April 5, 2024 • 23 mins
Spencer Snyder looks at Uncommitted Voting in the Democratic primary and the history of registering votes of 'no confidence' in America. Then James Li speaks to Ben Bergman from Business Insider about his new residential real estate tech company Flow, bus is it another Scam?
Subscribe to Spencer: https://www.youtube.com/@SpencerSnyder
Subscribe to James Li: https://www.youtube.com/@5149jamesli
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
it just means the absolute world to have your support.
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Look, uncommitted got thirteen percent. That's not nothing. But in
twenty twelve, where there was no big uncommitted campaign against
that incumbent President Barack Obama, uncommitted got eleven percent. Now
I'm not a big mathematician, but eleven percent and thirteen percent.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
I don't have the budget for a giant touchcreen TV
to do pundit math on, but I do have a
pen and paper, so let's do some pundent math. In
twenty twenty four and the Democratic primary in Michigan, uncommitted
received thirteen percent. This uncommitted vote being part of an
effort to scare the Biden administration into discontinuing the us
A support for the assault on Gaza, in which Israel
has killed about thirty thousand people. Others have expect you lated,
(01:00):
the number could be as high as two hundred thousand.
In twenty twelve, the last election in which a Democrat,
Obama was up for reelection, eleven percent voted uncommitted. Those
numbers are pretty close, and actually, in two thousand and eight,
about forty percent voted uncommitted in the Democratic primary, and
as a matter of fact, nineteen ninety six, eighty six
percent voted uncommitted in Michigan. Now I can understand why
(01:21):
someone might look at the twenty twelve number and think, well,
what happened in twenty twenty four isn't terribly unusual. I
do not understand, however, how a data person at a
national news agency could look at those numbers and think
they're comparable, because they're not. Those numbers are for completely
different reasons. They have nothing to do with each other.
The twenty twelve number is as irrelevant as the two
(01:41):
thousand and eight number and the ninety six number. I
will explain now, Michigan might have been the first state
in the uncommitted campaign, but since then, hundreds of thousands
have voted uncommitted around the country. Routinely outperforming all the
other Democratic candidates combined, and we're not done with primaries yet.
Some people are unmoved by this. Some voters logged protest
(02:03):
votes against President Biden on Super Tuesday, but in many places,
proportionally it was a smaller share than in twenty twelve. Obama,
you will recall one reelection, but the uncommitted vote in
twenty twenty four does say something serious and unique and
could absolutely help inform how the general election is going
to go. Now, you might have heard people say something like, who,
(02:27):
Michigan is a purple state. We are a state that
frequently votes uncommitted. Yeah, it does kind of. In nineteen
ninety six and the Democratic primary, one hundred and twenty
three thousand people voted uncommitted in Michigan. In nineteen ninety six,
Michigan switched to an open primary in addition to holding
a caucus. However, the National Democratic Party didn't recognize open
(02:47):
primaries for presidential elections, so all the candidates removed their
names from the ballot. The options in the primary that
year vote uncommitted or write in a name, and so
uncommitted got eighty six percent and the U fourteen percent
were right ends two thousand and eight in the Michigan
Democratic primary. That's an interesting year because that year saw
two hundred and thirty eight thousand people vote uncommitted, almost
(03:10):
forty percent of the vote. That's because that year Michigan
tried to challenge the DNC rules. See, Michigan wanted to
have more influence, so they moved their primary earlier that
year to January fifteenth, which was before Super Tuesday. But
there were only four states allowed to vote before Super Tuesday,
and Michigan was not one of them. So in response
(03:31):
to this, pretty much everyone took their name off the ballot.
So if you wanted to vote for Edwards or Obama
or Biden, you would to vote uncommitted. So in those elections,
the option to vote uncommitted was a way to vote
for someone who for whatever reason wasn't on the ballot,
but as a protest vote. There was a lot more
to this, and this is actually an important topic that
(03:53):
is generally under explored. The option to vote for none
of the above is something I think everyone should have
the right to do. This year, the entire country saw that.
In the Republican primary in Nevada, Nikki Haley was defeated
by none of these candidates. I don't think there is
anything that could possibly represent the spirit of Nikki Haley's
participation in the Republican primary this year better than this image.
(04:15):
But none of these candidates is on all of Nevada's ballots,
and none of these candidates has won in the past.
