00:00:00
Speaker 1: We've been wanting to get Sarah igor on for a long time. First became or wherever on the Dispatch and the podcast stuff there, and man, anytime any big legal story breaks, I go to her Twitter feed or wait for the podcast she does with David French Advisory Opinions to get it laid out. And couldn't be happier to have her today.
00:00:17
Speaker 2: Yep, we're both big fans of Sarah Isger, editor of Scotis Blog, hosted the legal podcast in virus Ory Opinions, Legal analyst for ABC News and author of a fabulous new book, Last Branch Standing, a potentially surprising, occasionally witty journey inside today's Supreme Court. A book so timely and important I believe it should be a compulsory read for every American. Not sure how that scores with the first time Sarah, welcome, How are you?
00:00:41
Speaker 3: I'm great? Thank you guys for having me.
00:00:43
Speaker 1: You bet you before we let you lay out the book. And here's the deal I'm going to make with you. Even though we have no leverage. You're like the horror moves straight. We have no leverage over you, but I'll let you and I'll go out and buy a hard bound copy of your book today, even though I'm getting a promotional copy. If I can get you to do one of your screeds, and there's there's so many, I would like the screed might be prejudicial. Maybe I'll go with presentation or something like that. But and I could have you do why the whole crying fire in a crowded movie house is misrepresented?
00:01:13
Speaker 3: I mean, there's so many of them. I for you do that.
00:01:15
Speaker 1: I love her greatest hits. Why there are no parties anymore? And it's a waste of time. I want to have you lay out the pointlessness of issue polling after the book, because I want you to do that for our audience.
00:01:27
Speaker 3: I really do excellent, No problem, I'm done. I mean, you don't have to go me into doing a rand. I love a rand.
00:01:33
Speaker 1: Good.
00:01:34
Speaker 2: All right, First things first, though, tell us about last Branch standing.
00:01:39
Speaker 3: Well, part of the reason for this book is to convince Americans that, yes, they're hearing so much more about the Supreme Court and that it is actually our most functional branch of government. But it is never the last word in any of these fights that we're having on politics, on culture, war, anything else. It is always up to the American people. If you don't like something the Supreme Court decided, we can amend the Constitution. We used to do it pretty frequently in response to Supreme Court decisions, and most of the decisions from the Supreme Court are actually just up to Congress. If you don't like partisan jerrymandering, Congress can deal with that. Today, we just don't expect them to. We don't make them, and we continue to vote for people who have no interest in actually legislating, because legislation requires compromise, negotiation, actually working with someone who disagrees with you. And it said, we keep electing people who are really good at putting out Instagram reels yelling about how the other side is the problem.
00:02:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've listened to you so much. I actually know what your answers are going to be to all my questions, but I'll ask them anyway. What you have us talker? Well, I am, I'm a fanboy, wound boy. What changed? Why you know if we used to amend the Constitution all time?
00:02:54
Speaker 3: What changed? Yeah? I mean a few things. We can go back one hundred years to the progressive era, Woodrow Will and Teddy Roosevelt. They really wanted to remake the United States government and move away from Congress again that messy, long negotiating process. And they wanted it all to be housed by experts and independent agencies. It would be shielded from political influence. So we've been doing that experiment for about one hundred years. And then during the second term of the Obama administration, when his immigration legislation failed in the House because Republicans wouldn't vote for it, he decided to do executive orders to implement legislation. Now, it didn't last long. Those executive orders were generally struck down by courts or President Trump came in and repealed them all his first day in office. But it taught Congress that they don't need to do legislation anymore because when their party has the White House, they can get everything that they want. And sure it's only for a couple of years, but they get the Rose Garden address, their bases happy, and nobody remembers a few years later whose fault it is when it all disappears.
00:04:02
Speaker 1: So the whole I have a pen and a phone. Thing that took presidence, so especially.
00:04:07
Speaker 3: Then tires under government by executive order.
00:04:11
Speaker 2: At this point, right, I was just going to say, so Congress is not legislating in the executive branch, is is that most of the reason there's so much of a spotlight on the Supreme Court these days or what else is happening.
