JD Vance Aims To Reframe The GOP On Night 3 Of The RNC
34:43 Share

You're a podcast listener, and this is a podcast ad. Reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Lipson Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements, or run a reproduced ad like this one across thousands of shows to reach your target audience with Lipson Ads. Go to LipsonAds.com now. That's L-I-B-S-Y-N-Ads.com.

It feels like the delegates and attendees have started to get cranky. Like, I was sitting next to a delegate who was just like, "I've been on my feet all day. My hotel is so far away. I can't leave."

So she was just trying to rest on like a little ledge next to a stairwell, which is also where I was resting. Did you fight for it? No, we shared it very nicely. She was like trying to give me more space. And I was like, no, no, no, no. This is your ledge. And she was like, once a mom, always a mom. And I was like, yeah, exactly. Like, I'm not trying to kick you off a ledge, mom. Yeah.

Hello and welcome to this late night reaction edition of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast for night three of the Republican National Convention. The theme of the night was Make America Strong Again, and it focused, as you can imagine, on national security and foreign policy. And joining me as we approach midnight central time and are well into tomorrow on the East Coast, where these folks are joining me from,

Senior elections analyst Nathaniel Rakich, welcome to the podcast. Hey, Galen. Also here with us is survey editor at The New York Times, Ruth Egelnik. Welcome back to the podcast. Thanks for having me. I'm here and I'm awake. I love to hear it. Ruth, I should take note of the fact that the last time we spoke to you was in the immediate aftermath of the debate that changed everything for the Democratic Party. And

we're going to get to that topic. It's like, on one hand, I'm spending so much time in the bowl, in the Republican National Convention, just surrounded by people and watching all of the speeches. But then every so often, I get an update, um,

telling me, for example, that the president got COVID or that Nancy Pelosi has suggested that the president maybe step aside. And it feels like there's a whole world beyond the FISA forum in Milwaukee that I'm having a lot of difficulty keeping up with. So hopefully once we've discussed this,

tonight's speeches and the convention, we can get to a little bit of that. But I'm curious, just to start, I've now been watching all of this in person, and so I have my own interpretation of how it feels in the arena, but what's probably most important is how it comes across on television. So maybe focusing mainly on tonight, but also if you want to talk about some of the other themes as well, what has it been like

for you all this convention so far? Nathaniel, kick us off. Well, I'm a freak, so I have watched every minute of the convention from beginning to end, including like the roll call and like the benedictions and all that stuff. So I'm not sure that I have the most normal American reaction to this. I've been watching a lot of segments of the convention that I think most Americans are not watching. So I think one thing that's really important is that

The only part of the night that is actually on network TV on the like prime time part of network TV has been a 10 to 11 PM for the most part on these three days tonight, NBC actually went live from the convention at nine. And of course, cable news has been covering it straight through. And actually, if you look at the ratings, you can see that the highest ratings are on Fox news, which is unsurprising. You would expect for a Republican convention. A lot of Republicans would tune in a lot of Republicans watch Fox news, et cetera. Um,

But I think it is important to note, like, basically, like, 80 to 90 percent of what I have seen has been very poorly watched by the American public. That said, I think the Republicans have put on a very strong convention thus far. I thought last night and tonight were both particularly strong. I think some of the speeches yesterday—

I'm sure you guys talked about this, but like Nikki Haley's speech, Vivek Ramaswamy's speech, Sarah Huckabee Sanders' speech, I thought were all effective at doing what they wanted to do. I also think that tonight, perhaps the most effective speech

hour of the entire convention thus far was the time between nine and 10 o'clock when you had some gold star families from Afghanistan, the families of the soldiers who were killed in the Afghanistan withdrawal. They spoke very powerfully about their loss and about how they feel kind of abandoned by Joe Biden. And then there was also the family of a

Hamas hostage, obviously attacking Biden for his handling of that. Foreign policy, as maybe we'll talk about, is not an area in which Joe Biden wants to be fighting this election, despite the fact that he seems to spend all of his interview time talking about how he saved NATO. But in general, I think that Republicans have put on a very well-produced, effective show. And yeah,

Yeah, I mean, I consumed the convention more similarly to most Americans. I didn't watch most of it on TV. I consumed most of it through social media, TV.

through other news sources and how they were portraying it. So I got a little bit more of a sort of normal American view of things. But my assessment was actually pretty similar to Nathaniel's, which is to say I think it was a really well put on convention. They were very smart and very intentional with the messages they were trying to portray. This was not an angry political message. This was a message that was reaching out to swing voters and fairly effectively. They hit a lot of the

notes that swing voters care about that we see in our polling.

