All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

Industry veterans, degenerate gamblers & besties Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.

E12: Biden wins, Pfizer vaccine, markets rip, Trump's next act, COVID endgame scenarios & more

E12: Biden wins, Pfizer vaccine, markets rip, Trump's next act, COVID endgame scenarios & more

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:13

Follow the crew:

Follow the pod:

Show Notes:

0:00 Besties reflect on the election night special, comparing Trump's case to Al Gore's in 2000

4:44 Was this election devastating for extreme-ism in politics?

12:13 Pfizer vaccine, withholding the vaccine from the political news cycle

21:54 COVID endgame scenarios

28:45 Public markets ripping, gridlock great for the economy

34:43 Analyzing exit polls, death of identity politics

50:57 Biggest loser of the election: Journalism

57:43 When will Trump concede? What will his next move be?

1:07:37 San Francisco's collapse - will it eventually go bankrupt?

Listen to Episode

Copyright © <> - all rights reserved

Read Episode Transcript

Hey everybody, welcome to another all in podcast. This is an all bestie, no guesty episode of all. In the last time you heard from the besties, it was election night and it was a **** show. A ******* crazy **** show. Let's be honest, I mean, we if we go back and look at that historical document, we had moments where we thought Trump was going to absolutely crush. Then we had moments of confusion. And now here we are, and I think we have to give a couple of bestie kudos to 1st off chemaf. Pointing out Pennsylvania was gonna be big and then second when we went through the possible scenarios of who, what, what could possibly happen. A big giant blue wave Trump winning it all and then maybe something in the middle option three came through and that was saxophone. Nailed it. I think that was your assumption. Sacks, the soft landing, the soft landing. Yeah. So why don't we just for the people who didn't TuneIn. Live. Sorry, Jason. Can I ask you a question? Saxy Saxy poop was that your like projection or was it from that from that guy who lives in his dad's basement his basement that you my researcher well Newman. Newman works for me. So we. Newman. Newman. Yeah, Newman. Newman. I worked worked together on on those takes. But yeah the the the take that we thought was was possible but probably unlikely but could represent a really good. Scenario was the the soft landing where you get a split decision. And I think that's what the American people voted for. You know, you had the the democratic frame on the election was that we needed a return to normalcy and decency. The Republican frame was that the radical left cannot be trusted with power. And voters basically said they are both right. They sort of surgically removed Donald Trump while thwarting the radical left dream of total control in Washington. And what the electorate seems to be saying is they want the parties now to work together instead of voting. More extreme ideology, but TBD sex. I mean, George is still up for grabs. They're gonna go after it hard, right? I mean, they just they filed in Pennsylvania. Yes, I think there's a series of of court challenges we can talk about. I think that they're unlikely to prevail. Very, very unlikely. I think Joe Biden will be the next president. We can kind of compare this to, you know, Bush V Gore from 2000. And if you you want to compare Trump's case to Gore's case, it's weaker in every respect. I mean, first of all, with Bush V Gore, Gore only had to overturn one state, which was Florida, whereas Trump has to now contest and overturn 3 or 4. States simultaneously. Second, you know, Gore was within a few hundred votes of Bush. It was extremely close. Trump is no closer than about 12,000 votes in in Georgia. That's the closest one third, you know, Gore or or or or or Bush never trailed gore in in any in any recount and and and and Trump has that problem that he's never and he he he's very far behind Gore as well. So you look at those three things and you'd say, you know, Gore couldn't overcome it and he had a closer situation. Ness, and of course I'd say finally, you know, W had the velvet hammer James Baker working for him, whereas Trump, frankly has Rudy Giuliani, who's throwing press conferences in the parking lot of forces and landscaping between a a ***** shop and a crematorium. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. I think somebody, somebody was tweeting, you know, it's the this is perfect because, you know, they they were saying they wanted ready to **** *** and die. So there's this. It was so appropriate that this press conference was held between a ***** shop and a crematorium. So, you know, it's not exactly the A-Team that Trump's got playing for him here in in the courts, but I mean, David Bossy, by the way, David Bossie, who is in charge of the whole thing. David Bossie is not even a lawyer. And then he gets COVID. So now he's on the side. I mean just there's so many angles we can take here, including the fact that. Am I correct that? Trump's. Campaign advisor got COVID. Like the day after, or it's not a Mark Meadows, chief of staff, got it. But David Bossie, who's in charge of this whole recount process, got COVID as well. OK, so I wanna just shift us now to what could have. So many things went right for the Democrats, but there was also something very clear here that happened, which is the, what I call the HSP, the hysterical Socialist Party of America, I think was dealt. A death blow. If you look, this was very close. And so, you know, even if we wanna talk, talk about the Electoral College, etcetera, these are still very low numbers, I believe, if the Pfizer news comes out last week. Trump wins, or if any combination of AOC, Biden, AOC, Bernie or Warren were in any way involved in this election process and weren't pushed to the side, the squad was squashed because we knew that if they got any kind of play. Trump sells into victory. So when we look at what happens going forward, and I'll, I'll, I'll let anyone of the three of you take this what does this say about the hysterical Socialist Party, the HSP, the squad, the Bernie Bros? What does this say about them? Well, you have a, you have a look, you have a, you have a loud group of people on both sides. And the reality is that both extremes of both parties actually after this election have very little to stand on. That's unique because if you think about what the plurality of Americans want is actually just a common decent centrist do no harm alternative, and they're going to pick that more times than they're not going to pick it. It's only when things get extreme, like in 2016, in order to send a message will they do it and. Until it's resolved. They tried to do it again now. So we should actually talk about that. I don't think that this was, you know, a runaway. It was way too close on too many dimensions that actually matter for the future prosperity of America. But that being said, what does it mean for the future? I think the future is like a Pete Buttigieg must be high fiving, you know, the people in his camp right now because a common, decent, thoughtful, centrist platform will win. For example, like, let's just say you believe in gay rights. Guess what? You don't need to be at the fringes. Believe in that. That's mainstream. You believe in like a reasonable form of healthcare. That's mainstream. If you believe in climate change, it's mainstream. You start to go and tick off the things that the extremes would want to believe. There's very little room for them to stand on. So one party is going to be basically about like a federalized nanny state, and the other party will be a bunch of conspiracy theorists, crazies, and I think it's going to force more and more people to the middle. I think that's the future to me. That's. That's a much safer place to be than I think, where we could have been if, you know, Trump had won or if the extreme left had basically been been validated with a candidate that won. Right and I I would add to that that the the the proof of that, the proof of the electric desired attack towards the center is you look at the down ballot elections. So you know in the Senate the Republicans are still holding on to majority pending the Florida runoff. But the the Democrats failed to take out Susan Collins, Tom Tillis, Steve Daines. These were three incumbent Republicans who were way behind in the polls heading into Election Day. They didn't come close to taking out Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell despite. How did Lady Gaga get out of this one alive? Explain that. Susan Collins. No, lady G Lindsey Graham. Oh, I see. You know Lindsey Graham. They said that it was neck and neck and he actually ended up winning that state by like 14 points. It wasn't close. The polls were wildly off. And and you saw that across across the board in the House, too. Democrats expected to gain of 10 to 15 seats. Instead, they've lost about 10 seats. They failed to defeat a single GOP incumbent, the GOP. House members ran about two or three points ahead of President Trump. And that. And then the Democrats were completely shut out in Texas, which was supposed to be going purple. There were eight open GOP seats. Democrats won none of them. So this, you know. So anyway, I'm providing some support to the idea that this was a split decision election. The voters voted to remove both of the OR to voted against the extremes of both parties. So freedberg, when you look at this, you see, I think, an absolute. It's just people don't want to deal with Trump anymore. And how much of this do you think is Trump Derangement system