In twenty fourteen, in the Democratic primary for governor Nevada,
Democrats chose none of these candidates. There's actually been an
effort to remove this option from the ballot because supposedly
it disenfranchises voters through its spoiler effect, And generally speaking,
(04:37):
I think the spoiler effect and labeling certain candidates as
spoilers is a really toxic element in our political discourse. However,
if we're being generous, it can be at least an
accurate diagnosis if you are truly talking about someone whose
voters might plausibly draw from someone else. So in the
case of RFK, for example, I think a number of
(05:00):
his supporters would vote for Trump, whereas someone voting for
Cornell West is less likely to vote for Biden no
matter what. But let's think about someone who votes for
none of these candidates. If you are so dissatisfied with
everyone on the ballot, that you put on clothes, you
get in your car, you drive to your polling place,
just to mark on your ballot that you hate your
(05:21):
options and ostensibly don't care who wins. You're only showing
up to register your dissatisfaction. If that person goes to
vote and realizes they can't choose none of these candidates,
their vote would probably go to a candidate who didn't
have much of a chance to win anyway, And for sure,
you're removing the ballot option that actually represented that person's desires,
which is some way of expressing non consent. But on
(05:45):
the occasion when none of these candidates does well or
even wins, it certainly has a delegitimizing effect, which I
assume is a reason people have tried to get this
option removed from the ballot in Nevada, since this option
has no actual concept, because what happens if none of
these candidates wins, the election then defaults to the person
(06:05):
who came in second. So in twenty fourteen, the thirty
percent who voted none of these candidates were tossed aside
and the election went to this guy. Where this would
really become a threat is in the case where a
vote of non consent had actual consequences. Now, there are
places where a none of the above vote would trigger
(06:26):
a new election. In Colombia, for example, if a blank
vote receives a simple majority, not only does it trigger
a new election, all the candidates on the ballot are
precluded from participating in that new election. How do you
think that would change to the political landscape in the
US if we knew that we could go to the
polls in November, vote blank, and then get a new
(06:48):
election where neither Trump nor Biden were allowed to run.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
Leave a comment.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
Do you think in such a scenario, Blank would win?
Because I can't even fathom such a hypothetical. If people
thought that the candidates amounted to an etch a sketch,
they could shake in November. But for right now, how
you'd express your dissatisfaction is by voting third party alternative candidates,
or by staying home, or in the states where you
can voting uncommitted or none of the above. Would you
(07:14):
consider voting uncommitted? Love it, respected, encourage it, help people
do it. No, I can understand why people want to, but.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
I won't be Why not yeah, yeah.
Speaker 6 (07:27):
Honestly too.
Speaker 7 (07:28):
The I mean, the whole situation there is horrible.
Speaker 5 (07:32):
I'm just not informed enough to be able to commit
or not commit.
Speaker 7 (07:35):
But what can you do with your vote that would
actually make a difference the property? I get it, I
would consider it.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
In the prim area.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
Eleven percent, twenty twelve, thirteen percent, and twenty twenty four,
what's the difference. Way fewer people have voted uncommitted against
Joe Biden is time then did against Barack Obama in
twenty twelve, which means that this time around is also immaterial.
It also means that the other uncommitted votes in other
states are probably not worth paying attention to. This is incorrect. Dearborn,
(08:04):
Michigan has a huge air population. In twenty twelve, their
congressional district voted thirteen percent uncommitted. There is no effort
to unite in an uncommitted vote, and so Dearborn's district
voted uncommitted at the same rate every other place did,
whereas in twenty twenty four they voted fifty seven percent uncommitted. Now,
after all the death in Gaza and the knowledge that
(08:26):
the US is doing things like authorizing the transfer of
two point five billion dollars of warplanes and weapons day Israel,
which includes eighteen hundred Mk eighty four two thousand pound bombs. Now,
the use of a two thousand pound bomb can amount
to a war crime because the blast radius is so big.
Speaker 6 (08:43):
For an example of the deadly reach this bomb has,
here is Yankee Stadium, and here is where you would
not want to be. Whereas aid to Gaza as of
March seventh, was only one hundred and eighty million dollars.
And so in twenty twenty four, uncommitted got one hundred
and one thousand votes in Michigan or thirteen point two percent.
Alternative ways you could compare twenty twenty four to twenty
(09:04):
twelve one.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
Hundred and one thousand votes for uncommitted. Obama only got
one hundred and seventy four thousand votes in twenty twelve.
But I think the most useful comparison is this twenty
years ago. In two thousand and four, Carry one Michigan
by one hundred and sixty thousand. Twenty sixteen was famously close.
Trump won by eleven thousand votes, and in twenty twenty
Biden won by one hundred and fifty four thousand votes,
(09:28):
so this number is pretty close to the margin of
victory in an important state. It just so happens because
of this uncommitted vote, people have the chance to use
the Democratic primary for something other than participating in a
predetermined outcome, which is to say that because the numbers
are big enough, because there is a big enough campaign,
you can register a vote of non consent and be
(09:49):
heard in a way that you normally can't. And in
twenty twenty four, it would seem this is the most
effective way to use the Democratic primary to actually say something,
and that will do it for me. My name is
Spencer Snyder. If you found this video interesting, make sure
you are subscribed to Breaking Points. You can also check
out my YouTube channel where I talk about media and
politics and things link in the description linking and sharing
(10:11):
always helps. Thank you to Breaking Points. Thank you so
much for watching, and I will see you in the
next one.
Speaker 7 (10:19):
Is we Work two point zero upon us. My name
is James Lee and you're watching beyond the Headlines on
Breaking Points after his turbulent departure from We Work and
amid new speculation of a possible reconciliation as his former
(10:42):
company struggles in bankruptcy. Adam Newman has embarked on another venture, Flow,
a still very secretive real estate startup, which is now
valued at one billion dollars, bolstered by a significant three
hundred and fifty million dollar investment from Mark Andreesen and
his venture capital firm A sixteen Z.
Speaker 5 (11:01):
We own three thousand apartments that we're running. We have
over one hundred and fifty employees. The business model that
we have is a vertically integrated system. We own the buildings,
we operate the buildings, We build a technology, we build
a community, and we build the teams up running them.
