March 13, 2024 • 25 mins
Prepare to navigate the complex waters of the 2024 elections with us . We're tackling the factors that are shaping the presidential race, including age, legal woes, persistent (though improved) inflation, and a booming stock market. Our discussion zeroes in on the curious case of third-party candidate Robert Kennedy, who might just tip the scales in this election. Peeling back the layers, we examine historical instances where third-party candidates have left a mark on election outcomes, analyze how vaccine skepticism could affect voter turnout, and speculate on the potential repercussions of voter apathy. This episode promises to equip you with a fresh perspective on the upcoming electoral showdown.
Amidst the anticipation of a Kennedy once again gracing the political stage, we dissect the mountainous challenges that independent candidates like Robert Kennedy must surmount within the rigid framework of the U.S. electoral system. Signature gathering hurdles loom large, but the strategic selection of a vice-presidential candidate with either political acumen or media allure could be a game-changer for his bid. Join us as we debate the resilience of the two-party system, the undercurrents within major parties, and how a robust third-party performance could reshape the political terrain. This episode isn't just about predictions; it's a panoramic view of the political landscape, capturing the spectrum of public sentiment from fervent expectation to weary indifference.
Straight Talk for All - Nonsense for None
Please check out our other podcasts:
https://skepticsguidetoinvesting.buzzsprout.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Clem Miller (00:02):
Welcome everybody to Skeptics Guide to Investing
with Steve Davenport and ClemMiller.
Today we're going to talk aboutprobably the first of many
episodes we'll be doing aboutthe 2024 elections and so,
jumping right in, it looks like,just as of yesterday, both
(00:26):
major candidates President Bidenand former President Trump have
clinched their respectivenominations in terms of vote
totals and, of course, they'vebeen starting to lay out the
details of their policy programs.
And you know there's obviouslya lot of issues that are out
(00:49):
there, both personal issuesabout the candidates as well as
policy issues.
So, if you think about thepersonal issues, obviously one
issue that's out there is theage, the advanced age, of really
both candidates.
You have the various lawsuitsand legal actions involving
(01:15):
former President Trump.
You've got the economy, whichis improving, but inflation
still remains somewhat high andthere's this sort of lagged
impression that some of thehigher levels of inflation are
(01:39):
sort of persistent and, ofcourse, some interest rates are
still high as well.
Now, on the flip side of that,you've got an improving stock
market, which helps somesegments of the voter population
.
Another issue that's out there,obviously, is what's going on.
Foreign policy issue is what'sgoing on with Israel and Gaza,
(02:04):
and you could add to that thevarious perceptions around the
Ukraine and Russia.
So I would say those are someof the major issues that the
(02:34):
candidates have to face, and areal question for you, Steve, is
which do you think among thoseissues, or any others, are the
most important and will helpdecide the winner of the
(02:54):
election in November?
Steve Davenport (02:56):
I would say NONE of it, Clem.
I would say the biggest thingthat I would say is what's
happening with this third partycandidate, Robert Kennedy.
I think that his possiblychoosing Jesse Ventura, the
governor of Minneapolis, theformer wrestler, or Aaron
Rodgers, the quarterback for theJets, is probably what people
(03:19):
should be focused on, because,when we look at history, history
tells us that these third partycandidates don't really have a
chance to win, but they do havea big chance to influence the
election.
When we look at Ross Perot, whowas able to get on the ballot
in all 50 states, his nondescript election involvement
(03:43):
really hurt Bush and allowedClinton to win with 42% of the
vote.
And so, when you think aboutthese elections, Ralph Nader was
usually the candidate for theGreen Party and he would
influence elections and votesaway from , democratic
candidates who would be not farenough left for him.
(04:06):
There were people who wouldshow up, who could have
influenced the election bypicking one or the other, a
third party candidate in anelection that was as close as
some of the last elections havebeen A hundred thousand in this
state, fifty thousand in thatstate.
Those votes going to somebodywho is really a protest
(04:29):
candidate or somebody whodoesn't really fit the
mainstream, allow people whodon't feel comfortable with
either party to have an outlet,and I think it's one of those
things that while everybody'slooking at the economy,
everybody's looking at the Fed,everybody's looking at the
things that you've mentioned inyour introduction, and what I'm
(04:55):
trying to say is maybe it's notwhat is in our headlights,
that's the real problem.
It's around the corner.
There's going to be a deer thatjumps out on the road, causes
the accident, and you don't know.