And I think they did it really effectively. I mean, J.D. Vance's speech tonight, we can talk about that a little bit later, but he did a really fantastic job of drawing a strong contrast between Biden and their ticket. And one thing he did that I thought was particularly effective was walk through the Biden presidency and all of these decisions that Biden made that negatively impacted American jobs, American manufacturing, and drew the age contrast by saying, you know, when Biden was making these decisions,

I was in fourth grade and really both drawing the contrast between him and Biden, but also the impact it had on American jobs, American manufacturing in a really effective way.

Yeah, I was texting with Nathaniel throughout the day and we were talking about what we were watching. And there's been a conversation on the left about popularism, this idea that people in power ought to be pursuing, politicians ought to be pursuing and giving voice to policy positions that poll well with Americans. In many ways, this convention is an example of that.

Look, in 2016 and in 2020, Donald Trump spent an awful lot of time delivering a divisive, angry message that actually didn't pull all that well. I mean, back in 2015, 2016, building a border wall, for example, the most obvious policy position associated with him was underwater with the American public. It's not underwater anymore today. But if you look at even the lineup of the convention, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, it's make America wealthy again, right? The economy is

Make America safe again. Lots about immigration. Make America strong again. Foreign policy. If you look at the most important issues to American voters, according to Gallup, it goes to the economy, immigration, and then American leadership or whatever it is. But then global conflicts is not that far down after that. It's kind of like the people who put this convention together just looked at the polling and said that let's do that.

It's really fascinating what you were saying about polling data. We're a little bit in a bizarre world right now where Republicans seem very attuned to polling data and trusting polling data. And Democrats are very skeptical of polling data and not trusting of it. It's a little bit of the world turned upside down at this moment. And they certainly, the Republicans seem to be sort of very wisely addressing those issues that are top of people's list and trying to be

I mean, it's amazing what can happen when you're leading the polls. Yeah. I mean, speaking of the popularism angle, you know what you on the topic of foreign policy heard a lot about tonight? Israel. You know what you didn't hear a lot about tonight? Ukraine. Israel unites the Republican Party and unites

divides the Democratic Party, whereas Ukraine unites the Democratic Party and divides the Republican Party. Yeah, exactly. They're sticking to the parts of foreign policy that they are strong on, again, in the polls, right? Like the emphasis, I mean, they did, they had a couple of speakers talking about Israel, but I think they spent even more time talking about the Afghanistan withdrawal, which of course,

was kind of a turning point in Biden's presidency. This was the summer of 2021. A lot of bad things were happening for Biden at that time. You had the Delta variant of COVID. You had increasing inflation. But the withdrawal from Afghanistan and kind of how badly that went for the U.S. really seemed to catalyze something in Biden's approval rating. And of course, for the first six months of his presidency, he was actually pretty popular. He was going through what was in

But his approval rating really fell precipitously throughout August of that summer, which was right when the Afghanistan withdrawal was happening. And I think people, it contributed to this sense of, oh, Joe Biden isn't bringing back normalcy the way he kind of promised that he would and, you know, like gave a sense that he was basically incompetent, which has kind of been the prevailing narrative ever since. And they really wanted to come back to that message.

Yeah, and I'll just add a beat that there's been some really smart reporting from some of my colleagues about how the Trump folks spent the years when they weren't in office really trying to get wise about how to govern and how to be effective at governing. And what you see here is that they've also gotten better at campaigning and they've learned how to be more effective at campaigning than they were four or eight years ago. And you really see that on display here. Yeah.

Also, when you're less divided as a party, you can spend more time doing outreach. I mean, you kept hearing, hey, we're a big tent party. I've heard actually plenty of times throughout this convention, you know, it doesn't matter what color your skin is. It doesn't matter if you're gay, you have a place in this Republican Party. Yeah, that speech on Monday night from Sean O'Brien was crazy. I know that you guys talked about it last night, but

I'm still not over it. I think it was remarkable that we heard that speech at a Republican national convention with him, like slamming corporations and greedy CEOs and arguing for workers to get more leave and stuff like that. It was really crazy for those of us who came up during an age when the Republican Party was all about corporations and being pro-business and everything like that.