00:04:23
Speaker 3: I think that's right, you know, because Congress is where we were supposed to work out these problems. Again, you know, I'm thinking of cases that are waiting at the Supreme Court right now, birthright, citizenship, asylum, at the southern border, whether Mississippi can accept mail in ballots five days after the election. All of those are questions we're supposed to work out in Congress. But because none of us believe that will happen, we end up bringing lawsuits to court and asking the courts to work those out for us. And so then we focus a lot more on the courts. It becomes really important who these judges are, and they become part of our partisan agreements instead of sort of the place of last resort to sort of, you know, be a referee.
00:05:05
Speaker 1: And we've seen the declining popularity numbers for the Supreme Court because of this, putting them in an impossible situation on a bunch of this stuff. A reply to this, this is an out of control right wing Trump Court.
00:05:18
Speaker 3: Yeah, the data isn't great for people who argue that. So last term for six three cases, you know, where all of the Republican appointees vote one way and all of the Democratic appointees vote the other way, which is what you would expect if this were a you know, Republican red team versus Blue team court. That accounted for drum roll, nine percent of the cases. So if that's how you're predicting the outcome of Supreme Court cases, you're going to get it wrong more than ninety percent of the time. And even if you include the five four cases, it turns out exactly equal numbers had all of the liberals and descent versus having all the liberals in the majority and only conservatives in descent's dead. You know, forty two percent of the cases are unanimous. That's the most likely outcome of any case at the Supreme Court. Very few, as I say, fall against partisan lines. The other things we'd expect if this were a you know, Trump Supreme Court, well, first of all, I guess we'd expect Trump to actually win some cases. Right now, every major policy question that has come before the Supreme Court, he has lost Immigration, Alien Enemies Act nope. Federalizing the National Guard nope, Paris nope, birthright citizenship. I will bet you a shiny nickel that one's a hard no. So he keeps losing. In fact, in his first term he lost more than any president in United States history. He's the first president to ever be below fifty percent. At the Supreme Court, we'd expect them to be overturning precedent, Nope, this court is overturning fewer precedents than any court in modern history. We'd expect them to be taking more cases, Nope, this court is taking fewer cases than any court in recent history. So, no matter what way you look at it, the data just isn't there. For the people who want to argue that this is a partisan court.
00:07:05
Speaker 2: Well, let's be honest about what animates virtually all of modern politics. You just raised zero dollars for the Democratic Party, Sarah, So thanks for wasting our time. You noted and I found this so interesting that Brett Kavanaugh was more likely to agree with Elena Kagan than Neil Gorsich. What's going on there?
00:07:24
Speaker 3: Yeah? So, I mean Britt Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsich are basically twins. They went to high school together. They had the same history teacher. They clerked on the court together. They were circuit judges at the same time. They were appointed by the same president. They are federalist society lab creations with good hair and conservative judicial principles. But last term they only agreed with each other fifty percent of the time. As you say, Justice Kavanaugh was more likely to agree with Justice Kagan than he was with Justice Gorsicic because Justice Kavanaugh is a high institutional He thinks of this as a team sport. He likes basketball and baseball. Justice Gorsich, He's a soloist. He likes skiing and running solo sports. He is more like Justice Jackson, which is why you see them agreeing with each other's concurrences and why Justice Kavanaugh is the justice most likely to be in the majority. He is the swing justice as of now.
00:08:24
Speaker 1: Sarah Isger's book is called Last Branch Standing. In the first sentence in the promotional stuff, is here a myth busting glimpse into the inner workings of the Supreme Court, And you've already busted a few myths? How worried are you about the declining faith in the Supreme Court because of the untrue partisan things people have been saying on both sides now for several cycles.
