Trump and Elon Clash Again, Paramount Settles, and the Fate of the “Big Beautiful Bill”

Support for this show comes from IBM.

Is your AI built for everyone or is it built to work with the tools your business relies on?

IBM's AI agents are tailored to your business and can easily integrate with the tools you're already using so they can work across your business, not just some parts of it.

Get started with AIAgents at iBM.com.

That's IBM.com.

The AI Built for Business, IBM.

Thumbtack presents Project Paralysis.

I was cornered.

Sweat gathered above my furrowed brow, and my mind was racing.

I wondered who would be left standing when the droplets fell, me or the clogged sink.

Drain cleaner and pipe snake clenched in my weary fist.

I stepped toward the sink and then...

Wait, why am I stressing?

I have Thumbtack.

I can easily search for a top-rated plumber in the Bay Area, read reviews, and compare prices, all on the app.

Thumbtack knows homes.

Download the app today.

Support for this show comes from Robinhood.

Wouldn't it be great to manage your portfolio on one platform?

With Robinhood, not only can you trade individual stocks and ETFs, you can also seamlessly buy and sell crypto at low costs.

Trade all in one place.

Get started now on Robinhood.

Trading crypto involves significant risk.

Crypto trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Crypto LLC.

Robinhood Crypto is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Crypto held through Robinhood Crypto is is not FDIC insured or SIPIC protected.

Investing involves risk, including loss of principal.

Securities trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Financial LLC, member SIPIC, a registered broker dealer.

I agree with Marsha Blackburn.

Whatever.

I'm with you, Marsha, today.

Just today.

That's it.

Hi, everyone.

This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network.

I'm Kara Swisher.

Scott is off today, sailing in some place, maybe Ibisa, BISA, who knows.

So in his place, I brought someone actually smart, a fantastic co-host, Kristen Soltis-Anderson, who is a pollster, a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times and co-founder of Echelon Insights.

I was on the Chris Wallace show with her, and she is a Republican pollster.

I am obviously.

Well, I don't know what I am.

Anyway, welcome, Kristen.

Thank you so much for having me.

I miss our weekly get-togethers

with Chris Wallace refereeing.

Yes, I know.

They're quite good, but you're never really like, you're always so reasonable.

And then you convince me of things I don't want to be convinced of.

So that's why I'm having you here today.

But there's a ton going on.

What are you up to mostly right now?

I mean, obviously you've been inundated with information as a pollster, right?

There's a ton of stuff going on.

So you've got the tariffs that next week.

We will see

90 deals, 90 days.

Does that work out?

So lots of people interested in what's public opinion on tariffs and the economy, everything that's going on in the Middle East.

Do people feel safe?

Do they feel unsafe?

What's their reaction now that we've had a little bit of time to digest what happened?

And then, of course, what's going on with One Big Beautiful Bill and the many different ways you can try to gauge, do Americans even know what this bill is?

And from what they've seen, do they even like it?

Right, which they don't, right?

I mean, we'll get to that.

We'll get to all those things.

You have some things to talk about today.

Do you, right now, when you are doing polling, there's so much polling out there and there's so much internet polling and everything else.

Talk just a tiny bit about the business because people don't trust polls, but they're glued to them at the same time.

So, give me an idea of how you figure this out when you're in this pool of info.

You're right.

It's very much one of those like the portions are terrible and so small kind of situations where people will say that I hate polls, I don't trust polls, but they seem to know exactly what's going on in the polling averages.

Look, distrust of polls or skepticism of polls is completely natural.

I

understand it.

Oftentimes, polls are used to do something they are not built to do.

They are not actually great at predicting down to within a point or two how a fluid situation might turn out a week or two down the road.

And so I get why people are skeptical.

The other challenge we're facing is technology makes it easier for me as a pollster to find you and ask you questions.

And it makes it easier for you as a respondent to evade me, ignore me, block me, and so on.

And then you add to that the way that AI is going to change our industry.

It's going to make it so that you have more hurdles to jump through as a pollster to try to make sure, are the people that I'm contacting and surveying really legitimate?

Or are they bots?

Are they bots that look an awful lot like people digitally?

These are challenges that we as an industry are facing.

And really right now, the big thing that I am watching is

there was a great Atlantic article, I think, a week or two ago that was about how teenagers are asking for landlines again.

And gosh, the return of the landline would be like the greatest thing ever for pollsters.

Because people answer the phone.

No one answers the phone anymore.

No one answers the phone.

Not at all.

But when you have so many of them out there too, when they're doing them online, Elon Musk just did one.

We'll talk about that in a minute, like about whether you should start an America party, did one around a lot of things this week.

He does it all the time, but he's not the only one.

Everybody seems to have a hot take or I've polled these people.

How do you stand out as an actual pollster with actual standards?

So there are a a couple of things you can do to stand out.

One of them is you're not just looking for the cheapest, fastest data you can find.

The reason why these panels exist of people that you can survey is not actually mostly for political purposes.

It's because every brand under the sun has a marketing department that's trying to gauge how's our new ad campaign going?

What do people think about our new consumer product?

And so on and so forth.

So most of these polling panels that a pollster in the political space is using don't first and foremost exist for political purposes.

Right.

It's like, how do you like this Clorox or whatever?

Yeah, you have to be good at knowing how to take this,

these panels that are made mostly to gauge what do people think about bleach or sneakers or anything and make it into something that looks really like what an electorate will look like.

What we do at my firm, we use the voter file.

It's the publicly available list of everybody who's a registered voter.

It's pretty frequently updated in most states.

And that can at least give you some ground truth of who is and isn't registered to vote.

How often do each of those people vote or not vote?

And that can help you have some sense that the people you're talking to are real people, they're registered voters, and you have a good idea of how often they are a voter.

And last question, you do this thing for the New York Times.

You have the same people that you talk to.

Is that helpful?

Because you're trying to gauge their opinion over time, correct?

So for the New York Times, what's really fun is that's qualitative.

We are bringing in, you know, eight to 12 people, depending on the group, to just talk to them for 90 minutes about what they think about a key issue.

And there, you know, you're getting real people.

You know, you're not getting bots.

You're looking at each other face to face.

You can see how they react to each other.

And what's neat there is we have, as you mentioned, had times where we bring the same people back, you know, a year later.

We did one like that around January 6th.

We had some Republicans come one year after January 6th and tell us, okay, a year later, how are you feeling about this?

horrible thing that happened in our country.

And then we had those same people back a year after that to see, okay,

how had the horror of the day converted into belief in a conspiracy theory or just a belief it's not that big a deal?

And so on and so forth.

Wow, that's interesting.

Yeah, one more question.

There are beefs between pollsters?

There's beefs between journalists, that's for sure.

For the most part, pollsters are all friends, and that includes pollsters across the political aisle.

So Republican and Democratic pollsters, we generally all view each other as part of the reality-based community who are trying to live in a world that is driven by data.

