Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, our podcast about making better decisions. I'm Maria Kannakova.
And I'm Nate Silver. Today we're talking about somebody named Anna Delvi, who I am apparently supposed to have heard of.
Anna as she likes to be known, delve as I will be calling her Anna Sorokan a con artist, convicted con artist who has found her way to dancing with the stars.
This week and after we talk about this kinn artist that I've never heard of, will talk about a different type of con politics.
All right, let's do it. I'm excited to get started. So so first up, Nate, are you really were you just like hamming it up a tiny bit for the podcast or do you really not know who Anna Delvy is.
I'm a man of a medium number of interests. Right. I know about poker. I know about several of the sports quite well. Right. I know about restaurants. I know about Curb your enthusiasm. I know a little bit about mid century modern architecture. I do not know who the fuck this person that was a curveball.
I love that. I love that you just kind of threw in mid century modern architecture amazing. All right, So let's let's give a little primer on Anna, and I won't go I'm assuming that most of our listeners do know who she is, but I'll give I'll give you the rundown. So, first of all, her name is not Anna Delviy, and I'm actually really really pissed that in absolutely every single media source she's called Anna Delvy, which
is her con artist name. Her actual name is Anna Sorokan bites from Moscow, not an era from Germany the way that she has always portrayed herself to be. But she is someone who is a grifter who ended up scanming New York High society out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, including fraudulent bank loans, and all of these things predicated on her being an heiress to this fortune. She said that she was going to start this cultural arts club that was going to be nate you know
a little bit about art. So she was going to be exhibiting people like Cindy Sherman. Right, So threw she threw the big guns at it. She said, you know, I've got all this money and we're gonna we're gonna have a private member's only club. We're going to have Cindy Sherman exhibits. I mean, we're going to have the best restaurant in New York. This is going to be amazing. She weaseled her way into New York society by very very clever use of Instagram, social media, connecting herself to
the highest kind of social cachet people. And she befriended this woman, Rachel Williams, who at that point was a photo editor. I believe I might be getting her title wrong at Vanity Fair, but she was a photographer, you know,
photo editor person there. And Rachel was the one who ended up bringing her down because she went on a trip with her to Morocco that Anna said was part of kind of this whole thing that she was doing to raise money for the foundation, and Rachel ended up getting saddled with the bill sixty two thousand dollars, which was more than her annual salary, and she was not able to get this money back from Anna. She got pissed. She went to the police, and then Anna's house of
cards unraveled. She was convicted. She served time. When she was released from Rikers, she ended up overstaying her visa was put back into jail and is now out again and back in the news because last week Dancing with the Stars to make the lovely decision of having Anna Sorokan on their show.
I did that's in preparation the performance. I thought that was mediocre.
But again I'm not very mediocre. It was very mediocre.
I inspired. You had your moment in the fifteen minutes of fame, your fourteenth out of fifteenth minute. Use it better? Anna psoric and what's her name? And by the way, all about this decision by Dancing with the Stars, Yeah, how do I buy my employer ABC News?
I mean, I think it's horrific. I do not think that con artists deserve to be given that sort of a platform. People are like, oh, she deserves a second chance. Absolutely fucking not. I have dealt with so many con artists over the years, and they do not go straight. She has expressed zero remorse, In fact, the opposite. She said, I am not sorry for anything I've done. She feels
like she completely deserves it. She has profited off of her story, and I understand that networks are out there to make profit and to make some money, but like, give me a break. Moscow skeazy con artists, like there are better people to give your platform too. And I just I'm begging everyone listening, and I'm begging the media to stop calling her Anna Delvy. This is not respect for something that you know, Oh, this is a name that she wants to be called by. No, absolutely not.
It's like calling Christian your high rights are Clark Rockefeller? Right? The dude's a murderer. He just happened to want to be known as Clark Rockefeller. Seriously are we doing that? Are we calling them by their chosen con name under which they defrauded people and like completely assumed a new identity because they fucking felt like it. I have zero sympathy for her. I have zero thoughts that she's ever
going to go straight. You know, do we think Billy McFarlane is going to have a really nice new venture that we should all invest in?