When you go through thisprocess, and what I'm trying to
do is determine is it real?
(05:18):
Is his candidacy going to bedropped in three or four or five
, six months?
Is he being put there andsupported there by people from
one side, on the left or theright?
I can't at this point determinewho he really hurts, although I
kind of get the feeling that,since the Kennedy name is very
(05:41):
much associated with theDemocrats, that he's going to
pull votes from Biden, and sothat, to me, makes him much more
impactful, because I feel thatthat's something that Biden's
situation right now, with thequestions about his age and
questions about his documenthandling this may matter.
(06:05):
I don't like what's happening,but I also think there are many
people out there who are unhappywith the two choices.
Clem Miller (06:16):
Yeah, you know, I agree with you on that, Steve.
The only thing I would say is Ithink he's going to pull some
votes away from Trump as well.
And the reason I say that isbecause you know Trump has been
making a big deal out of thefact that you know well the fact
, the supposition that he solvedthe whole pandemic issue
(06:41):
through the warp speed effortsto bring about the vaccines.
He makes a big deal out of itand whenever he talks about that
, his supporters come down hardand say how can you say that?
How can you say that thevaccines were worse than the,
than COVID itself, and so on andso forth.
So there's a huge number of hissupporters who actually oppose
(07:10):
any notion that the vaccineswere helpful.
And those folks would benaturally attracted to Robert
Kennedy Jr, especially if hewere to keep talking about
(07:30):
vaccines.
I know he's trying to play itdown a little bit, but if he
goes back to talking about it, Ido think there will be some
percentage of the MAGAsupporters who will go in the
direction of Robert Kennedy.
That's not to take away fromyour point, but you know about,
(07:51):
you know Democrats wanting tolook for somebody.
You know new, but you know,outside their party.
But I think it's not as clearas what Perot did.
Steve Davenport (08:04):
I think the other thing that I come back to
with what happened when Trumpgot elected is that Bernie
Sanders had run a big campaign.
He had really done a good job,and when you look at those
Bernie Sanders votes, we'retalking about the people who
vote and winning the majority ofthose votes, but what about the
(08:25):
people who stay home?
My question is is does dopeople stay home from one side
or the other and not like any ofthe candidates, and then leave
it up to those ardent supporters?
So I think that the biggestrisk for Kennedy is getting on
all the ballots.
I was reading and there's someinformation about how hard it is
(08:49):
in places like Texas andCalifornia.
In Texas, you need to over200,000 signatures from people
who didn't vote in eitherprimary, which is a very complex
way to say hey, this person isan independent candidate and the
people who didn't approacheither or approve of either of
the candidates have chosen him.
(09:11):
And then in California, youneed over 300,000.
And it's.
There's some very strict rulesabout whether the document has
been notarized properly, whetherthe document is consistent,
whether the document and thevoters have, you know,
identified their address andtheir voting address versus
(09:35):
another address, and there'sjust a lot of legal and other
hurdles before Kennedy canreally get where he needs to to
have an impact in this.
So I'm calling this out as anearly you know flash.
There's something on thehorizon that you should look at.
Is it going to get bigger?
(09:56):
Is it going to get smaller?
Are there people on either sidethat are going to make it clear
that he's not the right person?
Sure, I think that not being apart of the debates will be the
next hurdle.
If he gets the signatures andhe can't be at the debate stage,
does that, you know, make himirrelevant?
My point is in any electionwhere it could be decided by
(10:19):
10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 votesin a given state, those 50,000
votes could be, you know, theprotest of picking Robert
Kennedy.
Clem Miller (10:33):
So you mentioned Jesse Ventura, Aaron Rodgers as
potential VP candidates.
I mean, historically, vpcandidates really haven't
mattered too much.
They might matter because ofthe age of Biden and Trump, but,
you know, will it really matterin the case of Robert Kennedy?
Steve Davenport (10:59):
I think it's one of the strangest choices.
If I were looking at this fromhis perspective, I would think I
want to pick somebody who haspolitical experience and
somebody who has, you know, anability to show dependability
and stability for a ticketthat's from the third party.
But then I look at it and saywhat age are we in?
(11:21):
We're in the age of shortvideos and personalities, and in
that case I'd say that we are.
We really have to think aboutwow, personality matters, right?
We all made fun of RonaldReagan as being the actor and
(11:42):
then by the time people hadfinished making fun of him, he
had already won.