syndrome? And what got Trump into office eventually taking him out, which is the guy just takes up too much oxygen in the room. And that's coming from me. And the guy is just incredibly annoying to have to deal with day-to-day. That's also coming from you and that's also coming from me, Freiberg. I think we've, I think we've been at a rave for four years and everyone's like coming down from the Molly and you're not gonna go to Marilyn Manson concert, like right after being in a raid. Like you wanna go sit in the parking lot and you just wanna chill out a little bit and we all just want to like have a beer and relax, you know? Like, I mean I think that needs some 5 HTP and a banana. You just yeah, you, you, you you want to go sit in the 711 parking lot at 4:00 in the morning and you wanna like go get a ******* sweet cappuccino and smoke a cigarette and relax like it's been it's been too much and I think it's like. Everyone just kind of ready to chill out a bit. And so this whole ******* swinging back to the, you know, to the concert across the road sounds just as bad as what we've just been through. So let's just, you know, let's just live our lives a little bit and, you know, we'll come back in four years and figure out how to **** things up again. I think that's kind of the psyche. That's right. I think that I think voters want a Presidency they can forget about. You know, I think Trump's sort of Achilles heel, as he demanded too much of the voters, constant time and attention there was like this psychic cost to it. It obviously antagonized the other side. Drove turn out for the Democrats. But but it's it. It seems like voters are saying, look, just leave us alone. We wanna just forget about what's happening in Washington for four years. And now they can because, you know pending the Georgia runoff, it looks like, you know Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden will have to be in a power sharing arrangement and nothing gets done unless the two of them agree. And by the way, just on that there was a great tweet by Paul Graham. He said the day after the election something to the effect of it feels like some background process in my computer had was just killed. That was. Assuming 5% of my CPU and it's and it's so, it's so true. Mac operating system, spinning wheel of death. But it's it's David is so right. It's like, you know, it's been this omnipresent thing in all of our lives over the last four years and it's just exhausting. And you know, there wasn't that much value that came from paying so much attention and worrying so much. And so it's just a great opportunity to come off the sugar high and reset ourselves and take a nap. I think that's a very astute point, chamath in that what what was gained from this Trump derangement, from this Trump sucking all of the attention and constantly tweeting. And you know, I think the big win here Freeberg is. If you look the proof is in the pudding. Trump, we, we find out on Saturday morning that Trump is, you know, has lost and Biden has won. And 48 hours later we find out Pfizer has 90% efficacy on their vaccine. Obviously these two things are highly correlated. Biden has already delivered the vaccine in just 48 hours and then today we got the rapid testing has been approved by the FDA, I mean. Look at this by if at at this rate, Biden's gonna cure global warming by the end of the year. Look, First off, I think it's a little it. It is pretty paradoxical that the vaccine news came 48 hours. Yeah. And this paradoxical. I mean, that was crazy. I mean, you know, there supposed to be an October surprise, not a November surprise. I think if Trump has any legitimate argument about being done dirty in this election, it is over this vaccine news, because you know that the Chinese announced that three hours after being declared President. Pfizer announces that a day after Buyins declare president. I mean, you know, when Trump went around this the, you know, what was campaigning saying a vaccine was mere weeks away. Everyone thought that was ********. But as it turns out, he was telling the truth. And if those guys had announced it, Jason, like you were saying 2 weeks before the election, it might have changed this thing. But you know, that might have 100 hundred percent, 100% and and this is not something he can go to the courts. It's not like he can go to the courts and get the election recounted overturned because of this. So it's not something that's legally. Actionable. But I do think that on this news alone, Trump in four years will be able to claim on some level that this was a stolen election. But couldn't the same be said about Hillary's e-mail server? Right, so like 100% news came out like, ohh, and it was like timed around the election. And I do think that there was a concerted effort to not let you know the progress with COVID get in the way of the election in any way. You know, biased it either way. And I think it's like pretty reasonable and fair to say, like, let's just not make this part of the news. Like leading into the election, and this was expected, like if you guys go back a couple of podcasts like you had a prediction on when we would have a vaccine. I I think I predicted end of September because of the way that they set up the the production cycle in parallel with the testing cycle and the way that they were fast tracking a lot of the testing in a way that wasn't normal for this sort of development. And it was it was going to happen this fall. If I'm an executive at one of these companies, I don't want my vaccine to become a politicized event, right. Like I just want to be like. I think it's it's the reasonable thing to say, like, let's just put it on hold, let's deal with it all after the election. We're still moving forward. We're not holding anything up in terms of production and getting this thing across the finish line. It's just the announcement of where we are. So why make that part of the new cycle? You know, and I think like people learned their lesson with Hillary's server last time. It's like this one news, you know, bombshell drops and the news cycle spins up and she loses the election and everyone blames her losing the election for that coming out. No one wants to be culpable for that, right? I'm a Pfizer exec. I'm just trying to make ******* medicine. Like I don't wanna be on the the hook. Said another way, election said another way. Chamath. Nobody wants to go to a warriors finals game versus the Lakers and have the refs called, you know, decide the game in the final couple of minutes. So do you think chamath this is? If you were running fizer, if you were on the board of Pfizer and you have this information and you know it can come out in in this two week window at any time. What decision would you make chemaf? Well, just imagine that the vaccine was 90% ineffective and it was announced 2 weeks before the election. You'd have an entire cohort of people saying this was meant to basically sabotage the election and the other direction. So the point is it's a no win situation. The only answer is to wait until after the election because that's the only way that you can actually say, you know, we were not. We were being impartial, so I'm sympathetic to this idea that all the news had to wait two or three days, or maybe it was two or three weeks. Now knowing in advance what the answer was, obviously you can read into that, but I think even if it was 90% effective, it should have waited till after the election as well. Sadly, I I just think that I don't get the sense that you do agree with that sex. Well, let's put it this way. I mean, we, we know from our time working in large companies that it takes them weeks to even approve a a press release. And so Pfizer had this news weeks ago. Now I understand their reason for not wanting to appear to be influencing the outcome of the election. So I I that's why they held on to it. I think everybody saw the way that Facebook was scapegoated four years ago for the election. No one wants to, no corporation wants to put themselves in that position of being accused of affecting the election outcome one way or another. I'm sure that's why they did it as opposed to a conspiracy against Trump. But you know, this news was available, I think we will find out weeks ago. And so I guess you would have to blame or or there'd be some culpability on the part of Trump's election team or, you know, his his head of the FDA or or what have you. They must have known some of this information and you would think they would have done a better job. Getting it out there. No, he did say at every rally, it's just around the corner. It's just around the corner. We're rounding the corner and we all thought it was ********. You thought it was ********. We thought it was ******** right? And you know why we thought it was ********? Well, because Trump, Trump does have a tendency towards hyperbole. Hyperbole. On Trump's most honest day, he's hyperbolic. On Trump's average day, he is lying incessantly. So if anything, if he was right and he was right, that we were turning the corner and the vaccine was coming and it was going to be beautiful. Beautiful, perfect vaccine and everybody was going to get it. He's paying the price for being a liar for four years, right? But it's the kind of thing, right? No, no, no, boy, who cried wolf. And so does the media, by the way. But but yeah, look, I in order for a piece of news this big to be believed before the election, it can't come from a candidate. And it's it's, it's pretty amazing that none of this news got out there through some other source. You would think that some of the people on the healthcare task force that Trump appointed might have been, you know, surfacing