00:08:47
Speaker 3: Well, let me give you the good news and the bad news. The good news is that the Supreme Court is still more popular than the President or Congress. So if we're just fighting among the three branches of government, definitely the Supreme Court is winning. The bad news is that our courts tend to be a lagging indicator of our politics. So another title for the book could have been last branch Standing dot dot dot for now, because everything that we're doing now will eventually be reflected in the courts, and there are warning signs. Getting rid of the filibuster means that we now appoint judges who didn't get any votes from the other side of the aisle. That is not great. That is going to breed more extreme judges who are outliers, and it's going to change the behavior of people who want to become judges to be more partisan, more outspoken, lock themselves into certain positions. We have forum shopping now that we didn't used to have. That's not great. You know, you could be the most fair judge in the world, but if everyone knows that one side picked you. It doesn't look that fair to anyone. So, you know, I think those are things we can pretty easily fix, but it's not great. And the more we pull the courts into our partisan politics, negative polarization. I mean, we have a really top toxic political environment right now. We cannot have the courts reflect that.
00:10:06
Speaker 2: Let's go a little ABC one two three about the Supreme Court kind of basic stuff. I think a lot of folks, particularly on the left, think it's about choosing the right result, period, and a lot of us on the right would like to believe that the court does nothing but look at the Constitution and the law and president and they may despise the result. But we've got to go with with this is that's oversimplified obviously, But is that characterization of the left and right, at least on the right track.
00:10:37
Speaker 3: You know, I think I think the conservative right wanted to think that about themselves, but it's pretty clear now that that's not true. Both sides only care about outcomes. Really. You see the right attack the Supreme Court every time they rule against Donald Trump, sometimes specific justices in very personal terms. You know, the attacks against Justice Amy Tony Barrett got very gender in my opinions, and I think that there's a natural human tendency to care about the outcome. I get it. But the Supreme Court's job is never to say, you know what the good policy is. It is to say who gets to decide? So you're mad that the book is in your local school library, the Supreme Court isn't going to tell you whether that's a good book or a bad book for kindergarteners to read. Their question is who gets to decide whether that's a good book or a bad book? Is it the librarian, Is it the parent coming into the library. Is it the you know, city mayor. Is it a state legislature? Is it the governor? Is it Congress? Those are the questions that the Supreme Court decides. They're never deciding which book it should be?
00:11:44
Speaker 2: Right, I meant the Justice is more than than the average commentator or voter. Forstance, Justice Jackson strikes me as just wanting the result, no matter how she has to twist the law.
00:11:57
Speaker 3: Well, what's interesting because the legal less left for a long time sort of had this idea of living constitutionalism. The Constitution evolves as our culture evolves, and it is up to the nine justices on the Supreme Court to decide where it has evolved to President Lyndon Johnson famously once said it takes two thirds of Congress and three quarters of the states to amend the Constitution. Justice Douglas can do it in an afternoon. That was really where they were. That had basically disappeared from the legal left, and yet nothing has yet replaced it. And so I think you see Justice Jackson trying to come up with a new legal philosophy for the legal left that, yes, will produce liberal results, but they can be sort of intellectually built a new house, if you will, on the block of judicial philosophy. And look, like I said, nine percent of the cases were six' three along ideological. Lines SO i also think it's unfair to say ideology plays no role In Supreme court decisions nine percent of the. Time it. Does it's just that ninety one percent of the time something else is at.
00:13:06
Speaker 1: Work so the book's last branch standing couldn't recommend it more. Highly i've Heard sarah talk about it in a bunch of different, podcasts And i'm SURE i will eventually read. It she explains this stuff in a way that idiots like me can understand it in an entertaining.
00:13:18
Speaker 3: Way so.
00:13:20
Speaker 1: You have worked on presidential. Campaigns you worked For Carly. Fiorina we used to have her on regularly back in the day when she was. Running but, ANYWAY i, know with your background and a bunch of different, areas you don't think issue polling has much. Merit explain.