So I think that picking somepersonalities is a unique way to
go about this.
Not necessarily what I wouldsay is normal, but do we think
this is normal times or do wethink this is kind of
(12:03):
extraordinary times?
I would say that being good onTV, being good in front of a
camera, being able to raisepeople's excitement level, is,
I'm not sure.
This is the not the Mike Pencevice president choice, and I
think there's a reason whypeople are doing it and because
(12:23):
they want that personality.
And I think that we candisagree about the personalities
and we can say we don't agree,but we're not probably the
people who they're trying toattract.
Who they're trying to attractare the people who are on the
fringes or uncertain.
Probably might not vote anyway.
But if they wanna send amessage to the two major parties
(12:44):
, they'll be able to send amessage.
Clem Miller (12:48):
Steve.
So two questions why is Kennedydoing this, and would Kennedy
have a shot at all if his nameweren't Kennedy?
Steve Davenport (13:01):
I think that the one of the things that I
find interesting is that thedemocracy in America is a
two-party system.
Everywhere else in the worldwhere there are democracies,
it's a multi-party system.
There's a labor party, there'sa far left party, there's a
conservative party.
The democratic side getsdivided into two or three
(13:23):
different groups, even apro-communism party in some
countries.
So there's all of thesedifferent choices and they're
much more driven by consensusmanagement than they are party
management.
And here in the United States,it's felt to me that there is
this third rail or this thirdvoice that's just not being
(13:47):
heard.
So I really don't think Kennedyhas any chance of winning.
The system is built againstthird parties, but what it does
to me is it raises the questionwhy don't we have someone or
somewhere you can feel heard?
I really thought Bloomberg wasgonna get into the race the last
(14:09):
time, the last two times, andhe has the money, he has the
resources.
And I look at Kennedy and sayhe's raised $50 million.
It'll take $15 million to geton all the ballots.
Maybe it inspires someone inthe future.
I don't feel like he's reallygonna make a difference in terms
(14:30):
of winning this election, butthe question is, does it lead us
to a difference in terms of howwe look at going forward.
Clem Miller (14:40):
Yeah, honestly, I would disagree with this notion
that we really only have twoparties in the US.
I think we have multipleparties, but they come under
umbrellas of the Democratic andRepublican parties.
We've got the MAGA Republicanparty, the right wing of the
(15:05):
Republicans, which obviously isgradually taking over that party
.
Steve Davenport (15:13):
Yeah, I think there's a religious right that
I'm not sure where they fit.
Clem Miller (15:17):
Yeah, the religious right fits in there.
Those who are more economic, Imean economic populace, you know
, exist in both parties right, Ithink there's libertarian.
Steve Davenport (15:30):
I mean, I've always thought that it's the
messy middle.
Yeah, and the messy middlereally doesn't fit into the
category of I'm socially liberalbut I'm fiscally conservative,
and you know one.
You mentioned those.
Clem Miller (15:45):
You mentioned those countries that have multiple
parties.
I think one difference betweenthe US and some of the European
parliamentary democracies is thefact that you know, really
we're more top-down, so we electa president and you know the
president, if he's a verypopular president, gets a large
(16:08):
amount of vote.
Usually Congress There'll be onthe the Congress front, there
will be more of his partyelected.
So the president pulls theparty.
In the parliamentarydemocracies you have the parties
elected and then they choosetheir prime minister.
(16:28):
So it's a different, differentformat.
I mean, the only country inEurope that resembles the US to
some degree and which kind ofgoes to your, to your third
party point is, is France, andin France you had a circumstance
where Macron came out of theblue with his own party, which
(16:52):
really was just his ownpersonality actually, and he
built a party around that oncehe became president.
So you know that.
You know that creates somethingof a Of an analog for a third
party Run in the US, I thinkpersonality.
Steve Davenport (17:11):
Politics has been a part of this, and that's
I.
I really don't know if Kennedyhas the personality to really
Inspire people.
I think it's.
You know, obviously, his fatherand his grandfather, you know
His family has inspired peoplein the past.
But I guess I just wonder, youknow, when are we going to
(17:32):
evolve our system?
I agree it's a top-down system.
I think we both agree that ithas problems and implementation,
and I'm not saying that havingmore parties would necessarily,
you know, I look at Italy andsome of the you know the, the
governments there that are puttogether with and the Greece.