this or paying attention to it. Maybe Pfizer did a really good job of hiding it. I don't know. But it is pretty amazing that didn't come out sooner. Well, the the other crazy thing is like, you know, even the Pfizer team didn't exactly know what was going on. The chief, the, the head of vaccine research, she said we're not part of the federal government's, you know, warp speed program. And then two days later Pfizer was like actually we are part of the warp speed program. It's just that, you know, we're a supplier. The whole point is that I'm not sure that Pfizer actually knew two weeks in advance, David, I think that they were probably trickling. Stuff together and they probably had a sense of it at the end of the last week. I'm surprised it didn't leak, to be quite honest. That's the more shocking thing, which means that. Umm. It was probably something that. Very, very, very few people knew about, well the CEO, the CEO put out a statement saying that he would be first in line to take the new vaccine which I thought was you know a great statement because a lot of people were questioning whether you know how real it was or how rushed it was. But in order for him to do that and and in order just to get like a press release announced. I don't think that's the kind of thing that comes together in the you know one or two day. Between the announcement of Joe Biden winning the election and and their and their announcement. So, you know, I just think they had to know weeks ago. I just want to say to my Greek brother Alberto. More or less the CEO. A fizer, a great Greek. Who has led? To the saving. Of the world. Yeah, kind of saganaki is on me. If you if you, if you take 90% efficacy and you assume at most in the United States, 40% of people will take the actual vaccination, you'll have 36% of the population covered, which is still not enough to get the R not less than one. Is that correct? Freeberg? What do you think? I don't know. I'm not an epidemiologist. I'd have to. What I mean does it sound directionally correct to you that people in the states are going to take it? I mean, I think if you don't take it, isn't this like a all the everyone who's high risk will take it? Yeah. And as of about two months ago, you know, it was estimated that 30% of people on the East Coast had already developed immunity due to the seroprevalence studies that that showed antibodies on the West Coast. It was much lower, closer to 3%. You could estimate based on the growth in cases since then and assuming we're kind of missing a bunch. We're probably on a national basis, we're at 10% back then on a national basis you're probably up to 20% right now of Americans have already been effectively immunized by getting the virus. So you know, if that's true then you're at 55% and you're getting pretty close to a, A, you know, an ability to kind of inhibit this thing from from spreading rapidly again. So how do we each feel? I'll just go around the horn. How do we each feel about the COVID-19 end game? When will we see? All schools open, all NBA arenas open, with no distancing. Give us 1/4 in 2021, when in America enough vaccines will have been delivered and distributed and rapid testing that life goes back to, let's call it 85% of normal. I don't think you ever get there. I mean, it's like we talked about this a couple episodes ago, but it's after 911, you know, the TSA emerged and American travel never went back to the way it was before. And I think there will be a lot about the way we live. That's gonna be, you know, kind of permanently scarred and permanently changed here for a while. Whether it is taking people's temperatures at football games, wearing masks and, you know, farmers markets, who knows? There's gonna be all these weird rules are going to pop up. They're going to last for years regardless of how much immunization takes place, regardless of how cheap and available testing is. We're going to have this scar for a long time in terms of how we live as a society. I don't think we should kid ourselves that we're going to go back to quote UN quote. Normal. And I do think kids are gonna get tested and schools are gonna be like this frigging, you know, almost like TSA's now, you know, kids are gonna go into school and get tested regularly and they're gonna do all sorts of stuff that we would have never dreamed imaginable in a in a free country a year ago. And I think that's permanent. I think, you know, we're going to. You're already seeing people going nuts at bars and restaurants and people that have had it or out there partying and living their life again. So they certainly don't. You think if you get the vaccine you're just going to be like Yolo? I've had enough of this, yeah. But I don't think that that systems are gonna change back to normal. I think systems have changed to the point that we've now got a way of living that we think is safer, that we think is we we we are now kind of inhibited because of the system. And you agree, yeah, there'll be a lot fewer. But Dave Chappelle said on Saturday there will be a lot fewer mass shootings. The pandemic has done a great job of keeping the whites at home, so. And watched it today. All you ******* besties. Watched it together. All you all you guys got on your mass shooting rampages. You know, the whites are at home. They're frustrated, but they're at home. Thank God. So I think they'll be some advantages. Well, I mean, but let's talk about it. Chamath. Does does 2021 mean kids go back to school? 2021, September. No problem. I think Freeburger is right. I think that the best we'll get back to is sort of this 80% state. And I don't think it happens until probably 2022 and maybe 2023, but probably 2022 because you have to remember like. We have to ramp up now billions of vaccine production like it's this is a nontrivial path from here to quote UN quote mass market and that takes a long time. I think we have to figure out how we're going to administer it. By the way, it's and and the way that the Pfizer vaccine works and maybe these other folks is you get the shot and then, you know, three months, three weeks later, I think you get a booster. So you have to take 2 cycles of this thing and it's not going to last forever and it's not going to last forever. So this is freeberg's, right? It's the beginning of a very different way of living, I think. I think that the the good part about it is that, you know, we've made a lot of changes that makes our lives a lot more efficient. The bad part about it is we're even more detached from our neighbors. And, you know, we're probably even more likely to be a little bit more separated if we don't make an effort to be together. Sachs, do you buy this? Because I get the sense that you might be more optimistic than freeberg. Yeah, Chai, guess, I guess I am. I think covid's gonna be a distant memory by next summer. I think we'll have one to two quarters of transition, but I think that once the vaccine is widely available, plus the treatment and the testings for the people who slip through the cracks. Yeah, I I tend to think things are gonna snap back very fast and COVID will just be this bad memory, a very distant bad memory. And I think, in fact I think things may bounce back the other way. Everyone having been cooped up and afraid of getting some life threatening illness, they're going to come out of this really wanting to party. I think the whole world's going to be like Tel Aviv for, you know, a few months or something. And yeah, I mean, I really do think it's going to bounce back, I think to the point. Politically, where a few years from now people could ask, wait, what? Why? Why was it again that Trump lost? You know, you know the this COVID thing will be it will be so in the rearview mirror that we'll wonder why we were so afraid of it. I think this is I'm going to go with David's saxis position here because of the simple fact that we had 130,000 confirmed cases, you know, up until this election. The last week or so, and deaths still. Not spiking. It's the little, just a minor uptick. You know, we had a day with like, I think maybe 1500, but still staying in that, you know, thousand range even with cases spiking. And I think that we were so incompetent with test and trace in this country that we didn't see exactly what happens in an authoritarian country or a country that is lucky enough to be an island and has easy borders, which we almost do. I mean we basically have two borders. We're we're like 2/3 of two, you know, 50% island, but Hawaii, Taiwan, Japan and Australia all quarantined people on the way in. They tested them and they had extremely, extremely low death counts and extremely low case counts with the vaccine being half as effective as you know they claim and rapid testing, which some of us have no some of us know people who have experienced. Rapid testing at homes. That combination, I believe, is gonna make this go so low. And the people who are high risk are still gonna be scared staying home. I think like David, come the summer of next summer, people are going to be at a rave. With Freeburg's, you know, custom made Molly or whatever he's making during this downtime going absolutely bonkers. I think Burning Man next year becomes like the the the greatest Burning Man ever. It'll be it'll be the burn of of of all burns. Why was let's shift a bit over to. The economy, what a rip did we see when that Pfizer, well, I mean the election and Pfizer this week led to a huge rip. Obviously, there's a little bit of cyclical movement. The tech stocks were the big winners. Now people are starting to buy Disney back up to 140. I guess people assume the parks will reopen. What's our outlook for the stock market in David Saxe's? You