And so so you find a lot of these fun partnerships between Republican and Democratic pollsters that do not exist anywhere else in the political consulting space.

You don't find Republican and Democratic like ad makers working together that often, but you will find that in polling.

The beef is less, you know, you're right versus left, and it's more quality versus.

people who are peddling garbage.

And they, the folks that are peddling garbage make it harder for the good pollsters to do their job because they quote lower prices, they set different market expectations, and then they're the ones that are out there sort of pushing narratives that you either have to debunk or

it doesn't really matter if they're right or not, right?

They don't, they just move on to the next thing.

All right, so we've got a lot to get to today, and you're bringing us some stats too.

We're also going to talk about Paramount settling with Trump and Trump's latest target, New York City mayoral candidate Zoran Mandani, who did spectacularly well now that the results are in.

But first, so President Trump is hitting back at Elon Musk after days of Elon railing against Trump's big big beautiful bill, which just passed the Senate.

Trump took aim at the government subsidies that Elon's companies receive and said the country would save a fortune without them.

He also threatened to sick Doge on Elon and said it would, quote, take a look at deporting Elon, when asked about that, he also said Doge would eat Elon for some reason.

I'm not sure why.

After those comments, Elon said it was so tempting to escalate, but he would refrain for now.

And I had predicted that he was going to slap back over this bill because he really, I know him pretty well previously, and this would bother him.

He's been ramping up the rhetoric, posting on X that Republicans who vote for the bill will, quote, lose their primary next year if it's the last thing I do on this earth.

Okay.

And after declaring that we live in a one-party country, the porky pig party, Elon renewed his calls to form a third party, the America Party, if the bill passes.

So we're going to talk about the bill in a moment.

Let's start with the return of the feud.

Now, I am not surprised.

Elon erupted like this.

I said he would when he did his first eruption and then apologized.

But Tesla's shares took a tumble on Tuesday, falling 5%.

And this just came in.

Tesla's global car sales fell sharply in the second quarter.

Now he's expressing regret over his chainsaw stunt, saying it lacked empathy, you think.

So he's threatening this third party.

Let's start with this.

You have some brand new polling on third parties in the United States, which has been tried and tried again, although it has happened in the United States several times.

Yeah, polling on this really shows that a lot of Americans don't think that the two existing political parties are meeting their needs, but there's really not a lot of consensus about what a third party would look like.

And the bad news for Elon Musk is that this kind of libertarian type viewpoint is most likely not where you would find a real viable third party spring up.

So I've been doing research at my firm for the last number of years where what we do is we ask people, do you think of yourself as liberal or conservative?

But then we also ask them a bunch of issue questions to get their sense of, you know, are you picking the conservative position on 10 out of 10 economic issues or 10 out of 10 social issues?

And then we kind of plot everybody out on a chart and we see where do people fall.

And only 11% of voters are strong conservatives, right?

They're picking the right-wing position on almost everything.

And only 13% of Americans pick the strong liberal position on everything.

There's a lot of people that choose a little from column A, a little from column B, but the problem for the libertarians is only about 5% of people tend to choose a bunch of liberal social positions and a bunch of conservative fiscal positions.

Oh, wow.

There are significantly more people who are the opposite, who take a more sort of socially, culturally conservative viewpoint, but then also believe that, yeah, we should have robust government safety net and those sorts of things.

So the problem that Musk is going to run into is, yes, Americans don't love the two-party system.

Yes, there's a hunger for a third party, but no, it doesn't necessarily look exactly like what I think Musk's politics look like.

Right.

So what would that look like?

Like that they're socially conservative.

That's interesting.

Usually it was the socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

That used to be kind of a thing from a lot of people in the center.

Right.

And, you know, I do a lot of presentations to business leaders and I'll ask, you know, how many of you in this room would describe yourselves as fiscally conservative, but socially moderate to progressive?

And tons of hands go up.

And like the bad news for those folks is in the data, it's actually a very small portion of the electorate.

We tried asking it a different way where we gave people five different hypothetical parties to choose from.

One is kind of a far-right nationalist populist type party.

One is a more center-right, maybe old school Republican party.

One is a center-left labor party.

One is a green party.

And then one, we jokingly call it the Acela party, but like that's not really what it's called.

But it's this kind of Mike Bloomberg, like socially moderate centrism.

And that only gets 13% of voters.

Oh, wow.

Which one gets the most?

The most is the Labor Party.

Bernie Sanders.

Well, so I don't know if I would say that's Bernie Sanders.

I would think of it more almost as a like,

maybe a John Fetterman.

Setting aside, like, I know he definitely has some views that are at odds with the Democratic majority on a couple cultural issues these days, but this idea of like middle-class economics, labor unions, tax the rich a little bit, support programs for those less well-off, but it's not like break up big corporations.

Like that's what we said for the Green Party.

And that only got 6% in our polling.

The more interesting thing, I think, to me, too, is that the right is really split.

So while most Democrats coalesce into that kind of labor party type model, Republicans are very divided between this more old school, you know, three-legged school stool of conservatism, right?

Strong military, strong families, limited government versus a like, we're cracking down on illegal immigration, we're stopping political correctness, America first.

Like that really does divide the right in our polling.

No foreign intervention, that kind of thing.

So

are they headed for a crackup in that way?

It seems like once Trump is removed from the situation, there's a real crackup about to happen.

It feels like Donald Trump is holding a lot of pieces together, that in the absence of a strong dominating personality who has just captured this party entirely, those cracks would begin to show.

A lot of this Musk feud reminds me of the Tea Party days.

I think I described it on air once as like the reheated leftovers of the Republican Party's interfamily drama from like 2011.

These fights feel familiar, but they feel old.

They feel like they come from an era before Donald Trump came in and said, it's my way or the highway.

Right.

So, but is there a chance for him to have a party in here?

What would it be if you were, if he said to you, Kristen, I want you to create a party for me.

What would you advise him?

And he's going to give you a pile of money and you'll do it, right?

I don't know if you would, but you should, because you would be a good influence on him.

What would you advise him, Elon?

This is the party you need to start.

So I think he's got some good instincts in the sense of

being anti-establishment, right?

I think the problem that too many attempts to start a third party have had is that they have been too captive by existing establishment, or it's like elites driving it.

And so your sort of average American is like, well, I want a third party, but maybe not that.

He is, of course, an elite himself, but I think he is more comfortable breaking out of that sort of elite bubble.

And so I think there's something about the anti-establishment vibe.

You would need to pull this off.

But I do think that this idea of just like slashing government and that being the main thing you're all about, that's tough to build a party around because, you know, Republicans, they love to cut spending.

They love to talk about it at least, but the political reality of the popularity of cutting spending is very different.

And so if you can talk a big game about it, but then when push comes to shove, what is it that you want to cut?