I think there are, there arestrengths and weaknesses of both
(17:55):
, and my reason for mainlybringing this up is that I just
believe we are a very disjointedright now and it's in it's in
chaos that things change.
And I think that if we have achaotic collection, people might
Feel like, well, we've got todo something about, you know,
(18:17):
registering these third partiesor setting them up, and and it
could just leave people orinspire people to do something
different.
And that's, you know, myWhether it's idealistic or not,
my belief is that somethingcould change because of this and
I I think that it's, it's worthtalking about, thinking about,
(18:37):
because, as Politics will leadto more chaos or uncertainty.
It leads to chaos oruncertainty in our markets
because people don't know youknow when one or the other is is
going to be benefited.
Clem Miller (18:53):
So yeah, certainly a.
You know, a two-party System isa more stable configuration
than a three-party system or afour-party system.
Steve Davenport (19:04):
Correct?
I think it is, but it also justignores those people in the
middle, doesn't it?
Clem Miller (19:12):
Yeah, it does, because they tend to pull to
different poles and to differentpersonalities Than what you're
used to.
So I mean a third partycandidate, or let's just say a
third candidate, if they've gota strong personality, you know,
(19:32):
certainly could pull some votesand I think you know Perot, I
think, was one of thosecandidates.
I don't think, honestly, Idon't think Robert Kennedy is.
If it weren't for the name, Ithink it wouldn't matter at all
in my mind.
If it weren't for the name andif it weren't for the, the
(19:54):
anti-vaccine positions which Ithink pull more from Trump than
from Biden, I think he wouldn't.
You know, wouldn't matter,right, whether he's in there or
not.
Steve Davenport (20:07):
But it depends on the state, it depends on the
electoral college.
Remember some of those votesthat are going to go to the
electoral college?
What, states are proportional?
Right, I think that's a goodpoint, right if he wins.
f he makes a difference in afew districts and that state is
not a winner, take all state,then those votes that go towards
(20:33):
one candidate and the other, oreven a winner, take all state
In a winner, take all state.
If he provides 100,000 votesthat don't go to the person who
you think should win, and hetakes 80 from Trump and 20 from
Biden, maybe that's thedifference.
And so I'm just saying that oursystem is very complicated and
(20:57):
adding a third party makes itmore complicated, and so,
therefore, I don't thinkcomplexity necessarily leads to
more stability.
Right, that's my point.
It's really not about thecandidate claim, as much as it
is a process in the election andhow that might lead to people's
portfolios having a little moreuncertainty.
Clem Miller (21:16):
Right, I think you and I can both agree on the fact
that it's still really early tobe able to make some
predictions.
Steve Davenport (21:29):
Sure, I'm not predicting he's going to be
successful.
I'm just saying something on myradar that says no, it's too
early to predict any futureoutcomes.
Clem Miller (21:43):
I know that there's a lot of polling out there and
a lot of the polling right nowsays Trump.
There's been some other pollingthat says Biden.
It's really all over the placethis polling, and it's just too
early.
It really is too early to andreally the polling.
Steve Davenport (22:02):
Let's be honest , the polling is also not really
indicative because theelectoral college works the way
the electoral college works.
Yeah, so I have yet to see apollster say here's the
summation of every state andapplied the electoral college
rules to those states' delegates.
Yeah, here's the total ofdelegates for each candidate.
That's really what we need todo, right, Clem?
(22:25):
Yeah, exactly, and you're right, I haven't seen.
If you're 43%, 41%, you want todetermine the winner right.
Clem Miller (22:35):
Yeah, I've seen some individual state polls, but
I haven't seen what you'retalking about, which is an
aggregation and applying theframework of the electoral
college.
Steve Davenport (22:46):
Correct, and that's why I think that polls
are nice, but they're not whatyou're going to wake up with on
the day after the election.
You're going to wake up with doyou want this state and that
state?
And this poll was wrong in thisstate and this state and that
led to.
I mean, biden was going to winFlorida and all of a sudden he
(23:08):
didn't Right.
Clem Miller (23:10):
So the polls said Hillary Clinton.
I remember I was actually inLondon on the day of Brexit
referendum and I remember wakingup the next morning and
thinking, holy cow, how did thisactually happen?
Because the polls indicatedthat Brexit would be defeated by
(23:33):
2% and it wasn't.
And the polls, even the daybefore the polls, were just
wrong.
Steve Davenport (23:42):
Right, I think it's a sample.