Look? What what would you say? The cultural role of Dancing with the Stars is because they've had an on other people who have had, you know, various controversy or scandal's. Former White House Press Security Sean Spicer was a guesst. Ryan Lochte had a very minor scandal. We're involving some gas station and was on the show. Paula Dean is a Southern celebrity chef who maybe use some some racial woods that you wouldn't want to use so much, and
she was on the show. So what why does ABC News feel the need to rehabilitate these people who are like not even like that interesting or note.
People have been fascinated with con artists, and oftentimes especially con artists like Anna Soroken, who are people who kind of go for the upper echelons of society, right like the high society, glamour crime like Clark Rockefeller by the way, who I who I mentioned Christian. They are just media fodder because first of all, like they you know, they're charismatic, they're appealing all this stuff, but also they end up
conning people who people have they victim blame them. They have less sympathy for should.
Get you know, shouldn't you have something where like at any given time, like one man and one woman, con artists are permitted to just continue being con artist because they're so good at it. I want to create some incentive.
I mean that has happened though, like you don't actually have to create that incentive So in The Confidence Game, which was the book I wrote about artists, Ferdinand Waldo Damara, who's known as the Great Impostor, who had ended up having this biography written about him, The Great Impostor, and then a movie made where Tony Curtis starred as him.
He became ridiculously recognizable because he's like over you know, six foot I don't remember six foot four or something like that, like very massive, like huge guy, just someone who you would instantly recognize. He doesn't have. You know, there are some faces that like look like every man. He does not look like every man. And he was on every single TV outlet, you know, Johnny Carson, he
went on Groucho Marxist show like he was. He was on everything, and so you would think that, you know, he would need some sort of program to be allowed to con again because everyone would know he's a con artist. Turns out he didn't need anything like that, because he ended up running and continuing to con long after that. So he had every opportunity to go straight. He was given all of this money, all of this stuff, but
he just loved conning too much. So even after all this media attention, he just switched his con, and so he ended up conning multiple people for multiple decades after this saying and the con was I've gone straight. You know, I'm repentant, like you're the one person who understands me. Let's you know, I really want to like prove that I'm a good reformed person now. And then he would like take them for all they were worth. And he was so good at it that he kept doing it
over and over and over. So con artists do not need any help. And the best con artists, nay, you and I have no idea who the fuck they are because unlike Anna, they have not been caught. There are probably impostors out there in the world right now. I you know, we talked briefly, I think on the show about therahos at some point, you know, there are more Elizabeth holmes is out there. There are more theraphnoses out there that are getting the millions of dollars from venture
capital in Silicon Valley. Like we don't. We don't have a problem with con artists not getting a second shot at the con. Even Billy McFarland, who who I just mentioned, you know, he tried Fire Festival too, and all sorts of other lovely things, so you know, they they you can't get them down.
I'm reading a little bit about PT. Barnum. Actually in this book, we read the book The forty eight Laws of Power I have. Yes, it's a very interesting book. Maybe we'll have a little mini segment on it one day. It's kind of a slightly evil, very Machabellian book. Two. Yes, but it's talking about some of the ambiguities of someone like P. T. Barnum, who you know, would reject the
label of being a con artist. I hadn't read that much about him, but I've actually kind of, you know, became a member of the House of Representatives or something in Connecticut and was kind of rehabilitated into somewhat polite society, I guess. But yeah, there it is a spectrum, I guess, right, Or is that not correct?