00:13:37
Speaker 3: That, Ah, okay deep, Breath, sarah don't go too. Far, okay here too. Far here's the. Problem when we do candidate, polling we can actually judge whether the poll was any good because we have an election, day, right there is a backstop to the. Polling we never can do that with issue. Polling we can never find out whether that poll was a good poll or a bad. Poll there's no way to grade. It so that's a big, problem. Right but there's another. Problem when you ask people what candidates they intend to vote, for that's a very binary. Choice they understand what an election is and that they're going to go in and check the box for one person or the. Other and, remember those poles still aren't perfect when it comes to issue. Polling, oftentimes the question you're asking people is it the question they think they're. Answering you, know do you think the straits of horror moves should be open or? Whatever well kind of depends what are the trade? Offs are you going to list all of the potential trade offs in that? Question you've only got like thirty seconds to ask them a question and get them to answer. It and that's why you get so many different results with issue. Polling it's also the case that sometimes people hear a question that can be about a very specific, issue but what they're, answering what they think you really want to know is who do you support for? President so you, know do you like ex policy or why? Policy the answer is do you Like Donald trump Or Kamala? Harris and so you're rarely getting the answer THAT i think you. Want if you're asking the same, question the exact same question over, time and that moves that is interesting to, me, right like not the raw, number but, like oh it is moved by seven points in the last. Month, well something that has changed if you're asking the exact same. Question but that's rarely what we're.
00:15:25
Speaker 1: Doing do you regularly hear because in talk radio we do it all the. Time forty three percent Of americans blah blah, blah do you regularly slap your forehead with oh my, god there's no way there's any accuracy.
00:15:35
Speaker 3: THERE i sort of turned into like a Rain man type figure WHERE i start saying that that's not a real, poll that's not a real. Pull don't do, it that's not a real.
00:15:43
Speaker 2: Pull. Perfect Sarah asker's new book Is Last Branch. Standing can't wait to read it To. Sarah what a pleasure has. BEEN i hope we can do it again.
00:15:51
Speaker 3: Soon, Absolutely thanks, guys you got you all?
00:15:54
Speaker 2: Right thank?
00:15:54
Speaker 1: You, yeah, yeah, Yeah i've heard it go on at length about how issue polling it except in extreme, situations is almost, useless like it's close to your better off having never heard it than coming away with any.
00:16:08
Speaker 2: INFORMATION i have follow up comments as.
00:16:10
Speaker 1: Well, yeah we got told them more on the way to stay Here armstrong And getty
Speaker 1: We've been wanting to get Sarah igor on for a long time. First became or wherever on the Dispatch and the podcast stuff there, and man, anytime any big legal story breaks, I go to her Twitter feed or wait for the podcast she does with David French Advisory Opinions to get it laid out. And couldn't be happier to have her today.
00:00:17
Speaker 2: Yep, we're both big fans of Sarah Isger, editor of Scotis Blog, hosted the legal podcast in virus Ory Opinions, Legal analyst for ABC News and author of a fabulous new book, Last Branch Standing, a potentially surprising, occasionally witty journey inside today's Supreme Court. A book so timely and important I believe it should be a compulsory read for every American. Not sure how that scores with the first time Sarah, welcome, How are you?
00:00:41
Speaker 3: I'm great? Thank you guys for having me.
00:00:43
Speaker 1: You bet you before we let you lay out the book. And here's the deal I'm going to make with you. Even though we have no leverage. You're like the horror moves straight. We have no leverage over you, but I'll let you and I'll go out and buy a hard bound copy of your book today, even though I'm getting a promotional copy. If I can get you to do one of your screeds, and there's there's so many, I would like the screed might be prejudicial. Maybe I'll go with presentation or something like that. But and I could have you do why the whole crying fire in a crowded movie house is misrepresented?
00:01:13
Speaker 3: I mean, there's so many of them. I for you do that.
00:01:15
Speaker 1: I love her greatest hits. Why there are no parties anymore? And it's a waste of time. I want to have you lay out the pointlessness of issue polling after the book, because I want you to do that for our audience.
00:01:27
Speaker 3: I really do excellent, No problem, I'm done. I mean, you don't have to go me into doing a rand. I love a rand.
00:01:33
Speaker 1: Good.
00:01:34
Speaker 2: All right, First things first, though, tell us about last Branch standing.