You know, Doge has already cut most of the things now that were politically low-hanging fruit.

And I think we're going to see some thermostatic backlash to some of this too.

Like foreign aid is something I've seen in poll after poll was pretty popular to cut.

Well, now that we've cut it, we're going to see the consequences of of that.

Wouldn't surprise me if all of a sudden funding for foreign aid becomes more popular than it was five years ago, precisely because we've now cut it.

Interesting.

So one of the things he said is he lacked empathy.

Again, polling on him is terrible, right?

Correct.

The biggest brand, Scott talks about this, the biggest brand diminishment and it's affecting his businesses.

If you were hired by Tesla or Starlink or whatever, what would you say he do?

He said it lacked empathy.

That's sort of a little step towards, I was an asshole, right?

I shouldn't have been such an asshole, essentially.

How do you, what do you say to someone like that to get his brand back to where it was?

Probably never.

Yeah, this is part of why I'm surprised that he's picking the fight again, because I think he had an opportunity to say, I went in, I was trying to do things that I thought would be good for the country.

I made some progress on some things.

I didn't get some other things done.

I'm now turning back to my businesses.

And I'm going to focus in on the core things that Americans thought were really cool about me before I got too into politics, that they think I'm a really smart person, they think I'm really innovative, they think I'm building things that are cool and are going to change life on this planet.

I would encourage him to go back to those brand attributes, like less chainsaw, more Mars.

And that to me feels like it would be the smartest short to medium term play for him in order to kind of rebuild his brand.

I mean, I don't know that he's ever going to be back to like strong favorables among Democrats, but I mean, we live in a world where anything's possible.

People love reinvention.

And I think if he goes back to the things that have traditionally made people think he is a voice worth listening to, those attributes can still exist.

They've just been blocked out by so much of the noise and the insanity.

The insanity, but at the same time, right now, Democrats are not re-accepting him.

And now Republicans, who he thought were his new customers, are now not accepting him because he fought with Trump and he continues to fight with Trump.

Even if he doesn't name him, that's exactly who he's fighting with.

And he is going to, when he says, I can respond for now,

he is going to escalate.

There's no question in my mind.

He's going to escalate.

What do you, I'm curious, what do you think escalation will look like from Musk?

Because when he talks about how he's going to go primary every Republican that votes for this bill, that's a lot of people to primary.

Like the nuts and bolts of politics, of going in and finding a viable challenger, building their name ID, taking out an incumbent, that's hard to do in a handful of races, much less taking out almost the entire Republican conference.

I think he's going to find that that's more challenging than he thinks if he really tries it.

But what do you think escalation would look like from him?

I think, I think he'll, like he said, he's going to back Thomas Massey.

Where is he polling, right?

He's the one that pushes back on Trump.

He's been the one who hasn't backed down in that regard.

And Trump has threatened him.

Now, the other two Trump threatened are leaving, essentially, whether it's Tillis or Don Bacon or whoever.

Trump definitely has levers he can pull.

Trump can make Elon Musk's life very difficult.

I am skeptical about how difficult Elon Musk can make Trump's life.

Right, right.

That he could, he could do something.

What would if he wanted to, what would be the best thing he could do?

He shouldn't insult Trump, correct?

I think he's not going to resist.

I think he's going to go back to Epstein.

I think he's going to go,

I don't know.

I feel like scorched earth is his kind of policy in lots of ways.

He doesn't care.

I think the smartest business leaders in this crazy political moment are the ones that try to stay as far away as possible from anything partisan and from anything involving directly addressing Donald Trump.

If the word Donald Trump is coming out of your mouth, you have created problems for yourself.

The way I describe the Trump effect on everything is that science experiment you can do as a kid where you put a bunch of pepper into a dish and then you put like a drop of dish soap in the middle and all the pepper like flies out to the side of the dish.

That's what happens anytime Trump gets involved in anything.

Everything flies out to the side.

And And that's a terrible way to run your business when you need to be reaching customers across a political coalition.

You need to be maintaining favorability from stakeholders.

Donald Trump is the drop of dish soap that just makes everything fly to the sides.

And so Musk has gotten himself tangled up in Trump.

He has benefit, he had benefited from that by being a very powerful individual for a while.

But

there is a trade-off there, and that gamble does not always work out well for everybody.

Yeah.

So, Trump can do him more damage.

Eventually, he'll be able to do more damage.

I just, this guy didn't blow up rockets for no good.

I'm just saying he's a blow-up rocket kind of fella.

That's my feeling is that he is, and he could do damage in the constant drumbeat of things.

You know what I mean?

Like, if he was the normal person and he cared about blowing up his businesses, that's one thing.

I don't think he cares.

That's, you know what I mean?

Like, he, he,

math is very important to him, and this math doesn't work, right?

And so he couldn't hold it in.

You know, you'd think he wouldn't say anything about the bill, but he can't help himself.

He cannot.

He can't.

You saw how little control he had over himself, right?

Physically and mentally and everything else.

But he really doesn't.

And it's not a game.

It's not a, I don't know.

We'll see what he does.

Eventually he will cause damage to these people, you know, because he doesn't care.

about the repercussions for himself.

So let's let's move on to where things stand with the Big Beautiful bill, which most Americans, according to several polls, I think some of your own, aren't exactly thrilled about.

The bill narrowly passed through the Senate on Tuesday in a 51 to 50 vote, with three Republicans siding with Democrats and Vice President J.

D.

Vance having to break it with a tie.

As of the recording, the bill is now back in the House where Speaker Mike Johnson has vowed to get the bill over the line.

He's been very successful previously in doing this.

By the time you're listening to this, this may or may not have happened.

Now, I want to note a few things about this Senate bill.

The latest estimate from the Congressional Budget Office has adding more than $3 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

The bill cuts about $1 trillion from Medicaid and other health care programs.

It also makes cuts to SNAP.

Nearly 12 million people will lose health care coverage if it becomes law.

What jumped out at you over the last few days when we saw this debating and negotiating in the Senate?

Obviously,

Senator Lisa Murkowski, who I'm calling the Quizling, said it was an agonizing to vote for the bill, and yet she did.

She kept trashing it as she was voting for it, which is, of course, typical of her.

Talk a little bit about what jumped out at you and then this data you have.

Yeah.

So this bill is,

it was always going to be a massive challenge because it is the like Cheesecake Factory menu of conservative priorities that some people in the coalition love and some people in the coalition hate, but you're kind of asking them to eat everything on the Cheesecake Factory menu all at once.

And so you, the, the thing you you may love, like I might love my 1600-calorie Santa Fe salad, but like in order to get that, I have to agree to try a little bit of everything on the menu.

And that's that's the legislative situation they've all found themselves in.

There's three things that are making this bill move, even though the polling isn't great.

The first is the power of Donald Trump.

He says, This is my agenda, this is my bill, you're with me or you're against me.

