. The unpatriotic press wants you to think that this war is sliding into an endless abyss. And just don't use the phrase endless abyss. If you don't want people to start talking about how it might be. You could run a headline today saying Department of War denies this is going to be an endless abyss of a war. It's just not great media work. But he has to cater to Donald Trump. And that's the thing, is he was speaking more to Donald Trump than he was to the public. And that's one of the things that makes this war so complicated to game out, is that the policymakers at the top, starting with the president, are, I don't want to say this war is entirely in service to Trump's ego, but you can't take Trump's ego and egocentrism out of the equation. And he will make decisions that are not based on grand strategy or anything else other than what he thinks his narrow self interest is. And I don't think you could say that about any other wartime president in American history that I can think of. I mean, even people I hated, like, you know, Andrew Jackson or Woodrow Wilson, like, they, they actually thought that they were doing something greater and more important. And I just don't think that's how Trump thinks about this stuff. And so that means there, eventually there's going to be friction with Israel. Just to bring it back to your question.
- [55:22]
Steve Hayes
Yeah, I'm glad Jonah eventually attempted to answer the question. Address the question. I started answering it after the long digression. It's. I feel like I'm, you know, a CNN host. You just answer whatever you want to say when I ask the question, David, do you. Am I wrong to think that there are these tensions between just the goals? I mean, clearly there's been tremendous coordination on a military level between what the Israelis have been doing, what the United States had been doing, and to tremendous effect, but with sort of distinct, if overlapping goals. You can see where that puts pressure on this kind of a campaign. And I wonder, I think Joan is right to make the point that he makes about this thing. In particular, I do think it's virtually inconceivable that the Israelis would have done this without some at least tacit approval, probably explicit approval from the US Military, if not Donald Trump himself. Should we worry about these tensions?
- [56:19]
David French
Yeah, I think we should worry about these tensions. You know, first on this story, I think Joan is exactly right. I think Trump threw Israel under the bus here. You know, there was an escalatory strike, the idea that Israel would have done that without the U.S. and in fact, there was immediate reporting. You saw, I believe, out of Axios almost right away after the Trump posts about the natural gas strike that Israeli sources were saying. What are you talking about? This was consulted all the way through. He's throwing us under the bus after the Gulf allies got angry. But you know, this polling you saw where the Israeli public supports us by about 80% and the American public supports us. You know, you see different numbers, but let's average them out between 35%, 40%. These are the two publics are actually reflecting the different self interests of the two countries. I mean, Israel has been under direct missile barrage from Iran. It's been under missile barrage and direct attack by Iranian proxies. For Israel, you're talking about a country that hasn't, you know, we've had a long slow burn with Iran for 40 plus years. Israel since October 7th has been facing just direct blow after direct blow, has been delivering them back times 10. But this is a very different, very real, very immediate. It's not even imminent, it's just happening threat from Iran. And also Israel has much less to lose if you just break Iran to pieces. If you just, you know, when Syria fell apart during the Syrian civil war, for the rest of the world, this was a giant problem because you had the migration surge into Europe that we're still dealing with. The after effects of the destabilizing of European politics, the chaos in the region was a geopolitical emergency. Not for Israel. For Israel to see Syria break to pieces was totally fine. One of their biggest enemies, historic enemies, is just off the board, right? So if you have the Strait of Hormuz closed, if you have chaos in the Gulf, if you have disruption to oil facilities, if you have massive uprisings in Iran, refugee crisis, et cetera, et cetera, that is not impacting Israel in the same way that impacts us or the rest of the world. So you're, you just have different incentives here. You have different strategic postures here. Now we absolutely share with Israel a need to keep a nuclear weapon away from Iran. No question. We have our own beefs with Iran about Iran's long, slow, burning conflict towards us. No question the ability of Iran to threaten its neighbors with ballistic missiles is a problem, without a doubt. However, we're also in a situation where the blowback, the after effects of if the Strait of Hormuz is closed for a long time, if you actually do substantial damage to the entire oil infrastructure in the Gulf, there are costs at that point that are imposed that I think the American people quite reasonably say may not have been worth whatever we gained from the strikes. And so you've got just very different strategic pictures here. And then you sort of layer on top of it the reality that, you know, I complete agree completely, this is a guy who's ultimately governed by his self interest and he's mercurial and he's volatile. So you have a very delicate strategic situation. You have very tough military situation. And I was writing about this for today and I basically said the only way to cut through this Gordian knot is a military miracle. In other words, the military right now has been performing exceptionally well, just attaining air dominance over Iran, the level, sinking most of the Iranian navy without any losses that we've taken ourselves and warships etc. I mean, we have the military has done exceptionally well. And if the military can continue to perform at a level maybe beyond what we could reasonably expect, which would mean a very rapid reopening of Strait of Hormuz, that helps out Trump immensely. But if we're talking about military performance within the historical band, even of American military capacity, we are staring a bit of a quagmire in the face. Unless Trump just sort of declares victory, which presents its own set of problems.