00:01:39
Speaker 3: Well, part of the reason for this book is to convince Americans that, yes, they're hearing so much more about the Supreme Court and that it is actually our most functional branch of government. But it is never the last word in any of these fights that we're having on politics, on culture, war, anything else. It is always up to the American people. If you don't like something the Supreme Court decided, we can amend the Constitution. We used to do it pretty frequently in response to Supreme Court decisions, and most of the decisions from the Supreme Court are actually just up to Congress. If you don't like partisan jerrymandering, Congress can deal with that. Today, we just don't expect them to. We don't make them, and we continue to vote for people who have no interest in actually legislating, because legislation requires compromise, negotiation, actually working with someone who disagrees with you. And it said, we keep electing people who are really good at putting out Instagram reels yelling about how the other side is the problem.
00:02:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've listened to you so much. I actually know what your answers are going to be to all my questions, but I'll ask them anyway. What you have us talker? Well, I am, I'm a fanboy, wound boy. What changed? Why you know if we used to amend the Constitution all time?
00:02:54
Speaker 3: What changed? Yeah? I mean a few things. We can go back one hundred years to the progressive era, Woodrow Will and Teddy Roosevelt. They really wanted to remake the United States government and move away from Congress again that messy, long negotiating process. And they wanted it all to be housed by experts and independent agencies. It would be shielded from political influence. So we've been doing that experiment for about one hundred years. And then during the second term of the Obama administration, when his immigration legislation failed in the House because Republicans wouldn't vote for it, he decided to do executive orders to implement legislation. Now, it didn't last long. Those executive orders were generally struck down by courts or President Trump came in and repealed them all his first day in office. But it taught Congress that they don't need to do legislation anymore because when their party has the White House, they can get everything that they want. And sure it's only for a couple of years, but they get the Rose Garden address, their bases happy, and nobody remembers a few years later whose fault it is when it all disappears.
00:04:02
Speaker 1: So the whole I have a pen and a phone. Thing that took presidence, so especially.
00:04:07
Speaker 3: Then tires under government by executive order.
00:04:11
Speaker 2: At this point, right, I was just going to say, so Congress is not legislating in the executive branch, is is that most of the reason there's so much of a spotlight on the Supreme Court these days or what else is happening.
00:04:23
Speaker 3: I think that's right, you know, because Congress is where we were supposed to work out these problems. Again, you know, I'm thinking of cases that are waiting at the Supreme Court right now, birthright, citizenship, asylum, at the southern border, whether Mississippi can accept mail in ballots five days after the election. All of those are questions we're supposed to work out in Congress. But because none of us believe that will happen, we end up bringing lawsuits to court and asking the courts to work those out for us. And so then we focus a lot more on the courts. It becomes really important who these judges are, and they become part of our partisan agreements instead of sort of the place of last resort to sort of, you know, be a referee.
00:05:05
Speaker 1: And we've seen the declining popularity numbers for the Supreme Court because of this, putting them in an impossible situation on a bunch of this stuff. A reply to this, this is an out of control right wing Trump Court.
00:05:18
Speaker 3: Yeah, the data isn't great for people who argue that. So last term for six three cases, you know, where all of the Republican appointees vote one way and all of the Democratic appointees vote the other way, which is what you would expect if this were a you know, Republican red team versus Blue team court. That accounted for drum roll, nine percent of the cases. So if that's how you're predicting the outcome of Supreme Court cases, you're going to get it wrong more than ninety percent of the time. And even if you include the five four cases, it turns out exactly equal numbers had all of the liberals and descent versus having all the liberals in the majority and only conservatives in descent's dead. You know, forty two percent of the cases are unanimous. That's the most likely outcome of any case at the Supreme Court. Very few, as I say, fall against partisan lines. The other things we'd expect if this were a you know, Trump Supreme Court, well, first of all, I guess we'd expect Trump to actually win some cases. Right now, every major policy question that has come before the Supreme Court, he has lost Immigration, Alien Enemies Act nope. Federalizing the National Guard nope, Paris nope, birthright citizenship. I will bet you a shiny nickel that one's a hard no. So he keeps losing. In fact, in his first term he lost more than any president in United States history. He's the first president to ever be below fifty percent. At the Supreme Court, we'd expect them to be overturning precedent, Nope, this court is overturning fewer precedents than any court in modern history. We'd expect them to be taking more cases, Nope, this court is taking fewer cases than any court in recent history. So, no matter what way you look at it, the data just isn't there. For the people who want to argue that this is a partisan court.