And he's a very powerful force in the party.

Nobody wants to cross him.

He could

more so than Elon Musk cause people problems in a primary.

The second thing that's driving them is Republicans love cutting taxes.

They like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from 2017.

Their regret is only that they didn't do it earlier in that year, in 2017, that instead of doing it at the end of the year, they should have done it earlier.

So it could have, in their thinking, helped them in the 2018 midterm.

So they're like, we love this.

We want to get it done.

Even if it is loaded up with all this other stuff that we might have questions about, the core thing is the tax cuts, and we've got to get it done.

And that's the carrot that's dragging everybody to this bill, even if they have other reservations.

But the final thing is that I think Republicans, not incorrectly, believe that they will be able to turn these numbers around.

So, because this bill contains so many multitudes, in a poll, how do you even begin to ask about it?

It is a Medicaid reform bill.

It is a spending cuts bill.

It is a tax cuts bill.

It for one point in time was an AI regulation or non-regulation bill.

It's an EV tax credits bill.

I mean, it is a child tax credit increase.

It is the number of different ways you can describe this bill is almost infinite.

And so the question is going to be, Republicans have started to coalesce around, we're going to describe this as it's a tax cut and or preventing a tax hike, and it is focusing on making sure we're putting America first.

And they describe that as we're funding stuff for border security.

We are putting in these work requirements on Medicaid, which in and of themselves test well.

Lazy Medicaid people, right?

That's the Republican message.

The Democratic message, on the other hand, is you're calling these people lazy Medicaid people.

In reality, it's going to be hardworking people who can't figure out how to file the paperwork.

And they're going to get dropped from their healthcare because they can't navigate your new requirements.

And that's going to be, as you mentioned, it's going to be 12 million people, many of whom you would say are deserving or are your neighbor or did vote for Donald Trump.

And so the reality is like Republicans do have a message that can work.

But if the reality of it is that the economy is not actually doing better by next November or that these policies in states that begin to try to implement work requirements earlier, if that creates snags and causes people who voted for Trump to lose health care, there could be really big backlash to that to create, that would create problems in a midterm.

Why right now is it polling so badly?

I think it's polling badly because if you don't like Donald Trump, you know you don't like it.

And so you're already starting off with almost half of America right there that's like, oh, it's Trump's bill.

I'm out.

And then of those voters who do like Donald Trump, there's not unanimity that it is a good thing because for some of them, they're like, well, I like Trump, but this has some things that I'm not crazy about.

So it's easy for the opponents to all be unified against it.

We don't like Trump.

This is Trump's agenda.

Trump bad.

Bill bad, done.

But for the supporters of it, you've got the criticisms from the middle, the Murkowskis, the Mike Lawlers in the House, but you've also got attacks from the right, from the Chip Roy's, the Thomas Masseys.

And so it's like a two-front war this bill is fighting.

Right.

Marjorie Taylor Greenson says it's a shit show.

Why is she doing that?

Why are they all doing this from the right?

I believe a lot of them.

Again, to the extent that this is echoes of the old Tea Party moment, they want to be the one that says, I I stood up for true fiscal discipline, but they don't want to be the one that sinks the bill.

Like, if the bill is already going down, they will happily be like, Yes, I was part of helping to tank it because it's bad and we need to demand that we get a better deal.

But like, none of them wants to be the one that causes this to go down.

Nope, none of them want that headache.

Because if so, they're not just going to be held responsible for you tanked the things that are unpopular.

They're like, they're worried you'll be held responsible for

making taxes go up.

And that's not anything any Republican wants to do.

So the taxes is at the center of it, correct?

The idea of giving these, even if the Democrats are putting it out as a, as a gimme for wealthy people, is that a good message from a polling point of view?

It's one of those things where when you test it, should we cut taxes for wealthy people?

Even a lot of Republicans say no.

The reality is that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from the first time around, the economy was doing pretty well under Trump during that first term.

And so if Republicans say, we just want to keep that going, we don't want to undo that, that's a way you message it that people say, oh, well, that actually makes sense.

So just using the same messages against it that were used last time, I'm not sure actually moves the needle for Democrats.

And it'll all also come down to what does the economy look like in November of next year?

If the economy is in the tank,

then everybody's going to vote for Democrats and Republicans are going to be in big trouble.

If the economy looks good, then it'll make Trump look like he was right.

And what would you advise Democrats to do at this point?

To just keep pounding in on the people who are going to not have their health care, the sort of scare tactics?

I mean, I think they need to coalesce around a message, because as you noted, I mean, one of the downsides of the bill having a million different pieces, it is a target-rich environment for Democrats.

But if they don't pick one or two main targets,

that's going to be a problem.

And right now, even though Republicans are having struggles, it is not as though the brand of the Democratic Party is great.

It is not as though voters are saying they think Democrats have strong leadership and a clear vision.

And so, like, they need to sort some of that out as well if they want to have a chance at having a really good midterm next year.

Right.

So, the best message for them, right, at this moment?

It depends on the economy, right?

It's the economy stupid kind of thing.

It depends on the economy.

I do think that the Medicaid message is potentially potent, in part because of the new coalition Republicans have put together that includes a lot of people who are on Medicaid who may think of themselves as hardworking people who nevertheless find that the new work requirements and such

actually do catch them up in a paperwork problem and suddenly they're without health care.

And that is a huge, huge, huge potential problem if that's how this comes to pass.

That's sort of the leopard ate my face argument.

So one of the big points of the condition of the bills you just talked about was something we've been talking about here a lot on pivot to the 10-year moratorium on state laws regulating AI.

The Senate voted 99 to 1 to strike the provision from the bill.

They also got rid of the one about selling off public lands, but the loan holdout was Senator Tom Tillis, who's not running for re-election as a few days ago.

OpenA and a few other big names in Silicon Valley have been lobbying for this amendment.

I find it to be a silver lining in this whole mess, but

how does that poll?

Like states should be able to do Green was on board for that.

Lots of people, Democrats and Republicans.

Yeah.

So this is an issue that I did some polling on for Common Sense Media, which they're focused on kids' safety online.

And they came to me because I can help understand Republican voters and they wanted to know, okay, how does this actually test with the GOP?

And this was a provision that was really unpopular.

It was unpopular on the left.

It was unpopular on the right.

And I wanted to know in this poll, okay, even if you're, if you're just asking people, do you think states shouldn't be allowed to regulate AI?

That tests terribly.

But I wanted to really pressure test it because at a like a policy level, I understand the instinct to say, it's really bad if you have a patchwork of 50 different state laws all telling tech companies what they can and can't do.

We're in a race against China.

We need to be able to survive and be competitive and be cutting edge.

And we can't do that if states red and blue are passing.

all kinds of nonsense legislation.

Like I get the argument.

So I wanted to test it and we pitted the strongest possible case for

this legislation up against an argument that basically says it should be states' rights.