Speaker 7 (11:18):
Vertical integration, technology, community, buzzword after buzzword. So to try
and figure out what Flow actually is, I recently went
undercover inside one of their apartment buildings, the guy.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
That found few business.
Speaker 7 (11:34):
Yes, do you see that?
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Do you really any toms here?
Speaker 7 (11:41):
That video is on my YouTube channel fifty one to
forty nine with James Lee. Definitely check it out. But
today to give us even more insider knowledge into Flow,
we have with us, say front of the show, Ben Bergman.
He is a senior correspondent and business insider, where he
was the first reporter to set foot inside flows first
apartment building, which is located in Fort Lauderdale called Society
(12:02):
Las Olas.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Welcome, Ben, Thanks good to be here.
Speaker 7 (12:05):
All right, I want to start first with the original
A sixteen Z's three hundred and fifty million dollars funding
announcement of flow, which I would say was imbued heavily
with this rhetoric about solving America's housing crisis, the need
for more human connection. But then the solution, it seems
like now that they've presented, is just luxury condos. So
(12:28):
I don't know, maybe it's just me that's missing the sauce,
But can you help us square those two ideas? How
do they connect?
Speaker 5 (12:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (12:34):
I mean, this wouldn't be the first time that Silicon
Valley over sold something or made it seem more grand
than it really was. But yeah, when it was announced
A sixteen Z Andres and Horowitz, one of the most prestigious,
biggest venture firms out there, said you know, this is
what we're going to do to solve America's housing crisis.
And so a lot of people have been curious, what
(12:54):
exactly are they going to do or is it like
a rent to own model? Are they going to use crypto?
How are they going to use tech, and when I
actually visited the building, when I was the first reporter
to visit in November, it actually was pretty low tech
and not unlike a lot of other buildings that I've
visited that aren't flow properties.
Speaker 7 (13:15):
Yeah, so they outlined four or Newman specifically has outlined
what he calls the four pillars of flow. He's talking
about a branded technology company, a real estate company. There's
also potentially going to be a financial services component, and
a mechanism that will quote unquote share some of the
value or the venture's value with the value creator in
(13:37):
this case it's the renter. I know they only have
that one building so far that's been branded, But based
on your behind the scenes axis, how many of these
pillars have they been able to incorporate in the business
model so far? And are they looking If not, are
they looking to do more?
Speaker 5 (13:51):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (13:51):
I mean it's still very much in the preliminary stages,
and even the building I visited it is the farthest along,
but it's not yet branded as a flow property. No
one walking by or even living there would really know
that it's associated with Adam Newman. So I'd say that
these things are pretty conceptual unlike we work, Flow is
moving very slowly, and that's by design we work. I
(14:14):
think a lot of people associated with Flow feel like
moved too quickly. They were pushed by SoftBank, if you
accept that explanation to just expand so quickly. So Flow
is trying to do it much slower.
Speaker 7 (14:29):
They So can you talk to me a little did you?
Were you able to see any of the technology side
of things. I know that there's this app that they're
working on, which in your article you described it as
a Flow executive described it as a lubricant of the building.
I've stayed in apartments before, not even nice apartments, but
they also have an app. So how is this that
(14:49):
much different?
Speaker 5 (14:50):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (14:51):
I mean I was able to view the app, or
at least a prototype of it. And you know a
lot of modern buildings, yes, you can pay rent and
you can you know, request maintenance and other things, but
this is different. For one thing, it's all seamless, it's
much easier to use. It also allows you to connect
(15:12):
with other residents. It could be something that you could
use at all Flow properties. It allows you to do
commerce to you know, promote your business, and to have
playlists in the building. So yes, a lot of buildings
use apps. But the idea is that this would be
a lot better than that.
Speaker 5 (15:29):
Got it.
Speaker 7 (15:29):
And to go to the second pillar, the real estate
component of it is this, is there something different to
this business model than to say, traditional real estate investing?
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Well not really, and that's you know, part of the
puzzlement around this, right because real estate is very asset heavy.
You have to own the buildings. That's a business that's
been around for a long time. It's certainly not a
tech business. It's much lower margins. There's not like any secret,
it's not scalable, so just like we work. I think
(16:02):
there's a lot of questions about how this would be
a tech company given that you have to have the
real estate.
Speaker 7 (16:08):
How quickly are they able or are they wanting to
incorporate new properties because I know, based on my research,
Adam Newman owns a number of different properties all over
the country. So what's the pipeline looking like in terms
of branding it as a flow property.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Yeah, so he owns about five of these and you know,
but certain ones of them are under contract, so they
can't be run by flow yet, but I eventually they
would be. But there's also other buildings where he can
operate more quickly. So they've been vague about the timeline.
(16:46):
This one I visited will be the first one this
year to be actually unveiled as a flow property, but
they haven't even said when they're doing that. They've said
early twenty twenty four, and then after that maybe a
couple more.