I mean, you know, from datastatistics.
I mean a sample analysis.
It's going to have a plus orminus.
So all we're seeing is peoplethink about how these other
issues are out there and, we'llhave other chances to talk about
the politics and the polls aswe go forward.
(24:03):
But I guess I'd just say it'san interesting time we live in
and you might say you like theidea of a Kennedy or you don't
like the idea, or you're just sosick of the two parties you're
going to sit home.
But this just gives another youknow bit of of intrigue to what
(24:24):
2024 is going to be, which is avery interesting year.
So thanks for watching, thanksfor listening and I appreciate
all the support on the podcast.
Clem Miller (24:38):
Thanks very much, Steve.
Welcome everybody to Skeptics Guide to Investing
with Steve Davenport and ClemMiller.
Today we're going to talk aboutprobably the first of many
episodes we'll be doing aboutthe 2024 elections and so,
jumping right in, it looks like,just as of yesterday, both
(00:26):
major candidates President Bidenand former President Trump have
clinched their respectivenominations in terms of vote
totals and, of course, they'vebeen starting to lay out the
details of their policy programs.
And you know there's obviouslya lot of issues that are out
(00:49):
there, both personal issuesabout the candidates as well as
policy issues.
So, if you think about thepersonal issues, obviously one
issue that's out there is theage, the advanced age, of really
both candidates.
You have the various lawsuitsand legal actions involving
(01:15):
former President Trump.
You've got the economy, whichis improving, but inflation
still remains somewhat high andthere's this sort of lagged
impression that some of thehigher levels of inflation are
(01:39):
sort of persistent and, ofcourse, some interest rates are
still high as well.
Now, on the flip side of that,you've got an improving stock
market, which helps somesegments of the voter population
.
Another issue that's out there,obviously, is what's going on.
Foreign policy issue is what'sgoing on with Israel and Gaza,
(02:04):
and you could add to that thevarious perceptions around the
Ukraine and Russia.
So I would say those are someof the major issues that the
(02:34):
candidates have to face, and areal question for you, Steve, is
which do you think among thoseissues, or any others, are the
most important and will helpdecide the winner of the
(02:54):
election in November?
Steve Davenport (02:56):
I would say NONE of it, Clem.
I would say the biggest thingthat I would say is what's
happening with this third partycandidate, Robert Kennedy.
I think that his possiblychoosing Jesse Ventura, the
governor of Minneapolis, theformer wrestler, or Aaron
Rodgers, the quarterback for theJets, is probably what people
(03:19):
should be focused on, because,when we look at history, history
tells us that these third partycandidates don't really have a
chance to win, but they do havea big chance to influence the
election.
When we look at Ross Perot, whowas able to get on the ballot
in all 50 states, his nondescript election involvement
(03:43):
really hurt Bush and allowedClinton to win with 42% of the
vote.
And so, when you think aboutthese elections, Ralph Nader was
usually the candidate for theGreen Party and he would
influence elections and votesaway from , democratic
candidates who would be not farenough left for him.
(04:06):
There were people who wouldshow up, who could have
influenced the election bypicking one or the other, a
third party candidate in anelection that was as close as
some of the last elections havebeen A hundred thousand in this
state, fifty thousand in thatstate.
Those votes going to somebodywho is really a protest
(04:29):
candidate or somebody whodoesn't really fit the
mainstream, allow people whodon't feel comfortable with
either party to have an outlet,and I think it's one of those
things that while everybody'slooking at the economy,
everybody's looking at the Fed,everybody's looking at the
things that you've mentioned inyour introduction, and what I'm
(04:55):
trying to say is maybe it's notwhat is in our headlights,
that's the real problem.
It's around the corner.
There's going to be a deer thatjumps out on the road, causes
the accident, and you don't know.
When you go through thisprocess, and what I'm trying to
do is determine is it real?
(05:18):
Is his candidacy going to bedropped in three or four or five
, six months?
Is he being put there andsupported there by people from
one side, on the left or theright?
I can't at this point determinewho he really hurts, although I
kind of get the feeling that,since the Kennedy name is very
(05:41):
much associated with theDemocrats, that he's going to
pull votes from Biden, and sothat, to me, makes him much more
impactful, because I feel thatthat's something that Biden's
situation right now, with thequestions about his age and
questions about his documenthandling this may matter.
(06:05):
I don't like what's happening,but I also think there are many
people out there who are unhappywith the two choices.