00:07:05
Speaker 2: Well, let's be honest about what animates virtually all of modern politics. You just raised zero dollars for the Democratic Party, Sarah, So thanks for wasting our time. You noted and I found this so interesting that Brett Kavanaugh was more likely to agree with Elena Kagan than Neil Gorsich. What's going on there?
00:07:24
Speaker 3: Yeah? So, I mean Britt Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsich are basically twins. They went to high school together. They had the same history teacher. They clerked on the court together. They were circuit judges at the same time. They were appointed by the same president. They are federalist society lab creations with good hair and conservative judicial principles. But last term they only agreed with each other fifty percent of the time. As you say, Justice Kavanaugh was more likely to agree with Justice Kagan than he was with Justice Gorsicic because Justice Kavanaugh is a high institutional He thinks of this as a team sport. He likes basketball and baseball. Justice Gorsich, He's a soloist. He likes skiing and running solo sports. He is more like Justice Jackson, which is why you see them agreeing with each other's concurrences and why Justice Kavanaugh is the justice most likely to be in the majority. He is the swing justice as of now.
00:08:24
Speaker 1: Sarah Isger's book is called Last Branch Standing. In the first sentence in the promotional stuff, is here a myth busting glimpse into the inner workings of the Supreme Court, And you've already busted a few myths? How worried are you about the declining faith in the Supreme Court because of the untrue partisan things people have been saying on both sides now for several cycles.
00:08:47
Speaker 3: Well, let me give you the good news and the bad news. The good news is that the Supreme Court is still more popular than the President or Congress. So if we're just fighting among the three branches of government, definitely the Supreme Court is winning. The bad news is that our courts tend to be a lagging indicator of our politics. So another title for the book could have been last branch Standing dot dot dot for now, because everything that we're doing now will eventually be reflected in the courts, and there are warning signs. Getting rid of the filibuster means that we now appoint judges who didn't get any votes from the other side of the aisle. That is not great. That is going to breed more extreme judges who are outliers, and it's going to change the behavior of people who want to become judges to be more partisan, more outspoken, lock themselves into certain positions. We have forum shopping now that we didn't used to have. That's not great. You know, you could be the most fair judge in the world, but if everyone knows that one side picked you. It doesn't look that fair to anyone. So, you know, I think those are things we can pretty easily fix, but it's not great. And the more we pull the courts into our partisan politics, negative polarization. I mean, we have a really top toxic political environment right now. We cannot have the courts reflect that.
00:10:06
Speaker 2: Let's go a little ABC one two three about the Supreme Court kind of basic stuff. I think a lot of folks, particularly on the left, think it's about choosing the right result, period, and a lot of us on the right would like to believe that the court does nothing but look at the Constitution and the law and president and they may despise the result. But we've got to go with with this is that's oversimplified obviously, But is that characterization of the left and right, at least on the right track.
00:10:37
Speaker 3: You know, I think I think the conservative right wanted to think that about themselves, but it's pretty clear now that that's not true. Both sides only care about outcomes. Really. You see the right attack the Supreme Court every time they rule against Donald Trump, sometimes specific justices in very personal terms. You know, the attacks against Justice Amy Tony Barrett got very gender in my opinions, and I think that there's a natural human tendency to care about the outcome. I get it. But the Supreme Court's job is never to say, you know what the good policy is. It is to say who gets to decide? So you're mad that the book is in your local school library, the Supreme Court isn't going to tell you whether that's a good book or a bad book for kindergarteners to read. Their question is who gets to decide whether that's a good book or a bad book? Is it the librarian, Is it the parent coming into the library. Is it the you know, city mayor. Is it a state legislature? Is it the governor? Is it Congress? Those are the questions that the Supreme Court decides. They're never deciding which book it should be?