No? I mean I think there's a spectrum. But I don't think P. T. Barnam is a con artist, right like he I think that there's a very like he sold deception, right he's a circus owner who like this was everyone knew exactly what he was doing. I think that there's you know, there are people who act in good faith and in bad faith, but not all bad
faith actors are con artists. And I think that there is a pretty it is a spectrum, but there's a pretty clear demarcation point between con artist and not, which is your intention to take advantage of people for your own personal benefit without their awareness. Obviously you mentioned machiavelian so it is incredibly Machupelian. And in fact, you know out of the dark triad of traits that con artists
often have, So that's psychopathy, narcissism, and machubelianism. Psychopathy is the least common just because it's the least common in society. Narcissism is kind of this not just this sense of a grandized self, but also this sense of I deserve right, So like I deserve all of this, so I'm not doing anything wrong, like I'm just taking what is mine, what I deserve. And then there's the one that con
artists most commonly have. In fact, I would argue that you cannot be a successful con artist without this, and that's machiavellianism, which is the ability to get people to do what you want them to do, but they think it's their own idea, right, So you're very good at kind of planting the seeds in their mind that they think, oh, this is what I should do, but really it's coming from you. So you manipulate them. But you're not seen
as manipulative. You're seen as charismatic, which is Machiavelli's whole thing. And so that intent to knowingly deceive, to take advantage of other people's confidence in you, is what makes a con artist.
What about a politician?
So it depends. So within every single profession you'll find con artists. But to say that all politicians are con artists is to completely dilute the term so that it's meaningless. So if you're a politician who does normal politician things, which is you know, you might exaggerate, right, like you know that like you probably won't be able to deliver on all these promises. You kind of give the strongest
case argument for all of them. But you truly believe that you're going to make the world a better place, Right, that's why you got into politics. Your heart's in the
right place. Like you're not trying to completely deceive someone, and you're not saying something like, oh, like I promise to you know, to protect abortion at all costs, and then secretly you're anti abortion and trying to stack the court to reverse Ruby Wade, you're not a con artist because you actually kind of you're trying to make the world a better place. You're believe that you're doing it, you know, to the best of your ability. You're kind
of advancing that message. Now if you actually, like, if there's a mismatch between your beliefs and what you're doing, if you're doing it in a cynical way, if you're misleading, knowingly misleading, saying one thing while you know you're gonna do another, or you don't fucking care because you don't care if abortion is protected or not protected as long as you remain in power. Right, you're motivated by control. You're motivated by power, which, by the way, is the
single biggest motivation of all con artists. It's not money, it's control, it's power. It's affecting other people and influencing other people. If you're that, then you're a politician who also happens to be a con artist. And they are both right, and I think that there is a big difference, and you have a spectrum by the way of you know, true believer politicians, right, Like You've got the Bernie Sanderses of the world, who I think is probably pretty far
on the true believer spectrum. And then you have the people who are you know, much more pragmatic, who are who do what needs to be done, who kind of get down and dirty, but they still kind of believe what you want. On the other side, I'm just gonna say his name, that you've got the Donald Trump who've been convicted of fraud. Like I used to have to say that he was an alleged con artist, I don't have to say alleged anymore. Like shit's been proven in court. He is an artist.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know they sure the election case.
I'm not even talking about the I'm not even talking about the election case. I'm talking about real estate fraud.
Yeah, that's all you need. All you need is someone to what extent. Do people feel like they're in on the joke with the con artists?
They're not, so I think that well.
With Trump though, you're pushing with Trump. I think people feel like he's on my side and you take him.