Clem Miller (06:16):
Yeah, you know, I agree with you on that, Steve.
The only thing I would say is Ithink he's going to pull some
votes away from Trump as well.
And the reason I say that isbecause you know Trump has been
making a big deal out of thefact that you know well the fact
, the supposition that he solvedthe whole pandemic issue
(06:41):
through the warp speed effortsto bring about the vaccines.
He makes a big deal out of itand whenever he talks about that
, his supporters come down hardand say how can you say that?
How can you say that thevaccines were worse than the,
than COVID itself, and so on andso forth.
So there's a huge number of hissupporters who actually oppose
(07:10):
any notion that the vaccineswere helpful.
And those folks would benaturally attracted to Robert
Kennedy Jr, especially if hewere to keep talking about
(07:30):
vaccines.
I know he's trying to play itdown a little bit, but if he
goes back to talking about it, Ido think there will be some
percentage of the MAGAsupporters who will go in the
direction of Robert Kennedy.
That's not to take away fromyour point, but you know about,
(07:51):
you know Democrats wanting tolook for somebody.
You know new, but you know,outside their party.
But I think it's not as clearas what Perot did.
Steve Davenport (08:04):
I think the other thing that I come back to
with what happened when Trumpgot elected is that Bernie
Sanders had run a big campaign.
He had really done a good job,and when you look at those
Bernie Sanders votes, we'retalking about the people who
vote and winning the majority ofthose votes, but what about the
(08:25):
people who stay home?
My question is is does dopeople stay home from one side
or the other and not like any ofthe candidates, and then leave
it up to those ardent supporters?
So I think that the biggestrisk for Kennedy is getting on
all the ballots.
I was reading and there's someinformation about how hard it is
(08:49):
in places like Texas andCalifornia.
In Texas, you need to over200,000 signatures from people
who didn't vote in eitherprimary, which is a very complex
way to say hey, this person isan independent candidate and the
people who didn't approacheither or approve of either of
the candidates have chosen him.
(09:11):
And then in California, youneed over 300,000.
And it's.
There's some very strict rulesabout whether the document has
been notarized properly, whetherthe document is consistent,
whether the document and thevoters have, you know,
identified their address andtheir voting address versus
(09:35):
another address, and there'sjust a lot of legal and other
hurdles before Kennedy canreally get where he needs to to
have an impact in this.
So I'm calling this out as anearly you know flash.
There's something on thehorizon that you should look at.
Is it going to get bigger?
(09:56):
Is it going to get smaller?
Are there people on either sidethat are going to make it clear
that he's not the right person?
Sure, I think that not being apart of the debates will be the
next hurdle.
If he gets the signatures andhe can't be at the debate stage,
does that, you know, make himirrelevant?
My point is in any electionwhere it could be decided by
(10:19):
10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 votesin a given state, those 50,000
votes could be, you know, theprotest of picking Robert
Kennedy.
Clem Miller (10:33):
So you mentioned Jesse Ventura, Aaron Rodgers as
potential VP candidates.
I mean, historically, vpcandidates really haven't
mattered too much.
They might matter because ofthe age of Biden and Trump, but,
you know, will it really matterin the case of Robert Kennedy?
Steve Davenport (10:59):
I think it's one of the strangest choices.
If I were looking at this fromhis perspective, I would think I
want to pick somebody who haspolitical experience and
somebody who has, you know, anability to show dependability
and stability for a ticketthat's from the third party.
But then I look at it and saywhat age are we in?
(11:21):
We're in the age of shortvideos and personalities, and in
that case I'd say that we are.
We really have to think aboutwow, personality matters, right?
We all made fun of RonaldReagan as being the actor and
(11:42):
then by the time people hadfinished making fun of him, he
had already won.
So I think that picking somepersonalities is a unique way to
go about this.
Not necessarily what I wouldsay is normal, but do we think
this is normal times or do wethink this is kind of
(12:03):
extraordinary times?
I would say that being good onTV, being good in front of a
camera, being able to raisepeople's excitement level, is,
I'm not sure.
This is the not the Mike Pencevice president choice, and I
think there's a reason whypeople are doing it and because
(12:23):
they want that personality.
And I think that we candisagree about the personalities
and we can say we don't agree,but we're not probably the
people who they're trying toattract.
Who they're trying to attractare the people who are on the
fringes or uncertain.
Probably might not vote anyway.