But again, to the point about popularism, these are things that are popular with the general public, even though they don't seem to have maybe been a hit with everybody in the convention hall. But it was smart politics, and that has been the theme of the convention.

unions are the most popular they have ever been and they are also the weakest they have been in decades we talked about on the podcast before how that's probably related to each other they have become symbolic in many ways and so people aren't confronted with some of maybe the inconveniences of unions or some of the reasons that unions could have been less popular in decades past but

because they've been weakened, but they have clearly a lot of symbolic strength, enough that the Republican Party is focusing on them to some extent. I want to talk about J.D. Vance, and then we can talk about Biden.

Today's podcast is brought to you by GiveWell. You're a details person. You want to understand how things really work. So when you're giving to charity, you should look at GiveWell, an independent resource for rigorous, transparent research about great giving opportunities whose website will leave even the most detail-oriented reader

Busy. GiveWell has now spent over 17 years researching charitable organizations and only directs funding to a few of the highest impact opportunities they've found. Over 100,000 donors have used GiveWell to donate more than $2 billion.

Rigorous evidence suggests that these donations will save over 200,000 lives and improve the lives of millions more. GiveWell wants as many donors as possible to make informed decisions about high-impact giving. You can find all their research and recommendations on their site for free. And you can make tax-deductible donations to their recommended funds or charities. And GiveWell doesn't take a cut.

Today's podcast is brought to you by Shopify. Ready to make the smartest choice for your business? Say hello to Shopify, the global commerce platform that makes selling a breeze.

Whether you're starting your online shop, opening your first physical store, or hitting a million orders, Shopify is your growth partner. Sell everywhere with Shopify's all-in-one e-commerce platform and in-person POS system. Turn browsers into buyers with Shopify's best converting checkout, 36% better than other platforms. Effortlessly sell more with Shopify Magic, your AI-powered all-star. Did you know that Shopify is the best way to sell?

Did you know Shopify powers 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. and supports global brands like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklinen? Join millions of successful entrepreneurs across 175 countries, backed by Shopify's extensive support and help resources.

Because businesses that grow, grow with Shopify. Start your success story today. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash 538. That's the numbers, not the letters. Shopify.com slash 538.

You're a podcast listener, and this is a podcast ad. Reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Lipson Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements, or run a reproduced ad like this one across thousands of shows to reach your target audience with Lipson Ads. Go to LipsonAds.com now. That's L-I-B-S-Y-N-Ads.com.

Is it too early to have any polling on what people think about J.D. Vance as a running mate pick? Or do we actually have some numbers to talk about? I mean, it's not too early. We do have numbers to talk about. NORC and AP released a poll today that said that 60 percent of Americans have never heard of J.D. Vance.

you know, kind of spans across parties. And I mean, listen, the goal of tonight was for him to introduce himself to America. There's, you know, among Republicans, there's like a slight positive, expressive responding. They know him. They know he's good. But mostly people haven't heard of him. I think it was 60 percent of Americans and a little bit more among independents. So they never heard of him before.

So, Ruth, Galen and I were texting about this a little bit, but I would be curious what you thought. What did you think of his speech? Oh, I thought his speech was very good. Point for Galen. What did you think about his speech? I thought it was fine. I think it was, I don't think it came across great on television. And obviously Galen had a different experience being in the room, and I'll let him talk about it. But to me on TV, he kept on pausing for a

the crowd's chants and interruptions and cheers and stuff like that. And it was very kind of jarring. And he left, he just like didn't speak for like 10, 15 seconds at a time, which when the camera is just kind of staring at you and you're just kind of like smiling and looking off to the distance, I thought it was very awkward. So it, it kind of ruined it a little bit for me. I mean, Nathaniel, what is that if not a Barack Obama speech? But he can control the crowd. He knows, like he can, he can kind of override them. Um,

when necessary. I think it's the kind of thing that if you're just not used to a crowd, speaking before a crowd of that size, and I haven't followed JD Vance's whole career, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is the biggest crowd that he's ever spoken in front of and just doesn't know how to handle a big crowd like that. But it didn't seem very natural. And the rest of his delivery when he was actually speaking, it was fine and his messages were fine. But I think it wasn't a very well-produced for television speech.

which I think is bad because obviously that's the audience they're trying to reach as the rest of the nation, not necessarily the people in the bowl. But I can imagine, I'll let Galen talk, but I can imagine that within the bowl, the energy of the bowl, it maybe came across better where he was like, oh, he was jibing with the audience and stuff like that. Yeah, so I will agree that some of it was a little bit halting and there were certainly long, awkward pauses. And it was clear that he was nervous. He was rushing through some parts,

Yeah.