No. No, that's the thing though, But they don't think they're in on the joke like they actually believe right, Like they don't understand that they're victims of con artists. I think that people who are Trump supporters are victims of a con artist, and they just really you don't see that. They see Trump as on their side, they see him as a true believer, and so they're willing to discount Red Flag's evidence. It doesn't matter. And this
happens over and over and over. Let's put Trump aside for a second and just look at a pattern that happens within con artists throughout history, which is that when you have and this is rare, by the way, because so many con artists can kind of skirt the laws get away with it, but in those cases when there's incontrovertible evidence, when they're actually tried in court and proven guilty, you often have the case where their biggest victims don't
believe it and think it's a big government conspiracy, legal conspiracy whatnot against them, and it's just mind boggling. And then you talk to them. I've talked to hundreds of victims of con artists. I can give them all the receipts, right, I can show them everything. I can be like, hey, this pastor who you think is the second coming of the Lord, Like the best thing that has ever happened to your community, the money that you donated for a new church he spent gambling away in Las Vegas. This
is not a hypothetical, This actually happened. And the person will be like, no, I you're you know this is a fake receipt. This is not true. He didn't take this flight. He's not a gambler, Like, he doesn't believe in it. And even if he did, and then it was for a reason, and he like the Good Lord told him that he was going to make more money for our church. Right, so they can just run. They
just do all these mental jumping jacks. The cognitive dissonance is so large that the dissonance reduction, which is what we do to kind of bring down that cognitive dissonance and bring our internal thoughts about what reality should be like in line with what we're seeing, is just so
huge that basically these people are beyond reach. This is why the single best victim of a con artist is someone who's been conned before, because they are so good at rationalizing away the fact that they been conned that they're very easy to take advantage of again, because that's easier to them than admitting that they've been the victim of this horrible long.
Con Marie, you want to talk some politics.
I think we started talking politics without without meaning to Nate. So yes, let's take a break from Anna Sarokan, and after the break we will talk about Donald Trump, the con artist and Kamala Harris in a non con artist setting or maybe a con artist setting, who knows.
Let me just push. I think Trump's a tricky case, right, I mean, because, for one thing, the biggest Karne's trying to pull off is a stolen election claims right. On the other hand, isn't he just promising to deliver cultural bash to progressive elites and lower taxes for wealthy business owners. I think that if we actually he actually delivered those things, I.
Don't think so. And I think if we parse his different messages to different groups of people, we will see that he has said and I actually believe that there are YouTube compilations of this. He's given the absolute polar opposite message to different groups of people, depending on who he's trying to appeal to at the moment. So he's been He's been both pro and anti abortion depending on the day that you get him, even one day apart.
So like, let's just leave it at that. This is not someone who you can trust to have a single opinion.
Politics tour event. I'll do some concern, you know, with Ben Shapiro. I'm I'm messaging the book very differently than when I'm at the Liberal book fair in Seattle. I'll tell you that much.
That's fine, you can use different messaging, but do you fundamentally change your meaning and say, actually, you know what the river sucks and the village is where all the smartest things are.
I mean, Kamal wild are Kamala Harris uh a very left of center platform in twenty nineteen, was that a co matters?
There are matters of degree and then there are complete just saying polar opposite things one day apart. And I think you're being a little disingenuous just to push back a little bit.
But I think that way, I know more about what I get in the Trump administration than a Harris administration. It might not exactly match what Trump says, but like, but.
That's that's but that's also that's the key, right, This is what we were going back to with con artists. Do they believe what they're saying or are they using it as a means to a personal end to take advantage of other people to gain power for themselves, and that is all they care about in the end is power and control to give a fuck about other people or about the world. I do not believe that is true of all politicians. I absolutely believe that that is
true of Donald Trump. We have good evidence for it. And with your book, yeah, sure, you're going to change messaging. You're going to not push on certain points to certain audiences, but you're not going to change your thesis like your book. But Nate, let me ask you a question if I were to, you know, when you're talking to different audiences about what your polls say, do you manipulate your polls? Do you take certain do you take certain do you
take certain surveys out? Do you waight them differently so that your message changes so that you're more appealing to your audience? And you say, Kamala is ahead, and then two hours later, without you know, without any new polls coming out, you say, oh, no, you know, I think Donald Trump is going to win. Do you do that?
I do not do that.
No Donald Trump would do that. That is the difference between a con artist and a non con artist. I rest my case.
We are going to think. I think, out of all the dimensions by what you can criticize Trump, and there are many, I'm not sure that's a to mention where where he stands out, particularly relative to the ability to tell groups slightly contradictory things.
It's not slightly contradictory. This is not a question of degree. This is just this is just.
A question of inher so she wanted to ban tracking, and now she does it anymore and has offered no reason for that change from political expedience.