Speaker 7 (16:58):
And the finance services component of it, what is that
looking like? Is that an incorporation of crypto or are
there other things? You know, is there going to be
some kind of model where the renter is somehow going
to be more tied to the property than just the
(17:18):
traditional you know, paying rent.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
There was talk of crypto when it was first announced,
and Adam Newman did have some crypto ventures, but that
doesn't seem to be the case as much now. I
think the idea is that, you know, for most people,
the biggest expense every month easily is what they spend
on rent, So they are already controlling that and they
(17:41):
can use that in many other ways to help, you know,
you spend money in other ways, and also make it
all sort of an app on your wallet. And also
just like you get credit card or board points, you
would get rewards for being loyal there, or to businesses
they select, or there's also the example of you know,
they know that you are really into dogs, so they
(18:04):
could help you find dog walking services, or if you're
a die walker, they could help you advertise that. So
they really feel like that's underutilized in apartments right now.
Speaker 7 (18:14):
What is this community building?
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Ask?
Speaker 7 (18:16):
But were you able to talk to any of the
residents at Society les Olus, what's been their experience, what
are they looking forward to and is this really something
that renters are looking for.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
I was able to talk to a couple of residents,
and granted, the residents I've talked to were selected to
me by flow, so said they were naturally predisposed to
like it, but they did really love being there, and
they found that this social commerce aspect, so to speak,
was so lucrative for them that they would live there
or at least have a place there, even if they
(18:47):
weren't living there, because they said, you know, they've been
able to meet a lot of customers and really help
grow their business. And you know, I think that's certainly
true for certain businesses, like I talked to one guy
who was selling insurance and there you're trying to constantly
meet people. If you're just you know, a professional, not
(19:08):
trying to meet customers, it's not as clear how flow
would help you. But this is something they're very into,
and you know, I think actually makes more sense than
we work. I've worked at we work for a long time,
but I've never actually really met anyone else that we
work aside from my immediate colleagues. But I think when
you're spending all day and all night with people in
(19:30):
a building, you're much more likely to interact with them.
Speaker 7 (19:33):
So it sounds like this building is all encompassing. Obviously
you live there, but there's also an office component, you
have working spaces, it's they definitely have recreational spaces, pools,
lounges and things like that. So is the idea here
that you just never have to leave?
Speaker 5 (19:52):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (19:53):
I mean that That is what I was told several
times by residents, is I never have to leave because yes,
it is all there. You wouldn't need we work, right
because there is like a nicer or as nice coworking
space there. You would have all your friends there, you
would have the amenities, and you would have so many
things going on. I mean, they do help plan trips
(20:14):
and other events. But the idea is that everything would
be under the Flow umbrella.
Speaker 7 (20:19):
And then the ownership aspect. This idea that Adam Newman
through out there letting the tenants build equity, is that
something that's actually on the table at Flow or is
this more of just rhetoric from the initial announcement to say, hey,
we're going to solve the housing crisis.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
This was probably something that got the most attention, the
most head scratching, because Adam Newman and also Mark and
Dreasen did allude to this that you know, Mark and
Dreasen said, well, I kind of marveling at how people
will pay rent for ten years and never own anything,
but that really seems to not be the case. Adam
(20:58):
Newman's camp, you know, has been very rare of any
connotations with rent to own, and what it would look
like is much more like a loyalty program, like a
frequent flyer program, so you would have loyalty to the building,
but not any sort of actually getting equity in your apartment.
Speaker 7 (21:14):
Okay, so I don't know about you, but I'm not
personally sure how Flow is going to do anything to
solve the housing crisis. But I do want to touch
on the business side of things. So they raised three
hundred fifty million dollars initially from Andrews and Horowitz. What
do you know, what is the current valuation right now?
What's the long term goal? Specifically, is there an exit strategy?
(21:37):
Is this going to go in the direction of we
work or is this the next potentially Wall Street juggernaut
in the real estate sector.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Well, so, yeah, they raised three hundred and fifty million
from Andreyes. Adam Newman also put in three hundred and
fifty million. That was at a billion dollar valuation, and
that's still the valuation. There has not been new funding,
and I think they're trying to you know, I'm sure
that Andreas and Adam Newman did not get into this
to make a one billion dollar company. They would like
(22:08):
a much more valuable company. But they they say, at
least they are trying to build the business slowly, really
pay attention to the details rather than what happened when
we work, which is trying to make it, you know,
a trillion dollar company or just something that grew so
quickly that they kind of lost track of.
Speaker 7 (22:27):
Yeah, is this do you think this is something that
they're eventually going to offload or is it going to IPO.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
I mean, I think that's a that's a ways off
I don't think that's that's really the thought now. I
mean the thought is to build it into a huge
brand and a huge business and then worry about that later,
all right, got it?
Speaker 7 (22:49):
Yeah, So then eventually every city will have a Flow property.
Everybody's gonna love it. It's going to be kind of
a utopian little a slice of utopia, if you might,
in every single city.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Yes, exactly.
Speaker 7 (23:03):
All right, Well, so we'll have to see how that
all shakes out. But Ben, I know you're on Business Insider,
but anywhere else in particular you want to point viewers
if they want to find more of your.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Work, Yeah, you can just find me on Twitter at
the Ben Bergman.
Speaker 7 (23:17):
I'm on Twitter X. I guess it is now awesome?
All right, Well, Ben, thank you so much for coming
on the show today. I really appreciate your time and
your insights. Thanks so much, anytime if you like to
learn a little bit more about Flow. I also did
a deep dive documentary style investigation in which I even
went undercover at Society Los Olas. The video is posted
(23:38):
on my YouTube channel fifty one forty nine with James Lee.