- [60:40]
Steve Hayes
Right. Megan, last word on this to you. Take that last point that David makes. If it's the case that Donald Trump makes these decisions based on his self interest, or I think more importantly in this case, his perceived self interest, the more complicated this gets, the naughtier this gets, do you expect that he'll just throw up his hands and say, we won, we're done?
- [61:00]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
I find it so hard to predict what Trump will do that I am tempted to just do the CNN thing and just answer. It's like, yes, Steve, I do think that the reverse creaming method holds a lot of promise over traditional creaming in the making of layer cakes, but that
- [61:15]
Steve Hayes
there are people here who are listening to your comments now so that they can go to Polymarket and bet on when Trump is going to announce. Yes, the end. Yes, I understand that it's fair. I think that's a fair answer. Let's jump to not worth your time. I want to play for you a clip that Republic, I believe it was probably Republican oppo researchers resurfaced from Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico. This is a clip from 2022 and it's Talarico talking about some policies that he has implemented in his then campaign.
- [61:54]
Jonah Goldberg
We have, I think, heard more and more issues of animal welfare.
- [61:58]
Steve Hayes
I think not just because it's the
- [62:00]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
right thing to do and the moral
- [62:01]
Jonah Goldberg
thing to do, but also it's, as all of you know, necessary to fight climate change. It is now existential that we try to reduce our meat consumption and that we try to respect animals in all aspects of society. And so I, I am proud to say that our campaign has officially become
- [62:19]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
a non meat campaign.
- [62:20]
Jonah Goldberg
So we have, we are, we are only buying vegan products from, from our local vegan businesses.
- [62:28]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Some of you may know big nonnas,
- [62:30]
Jonah Goldberg
they, they were little nonnas and then they opened up brick and mortar, some
- [62:33]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
of their big nonnas.
- [62:34]
Jonah Goldberg
But we just got our pizza from there today. And so the point is that I think, think all of us, not just policymakers, but everyone has to take personal responsibility in this effort.
- [62:47]
Steve Hayes
David, I want to go to you first. You've said some nice things about James Talarico, even as you've made clear that you have many policy differences with him. This feels to me like a potentially fatal problem to run as the pro vegan candidate in Texas, of all places. I expect to see this in Republican ads as we get close to the election, the general election date. Can James Talarico survive being a militant vegan or having said these things that make him look like a militant vegan in Texas?
- [63:24]
David French
So, you know, all these people have been just wearing me out online because they want me to call him a heretic. And I've not called him a heretic, Steve, until now. Until now, this was the line. The line it is. I mean, you know that this is impo. This is one of those things in politics where you realize, okay, is it silly that this could hurt him? Yeah, it's silly that this could hurt him. Could this hurt him? Yeah, it could hurt him. I think it could. And not just because, like, Texans like meat, but also because lots of people find vegans really annoying. Not all of them, of course. You know, I compare the vegans I've known to the CrossFitters I've known. I've known many vegans and many CrossFitters, and some of them are not annoying. And so I'm sure if you're listening and you're in that category, you're one of those that are not annoying. But, yeah, this is one of those where you just look at it and you realize it's the whole setup, right? It's the mask. It's the, you know, in 2022, it's the mask. In 2022, it's the veganism. It's almost like walking caricature. It's like one of those images that I think in politics shouldn't matter, but probably will matter. I think it will to some degree more than Paxton's corruption and adultery. If Paxton wins, remains to be seen.
- [64:50]
Steve Hayes
Yeah, Megan, I mean, you know, in some ways, it's because it sort of affirms the caricature of James Talarico that Republicans are trying to portray him in this way and in other ways, it's just bagging on meat in Texas. It reminds me of John Kerry when he was running for president in 2004, went to Wisconsin, was trying to be sort of, you know, one of the guys and identify with the Wisconsin folks, and he was talking about the Green Bay packers and called it Lambert Field instead of Lambeau Field. And I thought at the time, I still think I'm right. That was going to cost him five points. I mean, you can't call Lambeau Field Lambert.
- [65:33]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Also, when he tried to order Swiss cheese on his cheesesteak in Philadelphia, dude, this is what you have an advanced team for.
- [65:41]
Steve Hayes
So Talarico's team responded to the controversy over this by putting out a photograph of Talarico holding some huge. What I took to be some kind of a beef rib bearded barbecue sauce. He's wearing a Texas shirt saying, this is our response to this. Like, I am a meat lover.