But if they wanna send amessage to the two major parties
(12:44):
, they'll be able to send amessage.
Clem Miller (12:48):
Steve.
So two questions why is Kennedydoing this, and would Kennedy
have a shot at all if his nameweren't Kennedy?
Steve Davenport (13:01):
I think that the one of the things that I
find interesting is that thedemocracy in America is a
two-party system.
Everywhere else in the worldwhere there are democracies,
it's a multi-party system.
There's a labor party, there'sa far left party, there's a
conservative party.
The democratic side getsdivided into two or three
(13:23):
different groups, even apro-communism party in some
countries.
So there's all of thesedifferent choices and they're
much more driven by consensusmanagement than they are party
management.
And here in the United States,it's felt to me that there is
this third rail or this thirdvoice that's just not being
(13:47):
heard.
So I really don't think Kennedyhas any chance of winning.
The system is built againstthird parties, but what it does
to me is it raises the questionwhy don't we have someone or
somewhere you can feel heard?
I really thought Bloomberg wasgonna get into the race the last
(14:09):
time, the last two times, andhe has the money, he has the
resources.
And I look at Kennedy and sayhe's raised $50 million.
It'll take $15 million to geton all the ballots.
Maybe it inspires someone inthe future.
I don't feel like he's reallygonna make a difference in terms
(14:30):
of winning this election, butthe question is, does it lead us
to a difference in terms of howwe look at going forward.
Clem Miller (14:40):
Yeah, honestly, I would disagree with this notion
that we really only have twoparties in the US.
I think we have multipleparties, but they come under
umbrellas of the Democratic andRepublican parties.
We've got the MAGA Republicanparty, the right wing of the
(15:05):
Republicans, which obviously isgradually taking over that party
.
Steve Davenport (15:13):
Yeah, I think there's a religious right that
I'm not sure where they fit.
Clem Miller (15:17):
Yeah, the religious right fits in there.
Those who are more economic, Imean economic populace, you know
, exist in both parties right, Ithink there's libertarian.
Steve Davenport (15:30):
I mean, I've always thought that it's the
messy middle.
Yeah, and the messy middlereally doesn't fit into the
category of I'm socially liberalbut I'm fiscally conservative,
and you know one.
You mentioned those.
Clem Miller (15:45):
You mentioned those countries that have multiple
parties.
I think one difference betweenthe US and some of the European
parliamentary democracies is thefact that you know, really
we're more top-down, so we electa president and you know the
president, if he's a verypopular president, gets a large
(16:08):
amount of vote.
Usually Congress There'll be onthe the Congress front, there
will be more of his partyelected.
So the president pulls theparty.
In the parliamentarydemocracies you have the parties
elected and then they choosetheir prime minister.
(16:28):
So it's a different, differentformat.
I mean, the only country inEurope that resembles the US to
some degree and which kind ofgoes to your, to your third
party point is, is France, andin France you had a circumstance
where Macron came out of theblue with his own party, which
(16:52):
really was just his ownpersonality actually, and he
built a party around that oncehe became president.
So you know that.
You know that creates somethingof a Of an analog for a third
party Run in the US, I thinkpersonality.
Steve Davenport (17:11):
Politics has been a part of this, and that's
I.
I really don't know if Kennedyhas the personality to really
Inspire people.
I think it's.
You know, obviously, his fatherand his grandfather, you know
His family has inspired peoplein the past.
But I guess I just wonder, youknow, when are we going to
(17:32):
evolve our system?
I agree it's a top-down system.
I think we both agree that ithas problems and implementation,
and I'm not saying that havingmore parties would necessarily,
you know, I look at Italy andsome of the you know the, the
governments there that are puttogether with and the Greece.
I think there are, there arestrengths and weaknesses of both
(17:55):
, and my reason for mainlybringing this up is that I just
believe we are a very disjointedright now and it's in it's in
chaos that things change.
And I think that if we have achaotic collection, people might
Feel like, well, we've got todo something about, you know,
(18:17):
registering these third partiesor setting them up, and and it
could just leave people orinspire people to do something
different.
And that's, you know, myWhether it's idealistic or not,
my belief is that somethingcould change because of this and
I I think that it's, it's worthtalking about, thinking about,
(18:37):
because, as Politics will leadto more chaos or uncertainty.
It leads to chaos oruncertainty in our markets
because people don't know youknow when one or the other is is
going to be benefited.