Sure that that happens, and that happens with all politicians. But like I said, if we just label all politicians con artists, that label loses all meaning. So we need to have it as a continuum. As we started off this segment by saying, right, it's shades of gray. It's not black and white, but there are you know, there are dividing lines. And unless you want to label every single politician in history, by the way, including Bernie Sanders, as a con artist, then then.
We have to least Connie politicians.
Exactly That's why I said, But then we include him because he's done connie things in the past. But unless we do that, in which case the word con artist completely gets deprived of all meaning. We have to start making certain kind of certain distinctions along that continuum.
Forty of the country is going to vote for Trump. I'm trying to explain, they're.
Victims of a con artist, and they will never be persuaded otherwise because victims of con artists will stay victims and will always think that the person that they're following is not a con artist. For me, are true believers.
It's their narrow self interest to vote for Trump. Sure.
And then there are those people who are their positions elevated in absolutely absolutely. Then there are those cynical piece of shit human beings. Yeah that I'm just gonna who vote for Trump just because of cynical self interest and don't give a fuck what happens to the rest of the world and the rest of the country. Those people also, Sorry listener.
First of all, I hope we have some Trump listeners. No, like, I disagree with that. I think I don't think it's a bad thing if people vote in terms of their narrow self interest I think that's that's a part of a political economy that can be healthy. I think sometimes Trump understands that you do want to appeal to people's sense of identity and people aren't doing some Cartesian expected value calculation right about the impact of climate change or whatnot.
No, I think that that's right. But I think that there are people who are completely cynical and who have this sort of very narrow lens of what's better for my bottom line. I don't give a fuck what happens to anyone else in the world except for me, and I'm going to vote for the person who makes that better. And that there's certainly you know, that's fine. There are psychopaths in the world. Do I think that makes them good people? Do I think that that makes them some? You know? No? I don't.
I Actually, if campaigned on a platform to ban poker, would you vote for Trump?
No?
I would. I would.
I absolutely would not.
Oh yeah, I would.
I would absolutely still vote for Family because in my mind, sure, you know, I'm a poker player. But like if we're talking about one person says they're going to ban online poker, and the other person says they're going to do a lot worse to the world. Like, all right, you know, if you want to play online poker, you can go to Canada.
I think. I mean, there's a long discussion about this in my book, right. I think if you're not protecting your self interest, you wind up getting stumped on in the long run. I think that's what the game theory equilibrium is, is that if you're not willing to defend your self interest, then you get trampled.
But it's not black and white, right, Like, I think being a single issue voter, like poker is a really stupid single issue to vote on, just like it would be a really stupid single issue, you know, to vote on, like on crypto or something like where only one thing matters to you, because the world is much more complicated, and so you have to actually just try to figure out out of this constellation of policies, which future is going to be a better future for me and for
everyone else. And unless, like unless you think that you are you know, wealthy enough and insulated enough that you'll be kind of okay no matter what, like if the world burns, you'll still be fine, which I think is also kind of delutible.
I would just say that if Kamala Harris were to say I want a ban poker, I would feel targeted as a poker player. And clearly this is a community that wouldn't be interested in the votes of people like me, So why would I want to be in their coalition?
But you wouldn't then go and vote for Trump?
I'm trying to Yes, I would if Kamala Harris campaign on a platform to ban all forms of poker, I would vote for Donald Trump or maybe a vote libertarian or something.
Well those are two very different.
Things sort of but like, but yeah, I would want Harris to lose, right, Like, I think a lot of people have it in there. Rational Maybe perhaps.
That's what I was trying to say. I don't actually think it's rational, because if the payoff matrix is such that okay, no poker, but end of the world poker, you know, no poker, you know, no poker, but world is fine or poker and kind of end of the world in a lot of different ways a civil war, then your ev matrix is completely different, and that one that one reason why you voted for the other candidate
is completely invalidated. If your rational the rational thing is you have to look at the total of the payoff matrix, and then you vote for the one with the highest total. And unless poker outweighs everything else, and pokers waited at one hundred thousand, and if there's no poker, then nothing
else matters. Then I don't actually see that that payoff matrix is necessarily going to the EV for EV, for me, for you, I understand, And variety goes to hell and the world burns down and there's a civil war and you Nate get murdered because you know you were right You're like, then you don't care if you were playing poker when you got murdered, right like?