- [66:00]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
This is the Kamala Harris strategy on the they and them ads. It's too little, too late. And there's a few things to say about this. And number one is that this was predictable from the theological stuff that people were obsessing about before. So story. When my husband and I got married, it was a little challenging because he's a Southern method. He grew up Southern Methodist. I grew up Northern Methodist slash American Baptist slash Catholic. Lot going on in this family. And we wanted to have a religious ceremony, but we also were trying to find one that would not offend one of the various teams. And my parents were divorced, which complicated it further. So we went church shopping, and, like, the super, some of them wouldn't marry us because we were unequally, spiritually yoked. A Protestant term I had never heard before. And then, so we found a Methodist church that we were gonna go look at. And I looked at this, and I was like, this is gonna be way too. I looked at the website, and he was like, you can't tell from the website. I was like, I can tell. My spidey sense, right? And so we walk in. The opening blessing, I am not making this up, was, thank you, God, for brother sky and sister Wind. Thank you for, like, cousin Tree and uncle Fire. And the worst part was there were, like, 10 very old people in this church, and they were so excited to have a young couple come in. And, like, we couldn't just slink out the back, so we had to stay for the entire thing. But, like, the stuff he was saying was a proxy for the sort of person who in 2022, was bragging about his vegan pizza. And here's the thing. I used to be a vegan. I like vegans just fine. I know many nice vegan effective altruists, but vegan pizza, first of all, is, like, the worst vegan food.
- [67:51]
Steve Hayes
That cheese is so bad.
- [67:53]
Megan McCarthy Cardle
Vegan cheese is any kind of, like, fake dairy product. Or fake meat. I would rather eat, like, good tofu than bad. I will make an exception for vegan chicken nuggets or which are actually quite good. But otherwise, no on the fake meat. It has evolved a lot since I. Beyond meat is actually quite good. But like that thing, there's going to be more of it. Like you, you brought up John Kerry. And I think that Talarico is part of a pattern with Democrats. I get a lot of crap for saying this online, but I still think it's true where they pick some, like, superficial characteristic and they think, oh, yeah, this is going to appeal to crossover voters, right? With John Kerry, it was his war record and they were going to do a contrast to, you know, draft dodger Bush from the National Guard. He went off to Vietnam and it's like he went off to Vietnam and then he came home and he threw his medals away online. They weren't even his medals. They were someone else's medals. And what are you people doing? This is a Democrats idea of what will appeal to more conservative voters. Tim Waltz is in this category, right? Where Democrats were like, oh, man, he's been hunting. And people who grew up in small towns, they know the liberal high school teacher. This is a stock character and it is not. Does not mean they identify with that person. They might like him, fine, right? Like lots of people like that person, but they don't think, like, I want to vote for that person. And this is another example of they're like, he's a seminarian. And if you don't know anything about denominations in the US the fact that he's a Presbyterian seminarian seems really like, oh, wow, evangelicals love that crap. But evangelicals know what denomination he's from and they understand their theological divide between themselves. And I mean, conservative or even moderate evangelicals, they understand where he stands in the landscape and that they are not, like, on board with his theology. And it's just part of a pattern of picking someone who has some weird characteristic that makes you think you can make this person code as a normie to normie voters. No, no, you cannot. There's no shortcuts, Jonah.
- [70:05]
Jonah Goldberg
So first of all, to David's points, you know how you can tell somebody is a vegan or a crossfitter? They tell you. But more broadly, I agree with Megan entirely about this. I wrote my. I've been using this. I took out from the mothballs an argument I originally made about WES Clark in 2004 about the Johnny Bravo thinking there was a Brady Bunch where Greg Beatty was going to offer this fantastic solo career as Johnny Bravo. And he thought it was because they loved his music and all that kind of stuff. It turned out he just fit the costume. And there is this thing in American politics where the Democrats do it. Amy McBride, when you talk about coding, Waltz literally said at Harvard IOP that he was picked because I knew how to code talk to white working class people to give them the permission structure to vote for Kamala Harris. And I was like, dude, if you can speak that way fluently, you are not who you're pretending to be, right? I think the Talarico thing will definitely hurt him. I think Steve's obsession with it is in part driven by his own priors about the importance of meat products in his life. And he is projecting upon a lot of other people that they will be as horrified. But in this case, I think he's right because we're talking about Texas. And I still think Talarico could win if Bill Paxton's the nominee. And Ken Paxton especially, because Bill dead. Well, he could definitely win if Bill Paxton's the nominee. And so other than that, I just subscribe to everybody else's comments.
- [71:44]
Steve Hayes
Well, we appreciate the Uncle Fire references. I'm going to be thinking about that service for a long time. Thank you all for joining us. We have not solved anything. The gambling problem. We will be returning to that. I think it's a fascinating topic. Thank you three for the time and thank you all for listening. Finally, if you like what we're doing here, there are a few easy ways to support us. You can rate, review and subscribe to the show on your podcast player of choice to help new listeners find us. And as always, if you've got questions, comments, concerns or corrections, you can email us@roundtabledispatch.com we read everything, even the ones from Uncle Fire. That's going to do it for today's show. Thanks so much for tuning in. And a big thank you to the folks behind the scenes who made this episode possible. Noah Hickey and Peter Bonaventure, thanks again for listening. Please join us next time.