know, scenario three, you know, I don't say gridlock government. But forced to compromise government, what do we think the markets look like the next two years? I think you have to. Go ahead, sexy Bruno. It's gonna say gridlock is great for the markets, but both when Bill Clinton was president with a Republican House and when Obama was president and there was a Republican House and I guess Senate for a period of time. Gridlock is great for the markets, especially given the amount of stimulus that's taken place. I mean, you had the Trump tax cuts, especially those corporate tax cuts, really set the market on fire, and then you've got this pumping by the Fed and the Treasury. All the stimulus money for COVID, I mean, those conditions. And then, you know, why is gridlock good? We didn't explain that here. Well, because explain to somebody who doesn't understand why gridlock is good, why gridlock is good? Well, because it creates predictability for business, and it means that Washington's not gonna get in the way and do something to screw up the good times. I mean, we have fundamentally, you know, great underlying conditions for economic growth, which is we have now pretty low taxes. And we had this, for better or worse, we had this tremendous amount of stimulus, fiscal stimulus. What we know historically is over the past 100 years, right? Since the 20s. Independent of Republican administrations or Democratic administrations, you know, more progressive, less progressive, more conservative, less conservative during world wars, not during world wars. The markets go up 8% a year, so the do no harm solution is that things inflate naturally by 8%, especially if those things are public stocks. So, you know, the markets love the fact that there's nothing that could theoretically get in the way of that natural 8%. And then when you layer on top of it, as David said, all this free money, that's just like rocket fuel, jet fuel. But you know, but you saw though that there was a rotation, right? There was a rotation out of these high growth. Software names, particularly the work from home bid, kind of got crushed. You know, I mean, I think zoom was off 25% / 2 days or some crazy thing like that. Meanwhile sort of all of these theme park stocks and cruise lines and airlines all of a sudden ripped. So I mean, look, the reality is the scary thing about all of this is if any of that stuff actually comes to pass, we're going to see inflation. And the reason is because if you start going out and spending a bunch of money on tickets and vacations and flights and this and that and pumping. Running to the economy and taking all that stimulus money and putting it back to work, prices will go up. And by the way, that's not such a bad thing for the economy, which, which needs a little bit of it. So all of this is, I think, generally very, very good news. Freeburg, do you have a position on what you think will happen in the coming, let's let's, I would think the midterm is what people care most about. So that would be, let's call it two to six quarters, 6 to 8 one. There's one potential speed bump still, which is what I mentioned at the beginning, which is Georgia. The Democrats could still win both runoffs in Georgia for Senate and they could because Kamala Harris would then have the breaking vote. It would be a 50 Republican, 50 Democrat Senate and and the vice president would would would break any ties. The question is if you have that same turn out, where do the libertarians break? Because I think the libertarians were almost 2% of the vote. Well, I think yeah. Well what's interesting is the I don't know if you guys have, but I've gotten emails from a lot of people asking me to donate money. For this, uh, runoff campaign in Georgia, I think we're God, I got so many, so many, I think. I think so. I think we're gonna see literally the biggest, the, the biggest funding for a Senate runoff race in history by far. Don't you think sacks like probably north of $100 million being spent, maybe 100 to $200 million being spent on advertisements in Georgia to try and get people to go vote one way or the other? The Democrats think they have a real run at this. They think it's make or break 2 years to kind of get their, you know? History changing policies in effect, Republicans think it's saved the the nation time, so everyone's rushing to Georgia right now. So the markets are going to have a very close eye on what's going on over there. I think I'm, you know, I'm, I'm very nervous about it. If the Democrats look like they're getting much more money into the state and they're actually going to, you know, get people to the polls and to the voting booths and actually get into this runoff on January 5th and actually flip get both of those seats to be a. To be blue, it's going to be a very different market environment and you could see the market drop by 3040% in the next six we have, we have a situation where it's 4848, there are two seats up for grabs. Those two seats are in a runoff these and I want to get into the end. Let me correct that, Jason. It's 4850. Yes, the Republicans have a 50 to 48 advantage with two open seats in the runoff. Actually, sorry, one, one seat is open, the other it has an incumbent Purdue who's facing Ossip. Purdue won in the last election. You got like 49.9% fifty. You have to get 50%. You get kicked to this runoff in January. George are the only place that has this where you have to get to 50 in order to win. Yeah, it's crazy. It's crazy. So weird. The is this just they want the extra attention or who came up with this idea? This seems just like every state's got its own history. It's crazy. It is one of the unique things about living in the United States of America as opposed to America. Let's talk about exit polls. Well, this is what's incredible. Here, let me tee this up for you. So in 2020. Biden got 80% of the black vote, Trump got six. This is aggregate, so we could break this down by men and age group and you can. It looks even even more interesting. Latinos. Biden got 67, Trump got 22% of the Latino vote. Between the ages of 18 to 34. So boomers are sorry, pardon me, Gen Z and millennials again, I would have thought 100% Biden it was on, it was 62%. Biden, 23% went for Trump, one in four. Amongst women and again you know we thought ohh OK you know suburban women are are breaking Biden 8020 it turned out Biden got 58% of women. Trump got 35% of all the female vote and the coup de grace whites with a degree. Again, you would have thought this would have been 80209010 and said it was 53% Biden, 38% Trump. So this really was. Something. The If we look at this, if we look back on this, the pollsters. We're completely wrong in thinking at once again that these groups of people are monolithic. And then I think the the most the most mind boggling to me and I and I had a candid discussion about this, was the term Latin X is a a catch all term for people who are of Latino Spanish speaking descent and what somebody told me who is in this? Latin X group is that it's the most insulting thing they've ever been told. It's almost as a term, like the term saying Oriental to describe people from Asia. You're just grouping us all into one thing. People from Cuba, Venezuela and Mexico all think the same. This is the absolute, you know, end game of identity politics, which is we have to put you in a corner. We own you, we own your opinion and you belong to. Our party, whichever party it is. Ohh you don't have a degree. You're a GOP hillbilly. Ohh, you. You, you. You're Latin X. OK, well then we own you. You're a Democrat. David. What? And and and I know that this is an area where, you know, you have a lot of expertise. What are your thoughts? Well, as it turns out, promoting socialism to people who fled Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela to escape it turns out not to be a great election strategy. And and so, yeah, it's this, this idea that. Next is is 1 block. It's not. It consists of a bunch of different of immigrants from a bunch of different nations, and the ones who fled socialism are not eager to reenact it. In the United States, the Republicans flipped 2 House seats in South Florida, where there's a lot of Cuban Americans, and even in the the heavily Mexican American counties in along the Rio Grande and Texas Trump. Improved? Uh, let's see. He looks like he improved 59 and 30 percent, 39% respectively, over his 2016 showing. So this is not just some fluke of the exit polls. It seems like Trump really made progress in a lot of these groups that seem to defy their you know what? What? The promoters of identity politics, the way that they wanted them to vote gay Americans were another one. I think Trump improved his share of the gay vote from 14% in 2016 to 28. Percent this year. So I mean, really, it's it's pretty amazing people are not voting the way that they're supposed to vote. Trump also improved from 12 to 18% with black men and four to 8% of black women. I mean, those are still pretty low numbers, but there was improvement there. And I think part of the reason is that not all of the African American community is on board with defunding the police. I also think what it means is identity politics is a stupid strategy. Forget whether you're offended by it. Or not. At this point, what's clear is it's a stupid ******* strategy. It doesn't work. It's a path to losing. Because the more and more you do it, the more and more you're going to disenfranchise individuals who want to be judged. Sort of sound mind and body, right? I mean, if he took 1000 Sri Lankans and put him in a room and said, Chamath, I'm going to judge you as a Sri Lankan vote, I would tell you to go **** yourself. You