I think we to as those risks then, right like, So let me make a distinction. So Trump recently, I guess changed his stance or flip flop because you passed a policy in during his tenure to limit the State and Local tax deduction SALT. If you live and own property in New York State, you probably play a lot of combined taxes between the city and the state and
property bills. So Trump has said that he's interested in unlocking this deduction where you can claim unlimited amounts and not just ten k. Trump broy the way was responsible for the bill that introduced this deduction in the first place, so he might not be trustworthy there. But if I believed him and narrowly had self interest, then the salt cap would be something that affected my bottom line a fair bit. So if I were voting purely selfishly, that's
probably pretty tangible, right, something that affects me directly. Now, I would not one for Harris. I would not vote for Trump on that basis because whatever probably I wait, things that happened to me at like some multiple of good for the world, right, But that wouldn't outweigh if Harris and Democrats were to outlaw poker, my response would be, fuck you. You know, I am clearly not a person that you care about. I'm clearly not a person. You know. You don't see the world in a way that I
see the world. And if you think this thing is bad, then and that I think that's more obligation to vote against people who want to band poker.
I think if you actually listen to yourself out of context, you will see that that is such an emotional response. You are doing something. Now's a response no completely emotional.
Reciprocity are important in in game theory.
Sure, but fuck you because you did this is not is not an appropriate response.
You would look at the emotional response because.
Of course, of course, however, I think that you just need to realize that rational cannot be based on an issue like poker, right, because you need to have I know, you're trying to make a very strong case for a point, and you're you're kind of pushing it to.
The extreme, but it's not.
But that's not a rational.
Extreme complete expecting value calculation of Harris versus Trump.
No, I haven't okay, and I never said I have I have no, I don't know. I would need Yeah, i'd go, I could go down the line. But there are certain things and certain risks that I actually believe are very big risks that I know are much higher with Trump, And so I don't feel like I actually have to sit down and do an expected value calculation because there are certain existential risks like AI, by the way,
that I think would be much higher under Trump. And you are the person a by the way, who convinced me that I should be much more worried about AI than I was, so europe doom was much higher than mine. I think that what Trump does to the environment is worrisome. Trump as an existential risk to females who are facing pregnancies that might not be viable. We know multiple women who have lost their lives because they couldn't get abortion.
We see kind of it on an individual level. I think there are many more existential risks when you have a candidate like Donald Trump and with Kamala Harskin.
So if you consulted let's say that you had a super intelligent chat GPT, right, that was possessed of all the knowledge that we're capable of having. We can't control every contingency, but on a probabilistic basis, right, And I asked it, what are the chances that the world there's more in net utility created considering all these things with Harris? Then under Trump, right, I would not be a Harris voter. I would not be one hundred percent confident. I have
no able say Harris maybe seventy thirty. I don't know. I mean, there are a lot of complicated factors here, right, There's a big margin of error. You know, they're also knockoff effects on what happens to future elections and things like that. Absolutely, I do know that if you're fucking me over with some of this hypothetical poker example that I that I know, right, and I think it's like a reasonable heuristic to weigh things that clearly indicate that
you're part of the out group. And this is part of big part of democrats problem is that if if you know, this is declined versus four years ago, but you know, Democrats have this thing particularly progressive where if you're not aligned with them on everything, then you are created like some deplorable months. Absolutely absolutely and a lot of you know.
By the way, that should absolutely not be the case.
I think Democrats under rate how many votes they lose because they're annoying.
Yeah, and they are annoying, And I hate the holier than now attitude, and I hate the people who have this whole blanket like if you disagree with me on X, then you know, then that's it, Like I'm done, I completely agree with you, and the good news is nowhere. Has Kamala Harris even suggested that she was going to ban poker, so poker players, you can be happy. I'm happy.