Head on over check that out, give me a follow.
The link will be in the description below. As always,
like to thank you for your time today and keep
on tuning into breaking points.
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
it just means the absolute world to have your support.
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Look, uncommitted got thirteen percent. That's not nothing. But in
twenty twelve, where there was no big uncommitted campaign against
that incumbent President Barack Obama, uncommitted got eleven percent. Now
I'm not a big mathematician, but eleven percent and thirteen percent.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
I don't have the budget for a giant touchcreen TV
to do pundit math on, but I do have a
pen and paper, so let's do some pundent math. In
twenty twenty four and the Democratic primary in Michigan, uncommitted
received thirteen percent. This uncommitted vote being part of an
effort to scare the Biden administration into discontinuing the us
A support for the assault on Gaza, in which Israel
has killed about thirty thousand people. Others have expect you lated,
(01:00):
the number could be as high as two hundred thousand.
In twenty twelve, the last election in which a Democrat,
Obama was up for reelection, eleven percent voted uncommitted. Those
numbers are pretty close, and actually, in two thousand and eight,
about forty percent voted uncommitted in the Democratic primary, and
as a matter of fact, nineteen ninety six, eighty six
percent voted uncommitted in Michigan. Now I can understand why
(01:21):
someone might look at the twenty twelve number and think, well,
what happened in twenty twenty four isn't terribly unusual. I
do not understand, however, how a data person at a
national news agency could look at those numbers and think
they're comparable, because they're not. Those numbers are for completely
different reasons. They have nothing to do with each other.
The twenty twelve number is as irrelevant as the two
(01:41):
thousand and eight number and the ninety six number. I
will explain now, Michigan might have been the first state
in the uncommitted campaign, but since then, hundreds of thousands
have voted uncommitted around the country. Routinely outperforming all the
other Democratic candidates combined, and we're not done with primaries yet.
Some people are unmoved by this. Some voters logged protest
(02:03):
votes against President Biden on Super Tuesday, but in many places,
proportionally it was a smaller share than in twenty twelve. Obama,
you will recall one reelection, but the uncommitted vote in
twenty twenty four does say something serious and unique and
could absolutely help inform how the general election is going
to go. Now, you might have heard people say something like, who,
(02:27):
Michigan is a purple state. We are a state that
frequently votes uncommitted. Yeah, it does kind of. In nineteen
ninety six and the Democratic primary, one hundred and twenty
three thousand people voted uncommitted in Michigan. In nineteen ninety six,
Michigan switched to an open primary in addition to holding
a caucus. However, the National Democratic Party didn't recognize open
(02:47):
primaries for presidential elections, so all the candidates removed their
names from the ballot. The options in the primary that
year vote uncommitted or write in a name, and so
uncommitted got eighty six percent and the U fourteen percent
were right ends two thousand and eight in the Michigan
Democratic primary. That's an interesting year because that year saw
two hundred and thirty eight thousand people vote uncommitted, almost
(03:10):
forty percent of the vote. That's because that year Michigan
tried to challenge the DNC rules. See, Michigan wanted to
have more influence, so they moved their primary earlier that
year to January fifteenth, which was before Super Tuesday. But
there were only four states allowed to vote before Super Tuesday,
and Michigan was not one of them. So in response
(03:31):
to this, pretty much everyone took their name off the ballot.
So if you wanted to vote for Edwards or Obama
or Biden, you would to vote uncommitted. So in those elections,
the option to vote uncommitted was a way to vote
for someone who for whatever reason wasn't on the ballot,
but as a protest vote. There was a lot more
to this, and this is actually an important topic that
(03:53):
is generally under explored. The option to vote for none
of the above is something I think everyone should have
the right to do. This year, the entire country saw that.
In the Republican primary in Nevada, Nikki Haley was defeated
by none of these candidates. I don't think there is
anything that could possibly represent the spirit of Nikki Haley's
participation in the Republican primary this year better than this image.
(04:15):
But none of these candidates is on all of Nevada's ballots,
and none of these candidates has won in the past.
In twenty fourteen, in the Democratic primary for governor Nevada,
Democrats chose none of these candidates. There's actually been an
effort to remove this option from the ballot because supposedly
it disenfranchises voters through its spoiler effect, And generally speaking,
(04:37):
I think the spoiler effect and labeling certain candidates as
spoilers is a really toxic element in our political discourse. However,
if we're being generous, it can be at least an
accurate diagnosis if you are truly talking about someone whose
voters might plausibly draw from someone else. So in the
case of RFK, for example, I think a number of
(05:00):
his supporters would vote for Trump, whereas someone voting for
Cornell West is less likely to vote for Biden no
matter what. But let's think about someone who votes for
none of these candidates. If you are so dissatisfied with
everyone on the ballot, that you put on clothes, you
get in your car, you drive to your polling place,
just to mark on your ballot that you hate your
(05:21):
options and ostensibly don't care who wins. You're only showing
up to register your dissatisfaction. If that person goes to
vote and realizes they can't choose none of these candidates,
their vote would probably go to a candidate who didn't
have much of a chance to win anyway, And for sure,
you're removing the ballot option that actually represented that person's desires,
which is some way of expressing non consent. But on
(05:45):
the occasion when none of these candidates does well or
even wins, it certainly has a delegitimizing effect, which I
assume is a reason people have tried to get this
option removed from the ballot in Nevada, since this option
has no actual concept, because what happens if none of
these candidates wins, the election then defaults to the person
(06:05):
who came in second. So in twenty fourteen, the thirty
percent who voted none of these candidates were tossed aside
and the election went to this guy. Where this would
really become a threat is in the case where a
vote of non consent had actual consequences. Now, there are
places where a none of the above vote would trigger
(06:26):
a new election. In Colombia, for example, if a blank
vote receives a simple majority, not only does it trigger
a new election, all the candidates on the ballot are
precluded from participating in that new election. How do you
think that would change to the political landscape in the
US if we knew that we could go to the
polls in November, vote blank, and then get a new
(06:48):
election where neither Trump nor Biden were allowed to run.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
Leave a comment.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
Do you think in such a scenario, Blank would win?