know, I would be deeply offended by that. And and and this is where I think the radical left is gonna have to retool because their theory of how they take power in America was always that demographics is destiny that, you know as the country simply becomes more diverse, we're going to there, they'll automatically gonna vote for us. And there's a lot of data in this election to show that that's not what's going to happen. You actually have to run on issues that people care about. Let's think about this in the context of Internet advertising, right the. So the world prior to Internet advertising, you had, you know, channels and you would have an audience that was estimated to, to be made-up of some demographic set on that Channel and you would buy an ad spot on that Channel and that's who you would reach. And so you would create a message for that. Now today we can create personalized ads and personalized messages and Internet advertisers are much more thoughtful about targeting, targeting based on psychographic profiling, behavioral targeting. And I think that's where politics has to head in the United States. Just kind of keeping up with this personalization of both products but also of media and and ads. And I think that's what we're going to see if you listen to James Carville, who's like, you know, a classic kind of Democratic campaign adviser and he did a podcast just leading up to the election. And if you listen to this podcast, these guys are very old school. It's like the whites are going to do this and the blacks are going to do that and the the the college educated are gonna do this and the others are gonna do that and they don't realize that the segmentation that's possible today, I think. Reveals a lot more about the character of the of the population. They're basically, I think it's such an astute point freeberg they're basically living in the level of granularity of network people. It's like cable TV, like, it's like they got to cable TV and they're like, OK, BET ESPN, NASCAR, and guess what? Like, like, the world is much more complex. Individuals have found their own personal voice, and they found their own personal voice through social media, through Instagram, through this ability to kind of define themselves, not fit within a cohort. And I think that's maybe they always did feel that way and we just had never had the technology to get there. Yeah. But I I think it's, I think it's also that people like, people have complex points of view. You know, the four of us sit here and none of neither of us, none of us identify as a party anymore. We all identify with, with certain points that we think are important to us individually. And then we have a point of view on those points. And I think that's the case for the majority of the population in the United States. I don't think people are like, I'm just a ******* Democrat no matter what. I'm a Republican no matter what. People care more deeply in a more complex way. And I think politics needs to resolve to that. And and that's going to require a shift in how you communicate, how you message, how you get feedback, how you drive blocks for voting. And it's gonna, it's gonna, you know, be a really interesting change over the next 15 to 20 years. And it may be what saves the Republic. I I think this is an incredible observation. I think it might be the observation of the episode. And I just want to point to a tweet I did because I this is this election has really led to me doing two things. One, I've been just thinking deeply about what do I actually understand about Americans in America. And then I also, you know, there's all these red pills around. So I decided I would crush up a red pill and I would just, you know, put a little on my finger and I try a little red pill for a second and everybody told me I've been red pilled. On Twitter and then I'm with Trump fan. I'm not. I hate the guy. I think he's horrible. But I I, I did this quick survey here. I said if you voted for Trump, I wanna understand what percentage of your vote was based on the combination of a cancel culture B identity, politics C socialism D coastal leads telling you how to live, explain other issues that contributed in a reply, IE spending, Immigration, SC, the Supreme Court, etcetera. And I just said zero percent, 1 to 2526 to 50 at over 50 and and I got 12,000 votes. Go ahead and look at the results. Not the replies, but go ahead and vote and it doesn't matter which one you pick over 50% of people who voted for Trump. And I know this is unscientific, it's my followers, but it's definitely feels directionally correct. The people who felt 26 to over 50%. Was part of the canceled culture identity. Culture was what they were trying to communicate with their vote. Well this is, this is such an important thing because I think this is what we're fighting over the every single 8% of them, no, every single election going forward. Like if you, if you put this on top of the 70 odd million people that voted, this kind of roughly makes sense. Which is that, you know, there's probably about 20 million people who will completely vote Democrat no matter what and 20 million people who will completely vote Republican no matter what. They're they're just eyes are closed, their ears are closed, they don't care. But when you take those people out, there's this enormous amount of people in the middle who have the ability to vote a split ticket, you know? And as and as a saxophone said, like they'll vote a Democrat into the White House, but then down ballot they'll vote a bunch of Republicans and they'll just make sure there is a balance of power. So they've been telling us about this kind of centricity for years. And so if you want to win an election, you do two things. Part One is you understand this dynamic. That's centrism. Pins in Part 2 is what Friedberg says, which is you understand that we need to enter sort of the Google CPC world of political advertising and really cater not just the ads, but also the message to individual people and stop the. You know, the cat the the gross high level categorization which isn't working anymore. Yeah and and and and Jason limit can I can I add the the connection between cancel culture and and this election. So you know obviously the pollsters got everything completely wrong and again again and but the reason is because of canceled culture. So in exit polling 45% of Republicans with college degrees expressed fear that their careers could be at risk if their views became known compared to only 23% of Democrats saying that and so there were these you know. Quote UN quote shy Trump voters who are afraid to tell pollsters what they really think. Now. It wasn't the Trump voters that you think of when you see the pickup trucks and the convoys go by or the rallies sort of those those. Those are the voters from 2016 who weren't counted. It was sort of the non college blue collar voters that Michael Moore, you know, people who turned out for Trump and big numbers and weren't properly counted four years ago. The pollsters actually counted those people correctly this time, the people they completely underestimated. Was actually the White College vote who swung from a lot of swung from Democrat to Republican. They voted for Trump because of this issue and they were afraid to say anything about it because they're afraid of getting cancelled. And by the way, they they are every other person, everybody listening to this podcast works with and so deal with that one, right? Exactly. Anybody who's not actively virtue signaling on Twitter for Biden is a Trump voter. Not sure if that's exactly correct, but I think it's wrong. Roughly, you know, if people aren't if people in tech aren't explicitly endorsing. Biden on Twitter. They're probably closet Trump voters. It is going to be very interesting for people to go back to offices because now we have had a resolution and identity politics cancel culture and extreme ISM on both sides, hysterical and trolling, trolling Republicans, hysterical libs. This has been a loss for both of those parties and now the pandemic is ending. We're going to be back in offices at some point. I mean what is office culture going to be like? Are people going to go with the. I know I'm strong. Let's just get work done here. Let's not talk about politics. It's just too charged or not. It's it's going to be a very interesting. It's every it's every, it's every company's right. You know, it's every company's right to care about what they want to care about, every board, every CEO, every controlling shareholder. And then it's every employee's right to vote with their feet about whether that's OK or not. And I think that look, I mean the whole Brian Armstrong thing again, just to say one of the most pathetically poorly written, you know, pieces of English prose I've ever ******* seen, you know, he's a crypto. In fairness, my dog, my dog, my dog. He's not a coder. He's a he's a CEO. My dog. Slamming. With her paw on the keyboard would have created a better pros in that. But he was coming from a reasonable place. He had the right to say what he said. The problem is that it's so antithetical to what you're allowed to believe, for example, living in San Francisco. But I think that that's going to change because you can't ignore every other person telling you that there are meaningful economic issues that matter and that the prioritization and the policing of these, you know. Sort of high value social signaling issues are no longer a priority, and I think that what's going to happen is there will be room for a party that focuses on that and a group of people, but they will be relegated just like on the other side. That will happen to the Republican