I would be. I would obviously be completely miserable and really upset if that were to ever happen because I, as I said, I love poker and I think it's such a force for good in society. But luckily this was all a hypothetical example, and poker is in no danger of getting banned, so let's be grateful for that. We'll be back in a minute to talk about politics and more conventional framework and talk about some polling and
what's happened since we spoke last week. Nate, you want to give us a little bit of an update of what has happened since we spoke last Tuesday. Have there been new polls, new data? What's on your mind? What are you seeing? How's the race looking?
So, Kamala Harris has gained in the neighborhood of one percentage point since the debate, which might not seem like a big deal, but it actually is, given that last two elections basically came down to one point or so, and moreover, it's been a little bit more than that in Pennsylvania, which is the most important tipping point state. So as a result, if you may remember, this little built model had Trump a little bit ahead for a bit.
Now it's fifty to fifty. You know, Look, you're poker players today it's fifty four forty six Harris, if you want it, if you want to be on the pocket Jacks versus Ace King student, you'd rather have the Jacks, which win more than half the time. But about the closest election that we've seen, you know, polls within one, two, three, four, five, six, seven swing states are within two and a half points.
If you have the election today, then Harris is ahead in states totaling two hundred and seventy six electoral.
That's crazy, Yeah, like that is that's incredibly close. And you said seven and a half by the way, and you're in your update because you have.
So Florida is this is this high risk, high rewards state where if you're in Florida, it's thirty electoral votes and you're probably in. That's game over for Trump. But it's probably a little closer. But it's Florida's little bit quite up.
Unlikely, right, but no, so.
Two seventies as if she holds Harris holds the blue Wall states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania plus Nevada.
Congratulations.
Now she doesn't win Nevada, she's at two seventy and you need two hundred and sixty nine to win.
Okay, even without even without Nevada, she win by one. Okay, Yeah, that's insane, that's insane.
If she wins the second congressional district in Nebraska, which is why I'm long winded they getting into this.
Yeah, let's talk about that, because how many states are there that split electoral roads. Is it just Maine? In Nebraska?
There are two states. So in Maine there is one district, the rural second district, home to Acadian National Park and some of the most beautiful coastline in America's but also home to logging industry.
And sponsored by the state of.
Maine, sponsored by Main second district, but also home to logging communities. Weird French, American Acadian shit. I even know what goes on up there. They're speaking France parts of Maine, right, fishermen, I don't know little. It kind of mains an interesting state, right, It's not very religious, but you can still get some kind of kind of rednecky behavior. For sure. I love
Main but it's an interesting state. So Trump is expected to win that one district in Maine, that rural one, whereas Kamala Harris is expected to win Omaha, Nebraska, Basically that's the Correschi DiscT for Omaha and its suburbs. So those offset the GFP wanted to change this law in Nebraska. They've been trying, which was kind of sleazy because the campaign's already begun strategy has already been involved for campaigning
in Omaha and running ads there and things like that. It's, by the way, too late for Democrats to reciprocate in Maine. So and they but they lacked the votes to do this, so they were trying to change the rules in a way that I thought was very dirty. Pool But as a result of not doing that, this two seventy to sixty eight map still works for Harris, provided she actually
does win the Nebraska district. And by the way, there's also this thing with faithless electors where some years some electors in the electoral colleges actually a group of people don't vote for the candidate they're pledged to vote for.
How many times has that happened in history?
It hasn't swung an election, But like in twenty sixteen, some people were so fed up with the Trump Clinton election that there were quite a few faithleus electors, not enough to like cost Uh Trump the election, but like, but there were some defectors for sure, have.
There is that the only election I'm genuinely asking, I actually don't know.
There was somebody who voted for John Edwards instead of John Kerry in two thousand and four.
So it's often, it's rare, but it happens, and it's never been decisive, is what your No.