Because I can't even fathom such a hypothetical. If people
thought that the candidates amounted to an etch a sketch,
they could shake in November. But for right now, how
you'd express your dissatisfaction is by voting third party alternative candidates,
or by staying home, or in the states where you
can voting uncommitted or none of the above. Would you
(07:14):
consider voting uncommitted? Love it, respected, encourage it, help people
do it. No, I can understand why people want to, but.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
I won't be Why not yeah, yeah.
Speaker 6 (07:27):
Honestly too.
Speaker 7 (07:28):
The I mean, the whole situation there is horrible.
Speaker 5 (07:32):
I'm just not informed enough to be able to commit
or not commit.
Speaker 7 (07:35):
But what can you do with your vote that would
actually make a difference the property? I get it, I
would consider it.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
In the prim area.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
Eleven percent, twenty twelve, thirteen percent, and twenty twenty four,
what's the difference. Way fewer people have voted uncommitted against
Joe Biden is time then did against Barack Obama in
twenty twelve, which means that this time around is also immaterial.
It also means that the other uncommitted votes in other
states are probably not worth paying attention to. This is incorrect. Dearborn,
(08:04):
Michigan has a huge air population. In twenty twelve, their
congressional district voted thirteen percent uncommitted. There is no effort
to unite in an uncommitted vote, and so Dearborn's district
voted uncommitted at the same rate every other place did,
whereas in twenty twenty four they voted fifty seven percent uncommitted. Now,
after all the death in Gaza and the knowledge that
(08:26):
the US is doing things like authorizing the transfer of
two point five billion dollars of warplanes and weapons day Israel,
which includes eighteen hundred Mk eighty four two thousand pound bombs. Now,
the use of a two thousand pound bomb can amount
to a war crime because the blast radius is so big.
Speaker 6 (08:43):
For an example of the deadly reach this bomb has,
here is Yankee Stadium, and here is where you would
not want to be. Whereas aid to Gaza as of
March seventh, was only one hundred and eighty million dollars.
And so in twenty twenty four, uncommitted got one hundred
and one thousand votes in Michigan or thirteen point two percent.
Alternative ways you could compare twenty twenty four to twenty
(09:04):
twelve one.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
Hundred and one thousand votes for uncommitted. Obama only got
one hundred and seventy four thousand votes in twenty twelve.
But I think the most useful comparison is this twenty
years ago. In two thousand and four, Carry one Michigan
by one hundred and sixty thousand. Twenty sixteen was famously close.
Trump won by eleven thousand votes, and in twenty twenty
Biden won by one hundred and fifty four thousand votes,
(09:28):
so this number is pretty close to the margin of
victory in an important state. It just so happens because
of this uncommitted vote, people have the chance to use
the Democratic primary for something other than participating in a
predetermined outcome, which is to say that because the numbers
are big enough, because there is a big enough campaign,
you can register a vote of non consent and be
(09:49):
heard in a way that you normally can't. And in
twenty twenty four, it would seem this is the most
effective way to use the Democratic primary to actually say something,
and that will do it for me. My name is
Spencer Snyder. If you found this video interesting, make sure
you are subscribed to Breaking Points. You can also check
out my YouTube channel where I talk about media and
politics and things link in the description linking and sharing
(10:11):
always helps. Thank you to Breaking Points. Thank you so
much for watching, and I will see you in the
next one.
Speaker 7 (10:19):
Is we Work two point zero upon us. My name
is James Lee and you're watching beyond the Headlines on
Breaking Points after his turbulent departure from We Work and
amid new speculation of a possible reconciliation as his former
(10:42):
company struggles in bankruptcy. Adam Newman has embarked on another venture, Flow,
a still very secretive real estate startup, which is now
valued at one billion dollars, bolstered by a significant three
hundred and fifty million dollar investment from Mark Andreesen and
his venture capital firm A sixteen Z.
Speaker 5 (11:01):
We own three thousand apartments that we're running. We have
over one hundred and fifty employees. The business model that
we have is a vertically integrated system. We own the buildings,
we operate the buildings, We build a technology, we build
a community, and we build the teams up running them.
Speaker 7 (11:18):
Vertical integration, technology, community, buzzword after buzzword. So to try
and figure out what Flow actually is, I recently went
undercover inside one of their apartment buildings, the guy.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
That found few business.