version of that as well. I I just think this whole thing, this honestly, for me it seems like such a tight election. It is. But I really think the huge winner here is centrism. That 100%. I agree with that. And I I would say that that this election proves that Brian Armstrong was right because the average American is tired of these highly charged political situations and the last thing they want to do is have these conversations at work where they can get reported to, where they can offend their coworkers and get reported to HR. We could make them feel unsafe, right? That's why they they don't want to have these conversations at work. Certainly, by the way, only 5% of Coinbase's employees took Armstrong up on that offer to leave. So the number of people who actually want to have a politically charged workplace is very, very small. They're just the noisiest. They're the squeakiest wheel. I mean, that was a ridiculous deal. I mean, what did he say? Six months and we invest this off? He made it really attractive to leave if you didn't agree with his policies that was that written because I couldn't figure that out. Yeah. That was written. It was an attractive deal to leave if you wanted to leave and 95% chose to sit. Yeah. Did I did I say it was poorly written? I didn't understand it because it was so poorly written. So anyway, so 9095% stayed. So my point is just the number of people who actually like this highly polarized, politically charged situation in which we're all arguing with our friends over politics and children are divorcing their parents because they're not woke enough. I mean, people don't want to live in that kind of country anymore. And I think this is the thing that Joe Biden really got right in his campaign. I mean, this is. Why? I mean, this is the only way that his basement strategy could actually work and result in him getting elected. Elected is people actually do want this return to normalcy. Do you know who the biggest loser is going to be coming out of this? I think not. When you think holistically about the ecosystem, it's going to be the media because they have made an absolute fortune over the last four or five years picking aside. What is the point of watching Rachel Maddow January 20th? What is the point of tuning into Fox News or reading the hysterical opinion page of the New York Times? All of these places that were being propped up by either Trumpism or anti Trumpism are now going to find themselves where they started, which is without a job and we just wanted you to tell us the news and tell us you are straight. There was a great article in the New York Times. Have an opinion page. Rip the opinion page out of the New York Times. Rip it out of the Wall Street. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I I no, I disagree. I think the opposite happens, which is that opinion page was meant to be where people could have an opinion so that everything else was fact. And the problem is that all the other pages became opinion as well and nobody told anybody. But I don't think that. But nobody can tell the difference and look at that. Tell the difference. That's right. They can't tell the difference. And look at that expose about how, Barry. Or Bari Weiss was run out of the New York Times. It basically the activists ran her out and the the reality is activists are completely captured. The New York Times and CNN and MSNBC. And there is no they always had Fox and the New York, they always had Fox. But but now we have no objective neutral media. And so who's going to call the election? I mean, you complain about the fact that Trump is sowing dissent, but who is the universally trusted? Spokesperson for neutrality. The way that Walter Cronkite was when he could just declare it and that's the way it is and people believe that's the way it is. Who did the best job, Friedberg, that night when we were doing that? Let's reflect on the live stream. I have two questions for the live stream. Number one, who is your bestie, guestie? Who did? Who did you think added the most as a guesty and why? And then #2, we're doing, we're doing what we're going to do. We're going to do a poll, a human value poll. I got a lot of feedback on the gestes the world, girly people. Can I say one more thing on this topic, Brad? Before before we go there, there was a there was a really good article in the New York Times about Maggie Haberman, right, and Maggie, who's a fantastic journalist but built an entire career, it really amplified, came to a head in 2016, and she just scoop after scoop about Trump. But the most compelling thing about that whole article was somewhere near the you know, the third of the way from the bottom. She's like, look at the end of the day she said something like, I'm dispensable and I know it. And. It was the most honest thing because it's like, despite her popularity and despite sort of, you know, how big of a stick she carries, the reality is sauds Trump. There's just nothing to do. There's nothing to leak. There's. They're they're just is not nearly as much to do. I did just put in the the chat here the Washington Post Fox News The Hill basically like the full gamut of of of media opinion have highlighted that the media generally is the biggest loser of the of the 2020 election and I think I I think they've just lost the the faith of their audience and you know it's. It's, I mean it's this access point. I don't know how many people were. You're either looking for objective and you've lost it or you're looking for opinionated and you feel like you're, you know, you're aligned, opinion setting, media partner has betrayed you. You know, the fact that Fox called it for, for Trump and Trump's now saying Fox is, is, is a liar. The fact that the New York Times doesn't feel like they're being objective anymore and they're, you know, they're running people out of the out of The Newsroom in general. I just feel like we've been disenfranchised. Umm. And I think that's a, that's something that's going to be really hard to kind of recover from and resolve. And for the love of God, can somebody please? Yet I I don't want you to break any laws, but. However, if we could read. The slack channel. Of the New York Times reporters leading up to the 100 days of this election. That would become the greatest, best selling book of all time. To watch the New York Times writers bicker with each other, sacks. I mean, we could do 10 hours on that, no problem. Let's talk about, OK, bestie guesty. Who? Guess these. What do you think of our guests? Thought they were all great. I thought they're all great. Are we now becoming a media critics? We're going to now. Podcast why don't you go with that navel gazing? All gazing become so solipsistic. Navel. Jason. Jason. Jason wants. Jason wants to throw Muth under the bus. Go ahead, Jason, you start. No, no, no, no, no, no. Oh, contraire. Does anyone have a video they want to share person on the pod. We'll have to put mute in this place. And it was not. It was not the point guard in this case. Somebody? Pulled the Draymond and pulled help. You decide and said stop, you gotta pass the ball. I do think Brad did a great job. He had some great insights. I think Bill Gurley had some great insights. We I think it was just a really good job of getting some people to rotate in. I enjoyed it. Yeah, I thought it was really well. Everyone was great. I'll give a shout out to my bestie and human. He was better. He was better as a political analyst and all those jokers on CNN and Fox and MSNBC combined with the with the map and he kept touching the map. And yeah, it's like that guy gets paid to do that. I can't believe he gets paid to do that. Taking my daughter on CNN, she can do that. When the guy on CNN who does that, John. John King John King, God bless this guy because I don't know how much Adderall he's on, but I I turned it on at 8:00 AM and he was zooming into Pennsylvania and he's like, Oh well, of course in 2018, this, I'm 2016, he's like, let's zoom out and let's go back to Arizona. Of course, in Arizona, this place, I was like, is this guy a geography teacher? I mean, he was amazing and just the dexterity, he looked like he was Tom Cruise. Minority report with the fingers. You know, I don't know if I'd call him Tom Cruise when he looked like Tom Cruise, but the minority report pinch and zoom in and out. It was incredible. When, when when does Trump call this thing? That's a great question. Well, I think he has to run out these court challenges, which will take a few weeks, but I I predict by Thanksgiving, but it may have to go up to the Supreme Court. But he's gonna he's gonna dot the dot every I and cross every T that he's got legally. But he's got, like we talked about, the very beginning. He's got a huge uphill challenge. I I see the court ultimately ruling against them or throwing it out. What is the point, David? What is? Well, because why? Why shouldn't he exhaust everything? He's not gonna win. No, I don't. I don't know that he he knows that. He he. I think it's his right to exhaust every legal possibility. And let's remember, Al Gore didn't concede for 37 days after the election, so I certainly think Trump is within his rights over the next few weeks to run this out. In terms of what the point is, I mean, other than the obvious attempt to challenge it legally, I do think this is partly a branding exercise by Trump. It's a marketing exercise. I don't think he's gonna come up with enough malfeasance to overturn an election, but I do think he'll probably produce a lot of smoke. And this is about protecting his brand as a as a winner. And, you know, if he kicks up enough, you know, examples of voter fraud or or or what have you, he will always be able to say, you know, years from now that this was, it was a stolen election. And when you combine the fact that COVID really did drive this. This election, you could call that Chinese election interference if you want. The fact that the vaccine is now here already, you could call that, you know, some sort of election interference. He's going to have enough arguments where if he wants to run four years from now, I think he probably gets the Republican nomination again. What's the percentage chance chamath that he runs again in four years? 