States should be able to do this.

We need to be able to protect kids and families.

And even when you pit those things together, you still find a huge number of Republicans saying, yeah, I get the arguments that we need to be competitive on AI, but that doesn't mean you just handcuff states for 10 years.

And so this was one where that's how you get to 99 to 1, the Senate going, yeah, let's take this one out of here.

This one out of here.

So they just states rights always prevails, in other words.

Well, it wasn't just states' rights.

I think in and of itself, a states' rights argument doesn't get you all the way there because it's kind of wonky.

It's process.

I think the thing that added to this and made it so powerful was the like the safety of kids online.

You know, it is possible for the federal government to pass legislation or for there to be regulation that people really like around AI, things like the take it down, you know, around things like revenge porn or AI,

that kind of stuff gets really popular.

But when we ask, you know, even when you're presenting, here's the reason why you don't want to have too much regulation on AI, and you spell it out for people, even then, we still had by a 12 to 70 margin people saying, no, a blanket preemption on states goes too far because it could roll back these red and blue state protections for kids from tech-related dangers.

There was an attempt at a compromise where they had Senator Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee.

She's really big on this because she represents country music, as well as, you know, she's, you know, socially conservative.

They have a lot of interest in this like legislation around protecting kids.

They tried to come up with language that would be a carve-out that would try to exempt like kid safety focused stuff from this blanket preemption.

But ultimately, she decided that the compromise wasn't worth it.

And so.

Yeah, yeah, she's got to stick to it.

I agree with Marsha Blackburn.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, we can come back.

You bring a Republican on the show.

All of a sudden, you're agreeing with Marsha Blackburn.

You know what?

Everything else about her is just a hot fucking mess.

But this one, she's, she's, when someone's directionally correct, Kristen, I'm going to go with them, right?

She's directionally correct.

All her reasoning.

I appreciate that about you, Kara.

Yeah.

All her reasoning is like anti-gay.

It's always something terrible.

She, you know, she'll, I'll agree with her.

And she goes, it's because we have to protect ourselves from the gays.

And I'm like, no, no, that's not why.

But

I'll bring you along, Marcia.

Anyway, whatever.

I'm with you, Marsha, today.

Just today, that's it.

Um, okay, I was kind of pissed.

She was actually making a trying to make a five-year, they were going to do a five-year or whatever.

I thought, no, either stick to your guns or you don't.

And I'm sure she has plenty of guns.

Anyway, Kristen, let's go on a quick break.

We come back.

Paramount settles with Trump.

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start?

Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to.

Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is?

With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro.

You just have to hire one.

You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app.

Download today.

This month on Explain It To Me, we're talking about all things wellness.

We spend nearly $2 trillion on things that are supposed to make us well.

Collagen smoothies and cold plunges, Pilates classes and fitness trackers.

But what does it actually mean to be well?

Why do we want that so badly?

And is all this money really making us healthier and happier?

That's this month on Explain It To Me, presented by Pureleaf.

Hey everybody, it's Andy Roddick, host of Serve Podcast for your fix on all things tennis.

U.S.

Open's coming up and we're covering it on our show.

Can someone knock off Alcarazzan Center?

Can Coco Goff win her second U.S.

Open title?

Can Shviatek win her second Grand Slam title in a row?

Can Sabalenka break through and win her Grand Slam in 2025?

You can watch our coverage of the U.S.

Open on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcast.

Brought to you in part by Amazon Prime.

Kristen, we're back with more news.

And actually, this is what you were dovetailing.

It's better to keep your head down.

Paramount has agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit with President Trump that alleged a 60-minute interview with Kamala Harris was deceptively edited.

The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret.

And in fact, Paramount had said this is just a ridiculous case, as did most lawyers think that.

Aside from legal fees, the payment will go towards Trump's future presidential library.

The settlement comes as Paramount seeks to complete a merger with Skydance Media, which requires approval from the Trump administration.

Reminder that ABC News has agreed to pay Trump $16 million to settle a defamation case late last year, which is a much stronger case.

In this case, it's not.

It's just not.

So, talk about this: the repercussions.

I mean, obviously, they want to get this deal through.

It has the feel of a shakedown and a bribery that has been brought up against Sherry Redstone.

It feels very

urban, autocratic, very strange, and

lawfare, which is what's something that conservatives complain about.

And it's also heinous on many levels.

Your thoughts?

So I can't help but think about this in the context of a couple of other lawsuits that have proceeded further down the road against media organizations, not necessarily from Trump himself, but I think a lot about the Fox News defamation case and how much they had to pay out regarding

the Dominion, SmartMatic, all of that.

And then CNN, where I'm a contributor, where we met doing Chris Wallace Show, I mean, they had to settle a case around some stories earlier this year about someone

who was trying to evacuate refugees from Afghanistan.

At any rate, a lot of these media organizations, I think, feel like they are nervous about what happens when, even if you feel like you've got a really good case, and even if you feel like I'm just doing good journalism, it's not fair, I shouldn't be in this position.

This just feels like a moment where the climate is not on your side.

And so do you just do the settlement, save yourself the embarrassment of discovery and going through a trial and all of that pain and suffering,

even though it's going to cost you a pretty penny and even though you're going to have to swallow your pride?

Like which is the least painful path forward?

But I also think that things like this are part of why, if you look over a long enough trend line,

do you trust the news media?

I mean, those numbers have been declining for a long time.

But most recently, the decline is not actually coming from Republicans.

It's coming from Democrats.

And it's coming from Democrats, whether they think that the media has become too soft on Trump or they've normalized Trump or that they are too sensationalist or what have you.

Like the decline in trust in the media from Republicans happened a while ago and that has kind of bottomed out.

The declines that we're continuing to see overall are actually being driven by Democrats who say, I don't know that I trust that these organizations are doing the right thing either.

Right.

So in this case, I get the idea, oh, let's just let it go away, right?

That kind of thing.

And I do, I understand.

In the case of Fox, they had a good case, right?

There was so many emails.

There were like, it was like, it was frightening how bad they behaved in that situation.

They knew just they had all the elements of proving it, and they'll probably lose their next several cases in that area.

So that was actually really egregious behavior on the point of on the part of that news organization.

And they deserve to lose, really, in many ways.

In the case of ABC, probably I suspect there was some emails that weren't so great or texts or something like that.

You know, there was, and there was an obvious mistake.

It was when he had the information that of how to say it.

And we have had to correct it.

You know, we have changed stuff when we edit stuff if it's said wrong.

So you have to really be careful whether they could have proved there was malice.

That's a different.

situation.

In this case, it's just not the case.

And they have a brand, 60 Minutes.

Two people have left the company.

The staff is obviously, obviously, I don't know what they'll do today or

whatever day, but it's a real problem of sort of collapsing what is a trusted institution, which is 60 minutes, over something that

isn't a problem, right?