And the tight clips were pretty good. And that's part of what is sort of fueling my view is that people were pulling out those key quotes. And I think a lot of people are watching this, but to be honest, a lot of people are not watching it, right? It ends up pretty late on the East Coast. A lot of people don't watch political television. And so they're seeing those clips later. And when I watched the clips...

It was very tight and very strong. I will agree with you that watching it live, it was at times very awkward and he clearly seemed nervous and uncomfortable. And there were just like very strange long pauses. Like he mentioned his wife and there was a long pause. He kind of hoped for some chance that never came. But in the clips afterwards, it really felt different. It really felt stronger.

Okay, so the reality in the bowl is that probably each time those chants did actually come, but the mics weren't loud enough to pick it up. I mean, what I was watching was like every time he mentioned...

Oh, I mean, the Ohio section was going mad the entire time. He mentioned Eastern Kentucky and then Eastern Kentucky, like the Kentucky delegation goes crazy. And he's like, Ohio, calm down. Like we got to win Michigan too. And then Michigan goes crazy. And like, and clearly he was having an effect on the crowd. I mean, this...

You know, he introduced his mom and said that she's going to be 10 years sober in January and that he asked, you know, the former president if we could celebrate her being 10 years sober. If anyone's familiar with the book Hillbilly Elegy, he comes from a family with a lot of addiction and deep poverty in eastern Ohio. And so he spoke to that, the American dream, etc.

And, you know, the crowd started chanting J.D.'s mom and, you know, she was sitting right up next to the former president in the family box. This is all theater criticism. But what I more want to say rooted in data is that the speech fundamentally was about the American dream. And does the American dream exist?

exist today as we want it to? Has the American dream existed in the past? Did JD Vance himself, is he a product of the American dream? And,

Look, the American dream is just super freaking popular, right? It pulls really well with Americans. There are definitely conversations amongst, like, mainly on the left about how, you know, the American dream is complicated and we ought to be a little more, think about it in slightly more critical light and whatnot. But...

Most Americans still subscribe to the idea. And I mean, if you look at one of the main swing groups, for example, in this election, which is Latino voters, they're amongst the most enthusiastic about the idea of the American dream of anybody in America. And so it's a good primetime, popularist, persuasive, you know, politically persuasive speech. Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, nobody wants to be told that the American dream is, like, not that realistic and change your dreams. Like, the whole point of America is to believe in the American dream. And so I think approaching it from a sense of, like, this is unrealistic and we need to have a more nuanced conversation isn't exactly a winning approach. One criticism I've already seen sort of start to emerge about Vance's speech, and we'll see if this kind of

takes on more life than just a small Twitter criticism. But, you know, he talked about the American dream a lot. He talked about the stories he told about his family and the people that he knew growing up and how they were looking for the American dream and were really victimized by a lot of these policies that made it harder for people to get jobs. And that that's really a reframe of how he wrote things in the book.

that really in the book, he wasn't talking about the American dream and people being victimized in the book. He was more focused on sort of a criticism of his family and the people around him and the choices that they made that led them to this place. And so kind of like gussying it up and putting a bow on it and making it the American dream that there was certainly some criticism that that's not how he framed things when he wrote the book. Well, Ruth,

In many ways, that is in and of itself the reframing of the Republican Party from the party of personal responsibility and skepticism about, you know, Medicaid and Social Security and wanting to cut benefits and the likes.

And this reframe that we have been talking about, which is more focused on its outside causes that are responsible for the victimization of the American working man and woman, and no longer talking about those spending cuts and the debt and deficit and the likes, perhaps not all that surprising that

J.D. Vance, the Republican, wrote Hillbilly Elegy in a different era and is reframing it for our era. But anyway, Nathaniel, before I move on, it looks like you wanted to say something.