0 freeberg? Trump yeah. I think he's gonna be making so much money, he's not gonna know what to do with him. So he's not going back to that ******* torturous torture house. He didn't think about the White House like some terrible Blumhouse production movie set. He's like, **** that. I'm not going back there. It was awful. China, he's got a Shanghai. Is he going to he's gonna launch it, gonna be in New York. He's gonna buy a law firm because he's gonna need a law firm to keep everyone at Bay. And he's gonna be probably printing 100,000,000 bucks a month, you know, put it at Dubai, Saudi Arabia, I think, yeah, I think, I think he's definitely gonna launch a media business. And he'll he'll try to become kingmaker. I think. I think he will become a kingmaker. Republican politics, he will launch a competitor to Fox News, but it will also be Fox News, hybridized with a grassroots. It wasn't like the Tea Party and every Republican will need to go get his endorsement or they will be primaried by the Trump party. And I I would not put it three more. Could not disagree more. I think he's a disgrace. I think he will be. I think what? That's not what David said. He's going to come. Not you, David. I'm talking about Trump. I think David's incredible. No, I think the stuff that comes out after this, the deluge, the number of SDN Y suits all the grift and the graft, it's all coming out. Not only is he not going to be. A kingmaker. He will not be able to get the backing for this network. It'll be Breitbart light. It'll be shut down within 24 months. He'll fail so miserably that when he walks into a restaurant, it'll be like Game of Thrones. Shame. Shame. They will. They? Well, I don't. I don't. I don't. I don't. I don't think so. I think that it's very likely that the Donald Trump that runs for President 2024 is Donald Trump junior. Oh God, no. He's horrible. The whole Republican Party has to start over. Let's end on this, Pompeo. Did a press conference? Is the State Department currently preparing to engage with the Biden transition team? And if not, at what point does a delay hamper a smooth transition or pose a risk to national security? There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration. Right. We're we're ready. The the world is watching what's taking place here. We're gonna count all the votes. When the process is complete, they'll be electors selected. There's a process. The Constitution lays it out pretty clearly. The world should have every confidence that the transition necessary to make sure that the State Department is functional today, successful today, and successful with the President who's in office on January 20th a minute afternoon will also be successful. Can I can I just say I don't disagree with the position they're taking? It's not immoral. It's. Customary and traditional to concede your election. But you know, December 15th is the date that Congress ratifies the electoral votes to determine who the next president is gonna be. And these guys are just taking a a very kind of pragmatic legal line that is not immoral in a way. They they they believe that they have some case on on what the vote should be. The votes are all very close, yadda yadda. I'm not saying that he's gonna win or by any chance, but. I don't think that folks saying like let the votes be counted and let Congress do their job of having the states tell them who their electoral votes are going to is, is an inappropriate position to take. I sound like, I might sound like some conservative, you know Trump head, but I'm not. I I think that these guys, I'm what I'm just saying is that these guys aren't that immoral in in kind of asking for that for that. You know, sorry I also think at the fringes of the Republican Party this is what you keep all these militia folks and all these other folks. That Bay is just you show a really methodical. You know, stepping away from the spotlight, and I think that this is, you know, honestly it's this is a very deliberate safe calming thing to do as I think it's there's been nothing about the Trump administration from 2016 through to this very moment that has been customary or traditional. And so I don't know why we all expected him to step in and say, like, I can see like the way that we've been doing it for the right. It would be worse if we worse if he had conceded and all of a sudden was holding a bunch of protests and rallies all over the country that. But he's he's not doing anything illegal. No one has any legal. Requirement to concede. And you know, and I think as long as these guys on December 15th, which is the date that we should all be watching and waiting for, as long as these guys do the appropriate thing at that point, then you know that that that's the only point in which I would have any sort of concern or worry about what's going on with the transition and the government. But sorry, I think, I think this is about saving face and saving brand of saxy percent. He'll he'll be out by December 15th. Meaning. Right. It'll this will all be done. Yeah, I I agree. And look, let's remember that Al Gore was able to challenge the election result. 37 days without being hysterically accused of undermining democracy. So let Trump have his day in court. It'll play out over the next few weeks. I expect that the obstacles he have has to overcome are are too large and he will lose these lawsuits. It might go to the Supreme Court. It would not be a bad thing if the Supreme Court were the ones to make this decision. They're one of the last institutions that still trusted. Clearly the media are not. And I think that, you know, Trump will accept the result. He may not concede. You will accept the result when it comes from the Supreme Court. Is there a non zero chance that he could win on a recount? He he would have to prove systemic fraud because it's not like Florida where there's just one state and a few hundred votes. He's got to overcome over 12,000 votes in at least three states. So that's the issue is, is it's just sat down at sacks. If you had to lay money on it. Oh, I mean, it's like sub 10% chance. I think sub 10% chance, one in 10, you'd give 12:50 odds. No, I'm saying it's under 10%. I'm saying it's a very small tree. Well, here's the thing. So Bush V Gore the the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2. I mean, you would have thought it was nine to zero. So clearly there was some sympathizers in Bush V Gore. So hopefully, you know, it's something like 7 to 2 and, you know, we move on. I I believe if it gets the Supreme Court, it will be at least seven to two, if not a one or 90, just because I think Trump has a much harder case to prove. In Florida, the issue was simply whether the recount should be allowed to continue. James Baker went to the Supreme Court to stop the recount that was in process. Because of the fear that the local corrupt election officials basically steal the election for Gore. They, you know, but but but Bush was always ahead in that election. There was never a time when Bush was behind. Biden is now ahead in every swing state that matters. Trump has to now overturn that result in at least three of those states. I don't know how thousands of votes by 10s of thousands of. I just don't know how he does that. He has to prove some sort of systemic fraud that took place across the nation. That and and and look, I think from a like a marketing or branding standpoint, he'll be able to create a lot of smoke. I think they will actually find quite a bit of misconduct because I don't think our elections are perfect, but will it rise to the standard that the Supreme Court's going to set for overturning an election? I don't think so. I don't think so. I mean, they'll probably find it on both sides. There's gotta be some crazy well, the other Trump supporter who has 10 ballots they signed, and there'll be some crazy liberal who did the same. The nuanced issue is whether they can do a constitutionally valid recount by, you know, the time necessary as well. So the longer that this delays on, then they'll be forced to basically say no to that also, because otherwise it will be effectively throwing out an election. And so, as we wrap here, San Francisco's. Continues to devolve. Revenue down 40% in terms of taxes. Budget is double what it's been just a few years ago. Crime is going crazy. Walmart is closing their stores and leaving because of Walgreens. I'm sorry, Walgreens, we don't have a Walmart here and there's twenty. There is more homes on the market now than there have been. Too much of anything is a bad thing. If you eat too much broccoli, it's a bad thing, you know what I mean? So too much of a single party. Auto culture is bad, whether it's Republican or Democrat. You need a diverse centrist plurality, and in the absence of that, many cities that veer in One Direction or the other will decay and die. And San Francisco is going to be the tip of the spear for the lefts version. And there's been a bunch of cities that have already been the examples of the rights version. So you know what? Apparently the water is warm and they wanna join. Anybody else? Fred bear? I can't. I can't find a lot to disagree with there. I