Is that dangerous in the longer term or does it not matter at all?

Yeah, I never love the use of lawsuits to try to achieve an end, especially if it's potentially going to have the effect of chilling free speech.

I mean, this is one of the things that these days frustrates me a lot about the right is I think over the last decade, there have been a lot of very legitimate questions raised about the existence of free speech in this country and the protection of free speech in this country, especially from, you know, when conservatives say we're being silenced.

Like, I'm sympathetic to those charges that.

You need free speech and that has to include even speech that you think is offensive or is out of bounds.

But then once you get the reins of power, deciding that you actually do want to just like stop speech that you don't like or, you know, chill speech, that does make me very concerned.

Another case that I sort of think of as part and parcel of this, it's very personal to my industry, is the lawsuits against Ann Selzer, the pollster in Iowa, and the lawsuits against the Des Moines Register.

The case, I believe the federal case was dropped, but I believe it was refiled as a state case.

And it was done a day in advance of the anti-slap laws coming into effect in Iowa that are supposed to protect against the use of like lawfare to go after people who engage in speech you don't like.

So that's a case that I'm watching very closely because the idea that someone can come after you and sue you because they think that your poll was wrong and that it was reported on, you know,

in a way you didn't like in a paper, that's very, very, very concerning.

Where does it go from here?

Does this embolden Trump to do?

Because they're doing it all over the place.

Like anything he doesn't like, he threatened CNN the other day.

He threatened for reporting on an app, like that there exists the existence of an app.

They didn't say, please buy this or use it.

It's about ICE, this ICE app.

Does this, what happens here?

Is there a point where people say no more or they overreach or not at all if it works?

I mean, if this works and these people, especially if you're a company that wants something and you always want something from

the government, right?

Or it's just just, once it stops working, it's going to be hell to pay, I suspect, for Republicans.

I don't know where this ends.

And this is where not being a lawyer, you know, I'm unsure of what the

what the strategy is in terms of like continuously trying to push people in courts and like how much pain do you incur if you do try to fight back.

I'm less familiar with that, but I know that if you look at sort of Trump's target list, he is picking targets that are not beloved by the sort of general public, whether it's the media, Ivy League institutions, you know, big powerful law firms.

Like he's picking targets that your sort of median American goes, yeah, I don't really like them that much anyways.

And I, that has been, I think,

at least savvy political strategy on his part, setting aside that I, I, I don't feel qualified to comment on it as a legal strategy.

Right.

And is there any chance the media's image will bounce forward in any way?

What would what would happen to do that?

Well, I do think that you're right, that at least in the short term,

It much the same way that we were talking about with Musk earlier, that like he, he lost his credibility with Democrats and now now he's picking fights with Republicans, but he's unlikely to, at least in the short term, see like a resurgence of love and admiration among the Democrats that he has alienated over the last couple of years.

I sort of feel like this may be the same way, at least in the short term, that like by doing this, it's not as though you're going to suddenly have a bunch of Republicans who are like, fantastic, these news organizations have all made big donations to the Trump Library.

We love them.

Like at least in the short term, it just means that kind of everybody's mad at you, even if for very different reasons.

Yeah, absolutely.

You don't win at all.

I don't know.

I think fighting is probably better, but they want this deal.

They want this deal to happen.

There have been threats later to go back at them as a bribe someday.

I doubt they'll get to that.

But so they're making that calculation that Democrats won't

wreak revenge once they get back in power.

But we'll see.

Maybe they will.

They have long memories.

And President Trump says he also has a buyer for TikTok, another thing that he's doing in the media.

Let's listen to a climp of the announcement on Fox News and interview with Maria Bartaroma.

We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way.

I think I'll need probably China approval, and I think President Xi will probably do it.

Which is fine.

I'll tell you in about two weeks.

A big technology company there.

Very, very wealthy people.

It's a group of very wealthy people.

The potential buyers reported the same investor consortium before the first bid stalled amidst trade talks, Oracle Corp., Blackstone Inc., and Andreessen Horowitz.

The president recently signed an executive order extending the deadline for the third time.

The law requires ByteDance to divest from the platform, so we'll see.

Polling a few months ago showed support for TikTok bans standing at 34%.

Not great.

Where are we on polling this?

Have people forgotten given all the other news happening?

Polling on the TikTok ban has been fascinating because a couple of years ago, when you did polling around something like TikTok, there were real concerns about it, right?

Is this Chinese propaganda?

Is this warping kids' minds?

Is it taking too much of their attention?

And, you know, when this was initially proposed and passed by Congress, it was reasonably popular.

Really, the only people who were particularly mad about it were the kids who used TikTok.

But TikTok very, very smartly was able to marshal their users

to make the case, how can you take this from us?

And I think because Donald Trump perceives that he won his election in part by doing well among some of these disaffected Gen Zers who may be using a lot of TikTok, he's not inclined to tick off that constituency.

And so he loves to be viewed as a dealmaker.

His position on China is fascinating because he likes to talk about being tough on China, but he also likes to talk about

coming to deals with Xi.

So this is sort of ready-made to be the kind of thing where even though being tough on China is almost never a losing position within the Republican coalition, on this one, the very particular constituency of who really loves TikTok is a group that Trump is trying to win over.

And so it's good if he comes to a deal, even if he hands it over to people or not.

If he doesn't, what happens?

If China says, fuck you, like no way we're doing this.

Well, I'm curious about how legally this can all proceed because my understanding is that Congress was pretty clear that this has to happen.

And so I expect if Trump does, you know, how much longer can he keep saying like, yeah, yeah, yeah, Congress, you passed this law, but I'm kind of not going to follow it because I don't really feel like it.

Like at a certain point, doesn't the court have to intervene?

no you'd think congress would do its job but they seem to be abrogating a lot of well congress is saying that they already did their job and so that's like this is now you know they've already passed a bill saying that trump has to do this yes they hold him to account over so many things

just like come on it's like down the list like i don't know he doesn't listen to them and otherwise but it'll be interesting to see if he gets a real bump if something really comes off, even if he's handing it over to his friends, whether it's Larry Ellison or Mark Andreessen, correct?

I mean, nobody cares about that.

That these rich people are getting another break, essentially.

He will just love that he can say, I made another deal.

And it will

just add one more piece to the puzzle of his kind of brand image on that front.

Right.

So that works more than the particulars.

All right, Kristen, let's go on a quick break.

When we come back, I'm very excited to talk to you about this.

Trump targets New York City mayoral candidate Zoran Mamdani.

At blinds.com, it's not just about window treatments.

It's about you, your style, your space, your way.

Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right.

From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows.

Because at blinds.com, the only thing we treat better than windows is you.

Visit blinds.com now for up to 40% off-site-wide, plus a professional measure at no cost.

Rules and restrictions apply.

Hey, this is Peter Kafka.

I'm the host of Channels, a show about the biggest ideas in tech and media and how those things collide.