The discussion we were having before, I thought it was really interesting that we all kind of had a different take on Vance's speech when we all three watched it in different ways, right? Like, I was watching it live, like, straight through. Ruth was primarily watching it through social media clips that were a little more curated. You were watching it in person in the arena with the crowd and stuff like that. And I think it's really interesting how that

affected our perceptions of the speech and makes me think in kind of a meta way that we don't spend enough time analyzing how people consume events like this. So like not just conventions, but also debates and things like that. And like, I feel like we don't have like great data on like what the primary method of ingesting these events is. And I feel like that really would inform our analysis. Like if we find out that like actually 60% of people are

only watching clips after the fact that are edited down and things like that, then basically everything that I said is totally irrelevant. And like, we should be focusing a lot more of our analysis on those, that type of, like the way that Ruth did it. But yeah, I just think that's a really interesting thing that is maybe like,

underrated in the way that we analyze these situations. I don't know if they're like, Ruth, do you guys have good data on like how people consume events like this? Yeah. So we've actually started asking about people's main source of news as a standard demographic that we ask on every survey. So we don't get at like the nuance of how they consume news, but we ask their main source of news and we look at the social media people differently. And that's actually been really valuable. And, you know,

And for the debate, we did ask specifically how they consumed the debate. So whether they watched it live, whether they watched it later on social media clips, whether they heard about it from friends.

And one kind of really interesting thing that we found with the most recent presidential debate is that people who consumed the debate through social media were much more likely to say that Joe Biden lost and that Joe Biden was too old because it was clear that they were just getting these really stilted, really difficult clips of Biden. And not that people who I mean, to be clear,

vast majorities of people who watched the debate live also thought that he was too old, but the numbers were even higher among people who consumed it on social media. And so we don't ask that specific question for every event, but we do on every survey ask just how people got their news. And we found it to be very informative to separate out people who consume traditional news from social media.

That's super interesting. Is it like fairly even the way that people consume events like that? Is there one method that is really dominant? It is.

It is fairly even. So it's interesting. We separate out mainstream media, Fox News and and social media. And like, for example, among Republicans, it's about even the share that consume their media through Fox News and consume it through social media. Democrats is a little more tilted towards social media than mainstream media.

So it's definitely been interesting to watch. And those numbers alone have actually shifted over time. So that's something that we're watching. But I'd like to ask for more of these types of events, how they specifically consume the event and not just their main source of news. Before we end, for somebody who has been in a non-RNC media blackout,

We got some updates last night, but what's going on with Biden right now? What are the latest numbers? And does it seem like things are moving? There's new numbers, but there's also just like in the last hour or two big new news around Biden that we don't have any polling data to support. But certainly the news has changed. But sort of in thinking about the polling data that we've gotten today in particular, there's

We and other polling organizations have been tracking with different versions of this question, this idea of should Biden...

drop out or should he remain the nominee? And a lot of people have asked it a lot of different ways, but they were mostly getting similar numbers. They were getting, we were getting, and others were getting about half of Democrats, like 50-50 on Biden should drop out or remain the nominee right around before and after the debate. What's changed now is AP and NORC, they were out with some numbers today.

that showed that two thirds of Democrats now think that Biden should drop out and an even larger share of the public. And to be clear, this has been sort of evolving. So Washington Post and ABC News had a poll

about a week ago, maybe more, that showed that the number had crept just over 50%. I think they had 56% of Democrats saying you should drop out. And so now that number is closer to two thirds, which is a pretty big change. I think, you know, the Biden campaign has been making the point, and I have tended to agree, that this was a push that was coming from elites and was not backed up by real Democrats. And that was something that

we saw in our polling data. And so I absolutely thought was a fair assessment of the data. Those numbers are starting to change, right? You do, you are starting to have this like slow creep of Democrats saying that they want Biden to not be the nominee. And that's a real change from something we saw even a couple of weeks ago, uh,

Which I guess, you know, you could say if you're just reading the data and when the changes are happening, it didn't necessarily change after the debate performance. But it's possible that this is sort of a lagging indicator that, you know, people in the Democratic Party are sort of following their elites and taking cues from their elites. And as there are increasing calls for Biden to drop out, the voters seem to be following.

Interesting, Ruth, because I basically have the opposite take. Tell me. I don't really think there's a lot of evidence that voters are getting more anti-Biden. I think obviously like

The NORC poll could have just been an outlier or it could have just been a methodological difference. Obviously, we can't make an apples-to-apples comparison with previous polling. And I think that if the true number is somewhere just north of 50, you're going to get a two-thirds number once in a while, obviously.