Speaker 7 (11:34):
Yes, do you see that?
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Do you really any toms here?
Speaker 7 (11:41):
That video is on my YouTube channel fifty one to
forty nine with James Lee. Definitely check it out. But
today to give us even more insider knowledge into Flow,
we have with us, say front of the show, Ben Bergman.
He is a senior correspondent and business insider, where he
was the first reporter to set foot inside flows first
apartment building, which is located in Fort Lauderdale called Society
(12:02):
Las Olas.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Welcome, Ben, Thanks good to be here.
Speaker 7 (12:05):
All right, I want to start first with the original
A sixteen Z's three hundred and fifty million dollars funding
announcement of flow, which I would say was imbued heavily
with this rhetoric about solving America's housing crisis, the need
for more human connection. But then the solution, it seems
like now that they've presented, is just luxury condos. So
(12:28):
I don't know, maybe it's just me that's missing the sauce,
But can you help us square those two ideas? How
do they connect?
Speaker 5 (12:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (12:34):
I mean, this wouldn't be the first time that Silicon
Valley over sold something or made it seem more grand
than it really was. But yeah, when it was announced
A sixteen Z Andres and Horowitz, one of the most prestigious,
biggest venture firms out there, said you know, this is
what we're going to do to solve America's housing crisis.
And so a lot of people have been curious, what
(12:54):
exactly are they going to do or is it like
a rent to own model? Are they going to use crypto?
How are they going to use tech, and when I
actually visited the building, when I was the first reporter
to visit in November, it actually was pretty low tech
and not unlike a lot of other buildings that I've
visited that aren't flow properties.
Speaker 7 (13:15):
Yeah, so they outlined four or Newman specifically has outlined
what he calls the four pillars of flow. He's talking
about a branded technology company, a real estate company. There's
also potentially going to be a financial services component, and
a mechanism that will quote unquote share some of the
value or the venture's value with the value creator in
(13:37):
this case it's the renter. I know they only have
that one building so far that's been branded, But based
on your behind the scenes axis, how many of these
pillars have they been able to incorporate in the business
model so far? And are they looking If not, are
they looking to do more?
Speaker 5 (13:51):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (13:51):
I mean it's still very much in the preliminary stages,
and even the building I visited it is the farthest along,
but it's not yet branded as a flow property. No
one walking by or even living there would really know
that it's associated with Adam Newman. So I'd say that
these things are pretty conceptual unlike we work, Flow is
moving very slowly, and that's by design we work. I
(14:14):
think a lot of people associated with Flow feel like
moved too quickly. They were pushed by SoftBank, if you
accept that explanation to just expand so quickly. So Flow
is trying to do it much slower.
Speaker 7 (14:29):
They So can you talk to me a little did you?
Were you able to see any of the technology side
of things. I know that there's this app that they're
working on, which in your article you described it as
a Flow executive described it as a lubricant of the building.
I've stayed in apartments before, not even nice apartments, but
they also have an app. So how is this that
(14:49):
much different?
Speaker 5 (14:50):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (14:51):
I mean I was able to view the app, or
at least a prototype of it. And you know a
lot of modern buildings, yes, you can pay rent and
you can you know, request maintenance and other things, but
this is different. For one thing, it's all seamless, it's
much easier to use. It also allows you to connect
(15:12):
with other residents. It could be something that you could
use at all Flow properties. It allows you to do
commerce to you know, promote your business, and to have
playlists in the building. So yes, a lot of buildings
use apps. But the idea is that this would be
a lot better than that.
Speaker 5 (15:29):
Got it.
Speaker 7 (15:29):
And to go to the second pillar, the real estate
component of it is this, is there something different to
this business model than to say, traditional real estate investing?
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Well not really, and that's you know, part of the
puzzlement around this, right because real estate is very asset heavy.
You have to own the buildings. That's a business that's
been around for a long time. It's certainly not a
tech business. It's much lower margins. There's not like any secret,
it's not scalable, so just like we work. I think
(16:02):
there's a lot of questions about how this would be
a tech company given that you have to have the
real estate.
Speaker 7 (16:08):
How quickly are they able or are they wanting to
incorporate new properties because I know, based on my research,
Adam Newman owns a number of different properties all over
the country. So what's the pipeline looking like in terms
of branding it as a flow property.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Yeah, so he owns about five of these and you know,
but certain ones of them are under contract, so they
can't be run by flow yet, but I eventually they
would be. But there's also other buildings where he can
operate more quickly. So they've been vague about the timeline.
(16:46):
This one I visited will be the first one this
year to be actually unveiled as a flow property, but
they haven't even said when they're doing that. They've said
early twenty twenty four, and then after that maybe a
couple more.
Speaker 7 (16:58):
And the finance services component of it, what is that
looking like? Is that an incorporation of crypto or are
there other things? You know, is there going to be
some kind of model where the renter is somehow going
to be more tied to the property than just the
(17:18):
traditional you know, paying rent.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
There was talk of crypto when it was first announced,
and Adam Newman did have some crypto ventures, but that
doesn't seem to be the case as much now. I
think the idea is that, you know, for most people,
the biggest expense every month easily is what they spend
on rent, So they are already controlling that and they
(17:41):
can use that in many other ways to help, you know,
you spend money in other ways, and also make it
all sort of an app on your wallet. And also
just like you get credit card or board points, you
would get rewards for being loyal there, or to businesses
they select, or there's also the example of you know,
they know that you are really into dogs, so they
(18:04):
could help you find dog walking services, or if you're
a die walker, they could help you advertise that. So
they really feel like that's underutilized in apartments right now.