And today we're talking about AI, which is promising and maybe terrifying.

And if you happen to be in a very select group of engineers that Mark Zuckerberg wants to hire, it's incredibly lucrative.

Which is why I had the New York Times Mike Isaac explain what's going on with the great AI pay race.

I'm talking to executives across the industry who are pissed off at Mark Zuckerberg because he has dumped the entire market for this stuff, right?

And like this is something that's painful for OpenAI, I think, because they can't shell out a quarter of a billion dollars for one dude.

That's this week on channels, wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

Kristen, we're back.

Official results are in for New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, and Zoran Mandani took it away with a massive 12% lead.

Mamdani still faces a general election, which will include incumbent Mayor Eric Adams and potentially Andrew Cuomo again.

Meanwhile, President Trump was asked about Mamdani at a press briefing on Tuesday and made some pretty bold claims.

Let's listen to a clip of Trump's response to being asked what he would do if Mamdani blocked ICE raids in the city.

Well, then we'll have to arrest him.

Look.

We don't need a communist in this country, but if we have one, I'm going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation.

Trump then took things a little further, saying this.

A lot of people are saying he's here illegally.

He's, you know, we're going to look at everything.

Mamdani was naturalized as a U.S.

citizen in 2018.

He responded on social media saying we will not accept this intimidation.

Any big takeaways from Mamdani's official win, Kristen?

And also these threats, which are troubling, I would say, to say the least.

Yeah, in terms of the win, first,

I cannot imagine why the sort of Democratic establishment thought that selling Andrew Cuomo with all of his baggage was going to work.

It is in some ways kind of appalling and in an indictment of New York's Democratic establishment that they couldn't come up with a better alternative.

But I also don't want to take anything away from Mamdani here.

I think making the number one issue, the number one issue, which is cost of living, stuff costs too much and it should cost less is it is that's the right strategy.

And he paired it with, and this is something that I also think AOC is so good at, despite the fact that like, I don't agree with her on a ton of policy, but I rate her very highly as a political communicator.

She's very good at showing up where voters are and speaking to them the way voters want to be spoken to.

It's not condescending.

It's not

overly fancy or overly technical, but it's not.

dumb.

It's not dumbed down, so to speak.

It's just speaking normally.

And like most politicians are just allergic to doing that for reasons I cannot comprehend.

And he's very good at it.

The video of him talking about like make halal $8 again

was a really great video.

Like stuff like that's so good.

You liked him a little bit, didn't you?

You liked him.

Sort of like Trump in a lot of ways.

Look,

I think that populism plus T, not even TV savvy, but like media savvy is a very potent combination.

And I think he has it.

And, but I would also say, I think there's a lot of like overreading into this about what it means ideologically.

There was a quote from a Democratic strategist like the morning after the win that was something like, oh, our base, they're always voting for these insane ideas and these far left lunatics.

And it was this like real contempt for the Democratic base coming from this like centrist democratic strategist.

But I don't actually think that the democratic base on the whole is super ideologically to the left.

On economic issues, like they are very open to a robust role for government, but I don't think that actually the majority of the Democratic electorate is like truly DSA aligned.

And so what works in a Democratic primary in Manhattan is not necessarily transferable anywhere.

The other thing that I think is very valuable, though, to learn from Momdani's win, if you looked at the age breakouts of people who voted in this primary, younger voters were like the biggest group of voters.

That almost never happens.

And especially in a primary, which is always like a really low turnout sort of thing.

It's exactly the kind of contest young voters typically sit out.

He turned them out.

So I take nothing away from him on those grounds, even though I disagree with him on a lot of policy.

I think this feud between him and Trump is,

it's probably going to benefit both parties involved as much as I think like the whole idea of trying to denaturalize someone because you don't like what they're saying, I think is terrible.

Everything I said earlier about free speech, right?

We should not be in the business of trying to punish people's speech and saying, we don't like what you said.

That does not pull well.

I can't imagine.

People do not want people generally just like deported because you are, you know, left-leaning or you said, even in the cases where you've said something that's really offensive.

Like if you are a naturalized U.S.

citizen, being deported, I cannot imagine is something that would be popular.

At the same time, Donald Trump is going to love the elevation of Momdani as like the face of the Democratic Party.

He will think that is a very advantageous dynamic for the White House.

At the same time, that it's probably good for Mamdani politically to be coming under fire from Trump because to the extent that there were any like wavering establishment Democrats or centrist Democrats who are like, oh, maybe we just vote for Eric Adams because we can't with this crazy guy.

If all of a sudden he is like the poster child for I am taking the fight to Trump, that probably does pretty well to unify the Democratic base behind you as you move into a general election in November.

So it's not to say that there was like a Republican candidate who I think was going to win and become mayor of New York, but to the extent that there are independent challenges, it's probably good for Mamdani to have to be in the line of fire for New York.

The ratings are good, as Trump would say.

But talk about where he did well.

He did well with young people.

What kills me is that they're like, young people don't vote.

And then they vote.

They're like, we don't like how young people vote.

And it was sort of like they're voting and it's up to them to decide what they want.

Do you see, you know, the Democratic reaction has been really interesting and sort of they're upset.

They're largely upset around globalize the intifati won't push back on that that seems to be the focus but they also were sort of shocked by this in a way that i i wasn't shocked or or other people weren't it's really interesting because when you look at voters they they they complain about young people not voting and then they did and they didn't like it and the same thing was with sanders whether it was with aoc they're hugely popular why why the response of the democratic establishment well this reminds me a lot of the

sort of freak out that a lot of Republican strategists had when the Tea Party movement was getting going in the sense that it was very like it felt like, oh, these people are kind of off-putting to me and they're going to drag our party in a direction that's going to make it impossible for us to win elections.

And that wasn't 100%.

true.

And I think the same thing is the case here, that I think there are certain positions that the sort of further left wing of the Democratic Party takes that have been a big political problem for Democrats.

I think it is true that they pulled Democrats too far to the left on a number of things that gave Trump this big opening.

But with that said, like I think in the case of New York City, the idea that suddenly like somebody like Mom Dani is going to win a primary for like the South Carolina Senate seat, yeah, if that happened, then Democrats aren't winning the South Carolina Senate seat.

Like that's true, but you also have to adapt to like what's, what's the right candidate for my area?

And like, who are, who are the voters there?

What do they care about?

And so something that is okay in New York may not be okay for trying to pick up a swing congressional seat in Iowa, but smart parties are able to

understand that different electorates exist in different places.

Right.

And so Mom Donnie's approach can be used by a centrist, right?

It just depends if you're genuine.

The qualities here are genuineness.

And one of the things I was struck by is Bill Stepian, who's a very well-known Republican campaign person,

said, don't make fun of this guy.

He's like, in the similar way, people are like, I used to say, don't make fun of Trump.