think San Francisco, we we're basically an Atlas Shrugged. I mean the, you know, half the storefronts are closed, they're boarded up, the city is completely surrendered to the criminal element. You can't park your car anywhere in the city without having it getting broken into. They won't prosecute people for crimes, including increasingly violent crimes. The, you know, the, the, the, the, the. The city is about to go bankrupt and the entrepreneurs are all disappearing. They're all leaving. I mean, it's right out of Atlas Shrugged. Yeah, I mean it's it's the. The action is the wrong action, right? So San Francisco, the biggest disappointment of election night for me was the new business taxes that were passed for San Francisco businesses. And there was also this like. For 99.9999999% of people, they're going to shrug and say, I don't give a **** but there was this new tax of 6% for homes that get sold over $10 million. Now if you're a successful entrepreneur or an investor or a CEO of a company in San Francisco and you know it's, it's like a slap in the face. You add the business tax with that kind of high end property tax and it's almost like an invitation to leave the city. And some people are nodding their head and say that this percent is on leaving. Or buying transaction when you sell. So you literally 6% off the top when you sell a home. The city basically just took 6% of my house. Yeah, this the city just took 6% of my house and now they're now part owner of my house. Yeah, it's an estate tax. And so there there are people like there are people in San Francisco who we all know. How much warning did you have before they took your no bedroom? Yeah. I mean, there's a London breed. Put some people in Saxis 13th. Bedroom on the third floor and they're they're all living there right now. But I mean it's it's OK. I got like wings. I don't even know about it. It's like it's like Richie Rich's house or something. So look, no, nobody cries, nobody cries for super rich people and you know, but it was a short sighted is the point, right? Right, exactly. I'm not complaining about the taxes on me, but it's gonna do tremendous damage to the city. People are not gonna wanna move here. And we. Yeah yeah, I look, I've built businesses in San Francisco since 2006 and I will not build another business. San Francisco, and I hear the same from other entrepreneurs. If you're going to build a business, do it in the South Bay, do it in the East Bay, do it in the North Bay or do it in Austin or LA or somewhere else. But this is just not a place to build businesses. The city is basically saying we don't want you here. Now that would be fine and dandy if the city was being conservative in the way that they spend and if they were actually reducing their budget and, you know, kind of reducing the the city's activities. The problem is these these taxes diverge with the budget because. The taxes are now going to go down because businesses are leaving, people are selling their homes. They're not going to buy expensive homes anymore. And we are seeing a budget crisis. San Francisco, I think, is looking at a 1.7 to $2 billion budget shortfall this year. I mean, like, where's that money going to come from? This is a city with 800,000 and we have and there was that expose in this area chronicle talking about how there's over 20,000 city workers making over $150,000 a year, 30,000. Yeah, yeah. What what are we getting for all of that? The evidence is not apparent. And this is where, OK, look, I'd be happy to give the city 6% of my house and pay all these high taxes if we actually got something for it, but the city just keeps getting less and less livable. City budget in 2013, so we have a fiscal crisis, we have a fiscal crisis and we have a livability crisis that I think is even worse. And that that that's a huge problem. And let's be Frank, San Francisco is always the accidental beneficiary of Silicon Valley, if you will. San Francisco was the accidental billionaire. It was Silicon Valley that created this enormous wealth and all the jobs and the the companies. It wasn't San Francisco policies or politics that created any of that. It just so happens that Silicon Valley got big enough. It started around Stanford, it got big enough that San Francisco as the nearest metropolitan area really was the beneficiary of that and. And, you know, because they never really did anything to create the conditions for that prosperity, frankly, they took it for granted. And now that the rugs been pulled out from under them, I don't think they're going to know what to do. Local, local San Francisco politicians treated Silicon Valley success as a grab bag and Uber set up here. And Twitter and Square and Salesforce and San Francisco politicians put their hand in the honey jar and took as much as they could. And it's now backfiring. Because new businesses don't want to set up here, are entrepreneurs, don't want to operate here. And as sacks is pointing out, the, you know, the, the, the rapid kind of inflation has caused this tremendous decline in in the quality of service. There's zero accountability, 0 checks and balances. So San Francisco is in for a really frank, scary reckoning. And a lot of people are really worried about it. And it's like a very real problem. It's not like, oh, the city's ****** ha ha, like a $2 billion budget shortfall. You're either going to have to cut a lot of jobs of public employees or you're going to have a city that's going to go bankrupt and you know. Bonds are gonna get defaulted on and at the same time you're gonna have this mass exodus of people and businesses. And it is a, it is a very kind of unwinding. Not right now. So it's a it's a scary moment. I don't think it's a real great answer for for what to do. It's more nuanced, but I think it I think it will happen. Mark my words, San Francisco will file for bankruptcy in the next 10 years. Wow. I mean, Pelosi, look, even, you know, Pelosi held out a major city filing for maybe 15, maybe 15 years. But yeah, 1015 years. Remember, a big part of what Pelosi held out on the big thing she held out on and the stimulus negotiations last month was for local and state governments to get bailout support in this stimulus package. And she's acutely aware she lives one block away from me down the road here. She's acutely aware of what's going on in San Francisco. And the solution may not be to bail out these cities and these states. If they're going to continue to operate the way they are because it's so state needs to break in order to rebuild, well, you need to cut budget. I mean, any of us running a business? No. Like, you know, if you have little revenue coming in and you're spending too much, where the **** is the money coming from? You can't just keep going to big Papa and DC and asking them for more money. What about Masayoshi son? Maybe he'll he consider coming in and maybe a back. Maybe. Should we do a really fine. I'm going to spank San Francisco. Kamasa Yoshi signed to the secondary and then we Francisco, listen, I I think Chamath Chamath is right about San Francisco being the proof of what happens when you have a one party system. And I I really hope that the, the tech community, the tech liberals who are listening to this podcast, they're not going to listen to me because they probably, you know, think I'm too conservative. But, you know, truth is pretty liberal and you know, he he makes the right point and you know, we cannot have a A1 party system. That remains healthy for very long. We need the pendulum to swing back towards the center. And, you know, I really hope that, yeah, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. As you've as you've said many times, it's true. That's yeah, Lord Acton said that. We this is literally what The Dark Knight Batman series is about. It's literally about not having a basic standard of policing and allowing criminals to run a city. We've turned into a *** **** comic book. Like you have to arrest people who commit crimes and and and and sorry if that hurts your feelings. And one of the things that people up yeah, you're right. And one of the things that's like the comic book is the sense of fatalism. You know, it's like everybody knows him. Francisco's broken, but nobody thinks they can do anything about it. That's really the tragedy of it. That is the tragedy. And you know what? If any of us like I've said it before, I'm like, I know exactly how you can stop all these car break INS you. There's a thing called the bait car. You put 10 Bay cars out. You put cameras in them. And now that Einstein has spoken. Boys, I love you. I love you all. Love you all. Can't wait to see you again. And for those of you who would like to advertise on. Podcast the advertising rate has been set at $10 million a year for however many episodes we we do. I will read the ad at the end of the show. If you give $10 million to the charity of Chamath picking, which apparently is going to be San Francisco, I think that whole ballot .7% of the budget. Follow Friedberg on the Twitter. Follow David sacks. Follow Chamath Polly hoppity. If you like the show, tell your friends and write a review or don't. We don't care. We just do this because we like. Hanging out with each other. We'll see you all. Oh, and if you want to be a guest on the show, we don't accept any guest recommendations. For the love of God, stop asking. I mean, I don't know how many people are begging to be on the show. It's there's room enough for four people. Maybe on a live show. Bestie? Yes, these. You're not getting your CEO of your whatever company on the show. Period. End of story. And I cannot introduce you to chamath, to spack, your company. Enough of that. Love your besties.