So I don't think there's been a clear trend in the numbers. And I think if anything, if they're getting any kind of signal from elites, I think it would be to back Biden, given that the elites that most Democratic voters have heard of have at least publicly been supportive of Biden. The people who have come out against him have tended to be—

Yeah, Galen, the people who have come out against him have tended to be back. What about you, Nathaniel? What about... No, I'm kidding. Not you. We're not telling people what to do. All those Democrats who are listening to me. People have only heard for like two and a half weeks that Biden's not fit to be president. I don't think that's the only thing they have heard. But if they are listening to like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, who...

until basically today, I guess Nancy Pelosi kind of had that mealy mouth. No, but, no, but, okay, but like the majority of Democratic elites and the ones in, who are more prominent have tended to be backing Biden. The people who have come out against Biden are the people that you wouldn't normally think Democratic voters would support.

follow. So, yeah. So, I just don't think, I don't really buy the argument that there has been an increase. I actually just don't think, I don't think the Newark poll was surprising at all because I think it was just like, oh, yes, like some significant number of Democrats believe that Biden should step aside and it doesn't really matter whether that number is 50% or two-thirds. And in fact, I think I also wouldn't really agree with the characterization that like it was elite driven until now because I think

even 50% of your own party's voters thinking you should step aside is a huge problem. I mean, yes, to be clear, that is absolutely a huge problem. I guess the reason that I think that it's increasing, and I don't think that it's just like statistical noise and possibly, you know, methodological differences,

is so the number we had was around 45%, right? And then the ABC poll was around 55%. And then this poll was around 65%. And a 20 point swing among Democrats from 45% to 65% is more than I think it's just statistical noise or methodological difference because there have been other prop panel polls that haven't shown numbers that high. So I'm with you that absolutely this could be some kind of

natural noise. But to my mind, this fell just outside of that. Like the 55%, you know, some, some folks made hay of that with the ABC Washington post poll. And there I was with you and held firm that I really didn't think it was a change. I thought that 10 point swing was absolutely within the realm of, of normal. This felt outside the realm of normal to me. Now you're right. It might not be able to be driven. That is, that's like kind of

just a guess, but there, to my mind, there does seem to be some movement. That question, I think we've always struggled with that question because it's really an incomplete question and it's almost like not fair to ask voters because there's not a question of, and what do you do after that? So I think that it's a fairly easy question for voters to answer without any consequences. So I think like we can make an argument that the question itself is flawed. And I think like we as pollsters have all struggled with that.

And I don't have a great answer for that. Because obviously, like the share of Democrats who have publicly come out against Biden is much, much lower than 50%. But if you could give them all truth serum or do like a secret ballot in Congress, I wonder what the real number would be. And I would, well, this is highly speculative, but I would guess that it would be somewhere in line with the percent of Democratic voters that we're seeing in the polls.

Yeah, I think the idea that this is a very dynamic situation is right. And so it wouldn't surprise me if the polling is changing. I mean, even just...

Over the past couple of days, things have changed. I mean, we found out today that it appears as though there was a Pelosi, Schumer, Jeffries intervention of sorts where they talked to the president, presented the feelings of, you know, House Democrats and Senate Democrats and some of the polling that suggests that he's underwater and

It seems like there's maybe some openness to the arguments about it being a real uphill battle for Biden. We're still in the early days of

what that means. We're only just getting reporting about the sort of like openness to the idea now. You know, you can be open to a lot of things that you then say, well, no, too. But anyway, this is a dynamic situation and we are going to be talking about it again very soon, I am sure. But I think we're going to leave it there for tonight. So thank you so much, Nathaniel and Ruth. Thank you. Thanks, Galen. Sleep tight.

My name is Galen Druke. Our producers are Shane McKeon and Cameron Chertavian, and our intern is Jayla Everett. You can get in touch by emailing us at podcast.538.com. You can also, of course, tweet at us with questions or comments. If you're a fan of the show, leave us a rating or review in the Apple Podcast Store or tell someone about us. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you soon.

Introducing the ultimate bundle at an unbeatable price. The Disney Plus Hulu Max Bundle. With iconic entertainment like Loki and Encanto on Disney Plus. I will save the magic. FX's The Bear and The Kardashians on Hulu. I am a good time, okay? And The Last of Us and House of the Dragon on Max. They are a protector of the road. All available with the Disney Plus Hulu Max Bundle. Plans starting at $16.99 a month. Terms apply. Visit DisneyPlusHuluMaxBundle.com for details.