Like, Trump is interesting, right?

Do you see that at all?

He, it was interested that he said that when they were sort of touting, oh, no, now we've got them.

I'm like, do you?

Because he's really attractive, like, in so many ways.

I think I 100% agree with Stepian on this one.

I think.

communication savvy genuineness as you described that matters so much There is so much

noise and there is so much stuff that politicians say and do that just sounds the same.

And it just washes over people.

People can pick up a talking point from a thousand yards away.

And if you are able to communicate in a way that does not sound like you're just regurgitating talking points, that doesn't sound like it's something you've, you know, you're just saying because like you've been fed it by a consultant, the benefit that the thing that makes Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders similar is that you actually believe they believe the things they are saying at some level.

And that goes a long way.

Like, I believe Mom Dani believes the things that he says.

So even if I don't agree with him, like at least that's, you get, you get some points for that.

What about freshness?

Is that something that's important?

Do you think they're calling it an earthquake for the Democratic part?

Do you think that's the case?

I would caution everybody from reading too much into a primary election in New York, but I think it ought to be a wake-up call for anyone who thinks that you can just defend the status quo.

That this is a wake-up call that in order to win elections in 2025, you have to be the candidate of change.

You have to be.

You had to be the candidate of change in 2024, which was a big reason why Joe Biden was in trouble.

And then the handoff to Kamala Harris was ultimately unsuccessful.

You have to be the candidate of change.

You have to be the candidate of what's new.

And Mamdani was able.

to channel that very, very, very effectively.

Now, last question.

What would you advise him to do now if he, you you know, he's going to do what he wants to do, but what's the most important thing he does?

I would advise Mamdani to focus in on the cost of living question relentlessly.

Do not get pulled in these other directions.

He has said and done a lot of things in his past that his opponents did not dredge up in the primary that are going to get dredged up now.

But I think if he keeps his message focused on cost of living and does not become over-consultantified and keeps his message pretty focused on we need New York to be a livable city again.

I think he will succeed.

Now, if he ultimately becomes mayor and he tries to implement these policies and things like city-run grocery stores or rent freezes have all of these second and third-order negative effects that folks on the right think are inevitably going to happen, then the backlash will come.

But for the moment, I do think that Republicans should be wary of thinking, oh, let's just elevate this guy and like it'll be great that he's the face of the Democratic Party.

I think media savvy populism really sells and be careful of thinking that you can make that really, really, really unpopular.

Yeah, I always see them put up lists on Fox News, and I'm like, that sounds good.

It was just, I'm like, are you trying to get him elected?

It's kind of funny.

All right, one more quick break.

We'll be back for predictions.

Okay, Kristen, let's hear a prediction.

I predict that the F1 movie starring Brad Pitt, which came out a week ago and did very well at the box office, both domestically and globally, I think it's going to have legs.

I know this weekend it is going up against a new Jurassic Park movie, but I think this F1 movie is fantastic.

I'm a big F1 fan.

I saw it last week.

I almost never see movies in theaters anymore, but it was so worth it.

My prediction, this movie is going to have legs.

Yeah.

I'm excited to see that Apple finally has a hit.

Like they've done a lot of great movies, but they haven't had a big hit like this.

And people will worry that F1 had jumped the shark a little bit, you know, in terms of expanding too quickly.

But it's really good.

I'm excited to see it.

I'm excited.

I may have to go with you because my wife doesn't want to see it, Kristen.

I may have to go again.

I'll go back and see it again.

All right.

I would love to go back and see it again.

I'm excited to see it.

My prediction has to do with Mark Zuckerberg's creation of Meta Superintelligence Labs this week.

This is a group that will be focusing on Meta's AI efforts.

He's been on a hiring spree grabbing top talent.

Zoe Schiffer from Wired had a great scoop.

Zuckerberg offered pay packages up to $300 million over four years.

One open AI staffer told Wire that's about how much it would take for me to go work at Meta.

Though Meta is saying the size and structure of these compensation packages have been misrepresented all over the place.

That's not, he is trying very hard to do this.

I do not think he's going to be successful.

I mean, I don't think they did a lot of due diligence on scale AI as much as they should have.

I think it's a lot more internally.

kind of a chaos.

I think there's going to be a lot of chaos here.

And just grabbing all these people and creating like an Avengers theme, that's what they're calling it.

I don't think it always works.

I don't think doing that is particularly smart.

He has had a lot of misses, although the stock is at an all-time high.

Let's be clear.

They're doing great in the areas they've always done great in.

But, you know,

we renamed the company Meta in order to go into the metaverse.

And that was a $10, $20 billion disaster, and they can afford it.

I just don't think he has the same sense of...

innovation that someone like Elon Musk or even OpenAI or other companies has.

So I think this might be, I think he can afford to do this, but I think it's really the wrong way to go about doing innovation.

So I'm not so sure it will pay off in the way he thinks it will.

We'll see.

How does he poll?

Not well, I guess, correct?

Do people like him?

I think most of the tech billionaire type folks have not polled particularly well.

I think like 10 years ago, there was a sense of like cool and excitement around them that now has sort of faded.

Has waned.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I know.

He's leading the way.

And the Bezos wedding, I'm guessing that didn't pull well.

I have not, you know what?

I haven't pulled on it, but we're actually putting a survey in the field next week.

So if you think of any question you would want me to ask the American public about this wedding, you let me know.

Was this a heinous display of wealth in the most grotesque and tasteless way?

There's my question.

If you had gotten invited, would you have gone?

That might be an interesting question.

You know, of course.

Of course.

You want to see this ridiculous traffic accident up close.

I mean, and for the bag alone, the swag bag alone, I suppose, I guess.

I don't know.

I'd want to see it, but I would be terrible and take pictures and put them out the whole time.

I'd be terrible.

I'd be the worst.

You would break the rules right away.

You remember wedding, wedding crashers?

That's Kara Swisher.

Anyway, we want to hear from you.

Send us your questions about business tech or whatever's on your mind.

Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 85551 pivot.

Okay, that's the show.

Kristen, thank you so much.

I find you to be so smart.

I like, I can almost become a Republican.

Oh, thank you for having me.

It's an honor to be on the big show.

Yeah, the big show.

You're on the big show.

You did, you delivered with all kinds of information.

Scott should hang his head.

You have so much good data.

And that's what's important to our listeners to get the real deal

and to really say what's happening, which is really important.

Anyway, thanks for listening to Pivot and be sure to like and subscribe to our YouTube channel, which is fast growing.

Actually, we'll be back next week.

I will read us out.

Today's show is produced by Lara Naiman, Zoe Marcus, Taylor Griffin, and Kevin Oliver.

Ernie Enderdott engineered this episode, thanks also to Kate Gallagher.

Nishat Kirwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts.

Make sure to follow Pivot on your favorite podcast platform.

Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media.

You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com/slash pod.

We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business.