But if it's two seventy, then if any comes bound right, but it's to seventy, then in some states are cracking down on this. If it's two seventy, then it means there are two hundred and sixty nine or two so tenty people that could change history by by by refusing to cast their vote as their as their pledge. So it's a little bit of a you know, we use the term existential risk of this episode, but it can.
No, no, no, I think I think that makes sense though in this particular case, if we're looking at an election that could be that close, that could you know, could come down to two seventy versus two sixty eight, then than we are talking about about that sort of thing. By the way, I'm kind of curious to hear your take on this. Do you think that the main Nebraska model is a good one. Do you think that like? And do you think it's good to split the electoral votes?
And do you see any other states potentially going that direction. I'm just I'm just curious.
I think it's more likely that what will happen is that because Nebraska threatened to rescind this, it wouldn't surprise me if main prem deive ly rescinds their system. And then look, these are weird cases where they kind of offset one another. In general, No, I think it's bad for I think it's bad when you have different states with different rules. I think it's a slippery slope too.
You know, for a while Pennsylvania want to allocate it's just delegates proportionately for example, I think I think you want consistent rules. The main Nebraska thing is pretty unikely swing election because they offset. But yeah, I and by the way, it's also giving more power to redistricting, which is how districts are drawn, which in many states is a very partisan process. Yeah, puts huge steaks into this once every ten year process. The Supreme Court has ruled
that partisan jerry mandering is legal within certain boundaries. Probably will not change the Roberts Court, and so yeah, I would not want to give the redistrict pros this even more power.
By the way, since you keep saying that they're balancing each other, let me bring our episode full circle. We started off talking about Anna Sarokan, and you said you'd never heard of her. However, you know there are certain things that you have heard of, like Curb your enthusiasm, So let's I just want to bring kurb back here. There was an episode last season where Larry David is standing in line to vote, and it's a really long line and it's hot outside, and he asks the gentleman
in front of him who he's voting for. They're voting for the opposite party's candidates, and he asks if he wants to leave the line with him so that they both do not vote, and they offset each other and you know, they don't have to wait in line. The guy agrees, they both leave. Larry David's candidate ends up losing the election by one vote, and then it comes out that someone saw him leaving the line and not voting.
And so I just wanted to bring this into our discussion because it's what I keep thinking about when you say they offset each other because, by the way, there is kind of that logic, and some people do kind of do that and they don't vote, and they find someone else who agrees not to vote, who's voting in the opposite to right.
Like two thousand and four, there was some Nator thing where you trade your Nator vote in a safe state for a carry vote in a swing state or something. A memory hold all this stuff.
Anyway, curb your enthusiasm taught us that you should be very wary of doing this because you are a candidate my loose by one.
I sway to waction for like nineteen votes. Actually really, yeah, so I am because I am strategic with my voting. I'm a registered Republican because you have a lot of influence if you're a registered Republican in Chelsea, Manhattan, which is a very blue place. So twenty sixteen, I register as a Republican to vote against Donald Trump. The cann who was most viable at that point was John Kasick.
So I voted for Kasik, and Kasik won my congressional district by I think nineteen votes or something, and therefore won an extra delegate to the Republican Convention. So you know me and nineteen other Chelsea Heights cost Trumpet a delegate.
All right, well it is, it is. It is a lot of fun mileage. I think that's how strategic voting should be done.
Kudos, Yeah, Maria. I think let's leave it there. I mean, we've which wound up being a lot of politics, a lot of politics.
It did it?
Did I need anythink I needed?
I need a decompression politics break. I love you and I respect all of your opinions. Let's let's go grab a drink and not talk politics.
Risky Business is hosted by me Nate Silper and me Maria Kannakova. The show was a coproduction of Pushkin Industries and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced by Isabel Carter. Our associate producer is Gabriel Hunter Chang. Our engineer is Sarah Bruger. Our executive producer is Jacob Goldstein.
If you want to listen to an ad free version, sign up for Pushkin Plus For six ninety nine a month. You get access to ad free listening. Thanks for tuning in.