Speaker 7 (18:14):
What is this community building?
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Ask?
Speaker 7 (18:16):
But were you able to talk to any of the
residents at Society les Olus, what's been their experience, what
are they looking forward to and is this really something
that renters are looking for.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
I was able to talk to a couple of residents,
and granted, the residents I've talked to were selected to
me by flow, so said they were naturally predisposed to
like it, but they did really love being there, and
they found that this social commerce aspect, so to speak,
was so lucrative for them that they would live there
or at least have a place there, even if they
(18:47):
weren't living there, because they said, you know, they've been
able to meet a lot of customers and really help
grow their business. And you know, I think that's certainly
true for certain businesses, like I talked to one guy
who was selling insurance and there you're trying to constantly
meet people. If you're just you know, a professional, not
(19:08):
trying to meet customers, it's not as clear how flow
would help you. But this is something they're very into,
and you know, I think actually makes more sense than
we work. I've worked at we work for a long time,
but I've never actually really met anyone else that we
work aside from my immediate colleagues. But I think when
you're spending all day and all night with people in
(19:30):
a building, you're much more likely to interact with them.
Speaker 7 (19:33):
So it sounds like this building is all encompassing. Obviously
you live there, but there's also an office component, you
have working spaces, it's they definitely have recreational spaces, pools,
lounges and things like that. So is the idea here
that you just never have to leave?
Speaker 5 (19:52):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (19:53):
I mean that That is what I was told several
times by residents, is I never have to leave because yes,
it is all there. You wouldn't need we work, right
because there is like a nicer or as nice coworking
space there. You would have all your friends there, you
would have the amenities, and you would have so many
things going on. I mean, they do help plan trips
(20:14):
and other events. But the idea is that everything would
be under the Flow umbrella.
Speaker 7 (20:19):
And then the ownership aspect. This idea that Adam Newman
through out there letting the tenants build equity, is that
something that's actually on the table at Flow or is
this more of just rhetoric from the initial announcement to say, hey,
we're going to solve the housing crisis.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
This was probably something that got the most attention, the
most head scratching, because Adam Newman and also Mark and
Dreasen did allude to this that you know, Mark and
Dreasen said, well, I kind of marveling at how people
will pay rent for ten years and never own anything,
but that really seems to not be the case. Adam
(20:58):
Newman's camp, you know, has been very rare of any
connotations with rent to own, and what it would look
like is much more like a loyalty program, like a
frequent flyer program, so you would have loyalty to the building,
but not any sort of actually getting equity in your apartment.
Speaker 7 (21:14):
Okay, so I don't know about you, but I'm not
personally sure how Flow is going to do anything to
solve the housing crisis. But I do want to touch
on the business side of things. So they raised three
hundred fifty million dollars initially from Andrews and Horowitz. What
do you know, what is the current valuation right now?
What's the long term goal? Specifically, is there an exit strategy?
(21:37):
Is this going to go in the direction of we
work or is this the next potentially Wall Street juggernaut
in the real estate sector.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Well, so, yeah, they raised three hundred and fifty million
from Andreyes. Adam Newman also put in three hundred and
fifty million. That was at a billion dollar valuation, and
that's still the valuation. There has not been new funding,
and I think they're trying to you know, I'm sure
that Andreas and Adam Newman did not get into this
to make a one billion dollar company. They would like
(22:08):
a much more valuable company. But they they say, at
least they are trying to build the business slowly, really
pay attention to the details rather than what happened when
we work, which is trying to make it, you know,
a trillion dollar company or just something that grew so
quickly that they kind of lost track of.
Speaker 7 (22:27):
Yeah, is this do you think this is something that
they're eventually going to offload or is it going to IPO.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
I mean, I think that's a that's a ways off
I don't think that's that's really the thought now. I
mean the thought is to build it into a huge
brand and a huge business and then worry about that later,
all right, got it?
Speaker 7 (22:49):
Yeah, So then eventually every city will have a Flow property.
Everybody's gonna love it. It's going to be kind of
a utopian little a slice of utopia, if you might,
in every single city.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Yes, exactly.
Speaker 7 (23:03):
All right, Well, so we'll have to see how that
all shakes out. But Ben, I know you're on Business Insider,
but anywhere else in particular you want to point viewers
if they want to find more of your.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Work, Yeah, you can just find me on Twitter at
the Ben Bergman.
Speaker 7 (23:17):
I'm on Twitter X. I guess it is now awesome?
All right, Well, Ben, thank you so much for coming
on the show today. I really appreciate your time and
your insights. Thanks so much, anytime if you like to
learn a little bit more about Flow. I also did
a deep dive documentary style investigation in which I even
went undercover at Society Los Olas. The video is posted
(23:38):
on my YouTube channel fifty one forty nine with James Lee.
Head on over check that out, give me a follow.
The link will be in the description below. As always,
like to thank you for your time today and keep
on tuning into breaking points.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.