Clem Miller (18:53):
So yeah, certainly a.
You know, a two-party System isa more stable configuration
than a three-party system or afour-party system.
Steve Davenport (19:04):
Correct?
I think it is, but it also justignores those people in the
middle, doesn't it?
Clem Miller (19:12):
Yeah, it does, because they tend to pull to
different poles and to differentpersonalities Than what you're
used to.
So I mean a third partycandidate, or let's just say a
third candidate, if they've gota strong personality, you know,
(19:32):
certainly could pull some votesand I think you know Perot, I
think, was one of thosecandidates.
I don't think, honestly, Idon't think Robert Kennedy is.
If it weren't for the name, Ithink it wouldn't matter at all
in my mind.
If it weren't for the name andif it weren't for the, the
(19:54):
anti-vaccine positions which Ithink pull more from Trump than
from Biden, I think he wouldn't.
You know, wouldn't matter,right, whether he's in there or
not.
Steve Davenport (20:07):
But it depends on the state, it depends on the
electoral college.
Remember some of those votesthat are going to go to the
electoral college?
What, states are proportional?
Right, I think that's a goodpoint, right if he wins.
f he makes a difference in afew districts and that state is
not a winner, take all state,then those votes that go towards
(20:33):
one candidate and the other, oreven a winner, take all state
In a winner, take all state.
If he provides 100,000 votesthat don't go to the person who
you think should win, and hetakes 80 from Trump and 20 from
Biden, maybe that's thedifference.
And so I'm just saying that oursystem is very complicated and
(20:57):
adding a third party makes itmore complicated, and so,
therefore, I don't thinkcomplexity necessarily leads to
more stability.
Right, that's my point.
It's really not about thecandidate claim, as much as it
is a process in the election andhow that might lead to people's
portfolios having a little moreuncertainty.
Clem Miller (21:16):
Right, I think you and I can both agree on the fact
that it's still really early tobe able to make some
predictions.
Steve Davenport (21:29):
Sure, I'm not predicting he's going to be
successful.
I'm just saying something on myradar that says no, it's too
early to predict any futureoutcomes.
Clem Miller (21:43):
I know that there's a lot of polling out there and
a lot of the polling right nowsays Trump.
There's been some other pollingthat says Biden.
It's really all over the placethis polling, and it's just too
early.
It really is too early to andreally the polling.
Steve Davenport (22:02):
Let's be honest , the polling is also not really
indicative because theelectoral college works the way
the electoral college works.
Yeah, so I have yet to see apollster say here's the
summation of every state andapplied the electoral college
rules to those states' delegates.
Yeah, here's the total ofdelegates for each candidate.
That's really what we need todo, right, Clem?
(22:25):
Yeah, exactly, and you're right, I haven't seen.
If you're 43%, 41%, you want todetermine the winner right.
Clem Miller (22:35):
Yeah, I've seen some individual state polls, but
I haven't seen what you'retalking about, which is an
aggregation and applying theframework of the electoral
college.
Steve Davenport (22:46):
Correct, and that's why I think that polls
are nice, but they're not whatyou're going to wake up with on
the day after the election.
You're going to wake up with doyou want this state and that
state?
And this poll was wrong in thisstate and this state and that
led to.
I mean, biden was going to winFlorida and all of a sudden he
(23:08):
didn't Right.
Clem Miller (23:10):
So the polls said Hillary Clinton.
I remember I was actually inLondon on the day of Brexit
referendum and I remember wakingup the next morning and
thinking, holy cow, how did thisactually happen?
Because the polls indicatedthat Brexit would be defeated by
(23:33):
2% and it wasn't.
And the polls, even the daybefore the polls, were just
wrong.
Steve Davenport (23:42):
Right, I think it's a sample.
I mean, you know, from datastatistics.
I mean a sample analysis.
It's going to have a plus orminus.
So all we're seeing is peoplethink about how these other
issues are out there and, we'llhave other chances to talk about
the politics and the polls aswe go forward.
(24:03):
But I guess I'd just say it'san interesting time we live in
and you might say you like theidea of a Kennedy or you don't
like the idea, or you're just sosick of the two parties you're
going to sit home.
But this just gives another youknow bit of of intrigue to what
(24:24):
2024 is going to be, which is avery interesting year.
So thanks for watching, thanksfor listening and I appreciate
all the support on the podcast.
Clem Miller (24:38):
Thanks very much, Steve.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
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.
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.