00:11:44
Speaker 2: Right, I meant the Justice is more than than the average commentator or voter. Forstance, Justice Jackson strikes me as just wanting the result, no matter how she has to twist the law.
00:11:57
Speaker 3: Well, what's interesting because the legal less left for a long time sort of had this idea of living constitutionalism. The Constitution evolves as our culture evolves, and it is up to the nine justices on the Supreme Court to decide where it has evolved to President Lyndon Johnson famously once said it takes two thirds of Congress and three quarters of the states to amend the Constitution. Justice Douglas can do it in an afternoon. That was really where they were. That had basically disappeared from the legal left, and yet nothing has yet replaced it. And so I think you see Justice Jackson trying to come up with a new legal philosophy for the legal left that, yes, will produce liberal results, but they can be sort of intellectually built a new house, if you will, on the block of judicial philosophy. And look, like I said, nine percent of the cases were six' three along ideological. Lines SO i also think it's unfair to say ideology plays no role In Supreme court decisions nine percent of the. Time it. Does it's just that ninety one percent of the time something else is at.
00:13:06
Speaker 1: Work so the book's last branch standing couldn't recommend it more. Highly i've Heard sarah talk about it in a bunch of different, podcasts And i'm SURE i will eventually read. It she explains this stuff in a way that idiots like me can understand it in an entertaining.
00:13:18
Speaker 3: Way so.
00:13:20
Speaker 1: You have worked on presidential. Campaigns you worked For Carly. Fiorina we used to have her on regularly back in the day when she was. Running but, ANYWAY i, know with your background and a bunch of different, areas you don't think issue polling has much. Merit explain.
00:13:37
Speaker 3: That, Ah, okay deep, Breath, sarah don't go too. Far, okay here too. Far here's the. Problem when we do candidate, polling we can actually judge whether the poll was any good because we have an election, day, right there is a backstop to the. Polling we never can do that with issue. Polling we can never find out whether that poll was a good poll or a bad. Poll there's no way to grade. It so that's a big, problem. Right but there's another. Problem when you ask people what candidates they intend to vote, for that's a very binary. Choice they understand what an election is and that they're going to go in and check the box for one person or the. Other and, remember those poles still aren't perfect when it comes to issue. Polling, oftentimes the question you're asking people is it the question they think they're. Answering you, know do you think the straits of horror moves should be open or? Whatever well kind of depends what are the trade? Offs are you going to list all of the potential trade offs in that? Question you've only got like thirty seconds to ask them a question and get them to answer. It and that's why you get so many different results with issue. Polling it's also the case that sometimes people hear a question that can be about a very specific, issue but what they're, answering what they think you really want to know is who do you support for? President so you, know do you like ex policy or why? Policy the answer is do you Like Donald trump Or Kamala? Harris and so you're rarely getting the answer THAT i think you. Want if you're asking the same, question the exact same question over, time and that moves that is interesting to, me, right like not the raw, number but, like oh it is moved by seven points in the last. Month, well something that has changed if you're asking the exact same. Question but that's rarely what we're.
00:15:25
Speaker 1: Doing do you regularly hear because in talk radio we do it all the. Time forty three percent Of americans blah blah, blah do you regularly slap your forehead with oh my, god there's no way there's any accuracy.
00:15:35
Speaker 3: THERE i sort of turned into like a Rain man type figure WHERE i start saying that that's not a real, poll that's not a real. Pull don't do, it that's not a real.
00:15:43
Speaker 2: Pull. Perfect Sarah asker's new book Is Last Branch. Standing can't wait to read it To. Sarah what a pleasure has. BEEN i hope we can do it again.
00:15:51
Speaker 3: Soon, Absolutely thanks, guys you got you all?
00:15:54
Speaker 2: Right thank?
00:15:54
Speaker 1: You, yeah, yeah, Yeah i've heard it go on at length about how issue polling it except in extreme, situations is almost, useless like it's close to your better off having never heard it than coming away with any.
00:16:08
Speaker 2: INFORMATION i have follow up comments as.
00:16:10
Speaker 1: Well, yeah we got told them more on the way to stay Here armstrong And getty
