Tech Money in Politics, SBF, and Billion-Dollar Barbie with Co-Host Teddy Schleifer

[Podcast begins with advertisement]

Ad Voiceover: As marketing channels have multiplied, the demand for content has skyrocketed. But everyone can make content that's on brand and stands out with Adobe Express. You don't have to be a designer to generate images, rewrite text, and create effects. That's the beauty of generative AI that's commercially safe. Teams all across your business will be psyched to collaborate and create amazing presentations, videos, social posts, flyers, and more. Meet Adobe Express, the quick and easy app to create on-brand content. Learn more at adobe.com slash express slash business.

Ad Voiceover: Rinse takes your laundry and hand delivers it to your door. Expertly cleaned and folded. So you could take the time once spent folding and sorting and waiting to finally pursue a whole new version of you. Like Tea Time You. Mmm. Or this Tea Time You. Or even this Tea Time You. Said you hear about Dave. Or even Tea Time, Tea Time, Tea Time You. Mmm. So update on Dave. It's up to you. We'll take the laundry. Rinse. It's time to be great.

[Podcast begins]

Kara Swisher: Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Cara Swisher. Sitting in today for Scott Galloway is Puck News founding partner, Teddy Schliefer, who reports on Silicon Valley billionaires and their impact on the world. Welcome, Teddy. By the way, Teddy used to work for me, so he's going to be extra nice.

Teddy Schleifer: Thanks for having me. No problem. I think this is finally going to be the week where Scott Galloway learns who I am.

Kara Swisher: Oh, really? He doesn't know.

Teddy Schleifer: He confuses me with Dylan Byers. That's why.

Kara Swisher: It's true. At one point, I was at Code, and I tried to speak to Scott in his love language, words of affirmation.

Teddy Schleifer: Teen essence. Okay. Yeah. I went up to him, and I said, "Scott, huge fan of you," blah, blah, blah, licked him up and down. And then he only wanted to talk about Bill Cohan.

Kara Swisher: Oh, right.

Teddy Schleifer: Several minutes of me buttering him up, doing my best. He only wants to talk about other people at Puck. So, Scott, it's great to meet you.

Kara Swisher: We have a ton of stuff to talk about. We'll talk today about the latest on President Trump's mounting legal troubles, as well as who's signing the biggest campaign donation checks for 2024. There's a lot going on. Our friend of Pivot today is communications consultant Frank Luntz, who's perfect to talk to, who helped us make sense of all the poll numbers coming out about the election which are very confusing for a lot of people and very unclear, I think, in many ways. But first, grab your popcorn. This is perfect for you. The Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg fight is allegedly coming to X. I'm not so sure it is. I'm not sure if it's made up or whatever. Musk tweeted this week that the fight would be streamed on his platform, that all proceeds would go to charity for veterans. Zuckerberg replied, "Shouldn't we use a more reliable platform that can actually raise money for charity?" and suggested he is ready today. But Musk hasn't confirmed. And then he said he had a neck problem. He's getting an MRI around his neck, which is so Trumpian in this way. So convenient timing.

Teddy Schleifer: Right.

Kara Swisher: You know, convenient timing that he needs an MRI.

Teddy Schleifer: Right. You know, I think this is ridiculous and it's bad for Mark. What has happened to these people? Because it really is sad, actually. It's sad and pathetic. And they think it's hysterical. I know Mark works out. I think that's great. He was kind of skinny and felt nerdy and I think it makes him feel good. And I think that's great. I think this fighting is kind of cool. I did judo. I had a grappling belt in judo. I like that stuff. It's interesting, but it's mostly for sport and fun. And I don't think there's anything sporty or fun about this. And by the way, I hope his shareholders sue him for doing this.

Kara Swisher: Look, this is more about Mark than it is about Elon, right? The fact that Elon Musk is shitposting his way through another crisis at one of his companies, that's been true since Twitter didn't exist and shitposting didn't exist in the PayPal era. But I don't really think we're learning that much new about Elon. The fact that Mark, who for the last five years has so resisted being a main character, is now so suddenly so willing to be a main character. Is that just a reaction to Elon or is that maybe—

Teddy Schleifer: Jeff Bezos over making out on a yacht.

Kara Swisher: I mean, it's not just, I'm happy he's making out, but honestly, posting about making out, at some point, I get it. At 17, I'm sort of like, "Ooh, it's kind of sad."

Teddy Schleifer: The Lauren Sanchez Instagram account is a gift to Page Six.

Kara Swisher: It is.

Teddy Schleifer: I enjoy it.

Kara Swisher: I enjoy it. Sure. We all have our guilty pleasures. But look, Mark, to some extent, I feel like the removal of Trump from office has made a lot of tech leaders feel like we're entering this new era where they can erase everything between 2016 and 2020, right? If this was three years ago or four years ago, there is no way that Mark would be this carefree, this guy who's into MMA and just loves making jokes.

Teddy Schleifer: Right. Exactly. I think there's a little bit of a—I'm not saying this is fair or not—but I think he feels that there's a redemption tour that can happen now. That the media overstated things like they overstated Cambridge Analytica, for instance, or they overstated the role that Facebook played in helping Trump.

Kara Swisher: But does this land him in a better place? He's being brought down. Elon has tarnished his reputation rather significantly. This pulls him to that level. I do have—Mark is a nice guy. Ultimately, personally, I find him to be relatively—he's not a "look at me" type. And I get that he wants to show off his physique, which is fine. But I just feel like who in his family or Sheryl Sandberg or somebody is like, "What is wrong with you that you want to be ball grabbing and groping with Elon Musk?" Ew, yuck, sweaty. Do you think this actually happens?

Teddy Schleifer: I don't know. I think Ari Emanuel is working at it, apparently. And Dina, whatever the hell that guy's name is. I think they would love it because it's a big payday for them in some way, even though they'll say it's all going to charity. It's going to be a disaster.

Kara Swisher: Sure. I mean, here's a radical idea, Cara. These people could actually donate to charity without the fight. It is technically possible, according to the law. And we'll see if they take up that option. How much philanthropy do they do? Because you write about this.

Teddy Schleifer: Sure. I mean, Elon has basically said that he thinks philanthropy is child's play compared to the world-saving mission that is acquiring Twitter or leaving space for Tesla.

Kara Swisher: I don't know how we survive without him on the planet.

Teddy Schleifer: Right, sure. I mean, it's definitely a great man theory of history that he subscribes to. He thinks philanthropy is bullshit and that it's generally just a PR expedition. There's no amount of truth to that for sure. Mark obviously has set up the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. I think it's now in its eighth year. They have several hundred employees. He spends a day a week on it. Priscilla Chan runs it day to day. Mark sees Gates as his role model. Elon does not see Gates as his role model. And I think he's very dismissive of the philanthropic industrial complex. And the fact that he's going to be donating to charity for this is maybe the gateway drug. It's such nonsense. He's not paying any—he's not going to give any of the money. He's just not. It's all going to be him saying he is.

Kara Swisher: Part of me is like, I hope Mark beats the shit out of him. At the same time, I'm like, why do I hope Mark beats the shit? I feel bad about myself thinking that. Anyway, speaking of people I don't feel bad about, Sam Bankman-Freed is having a bad month. You've written about him a lot. Federal prosecutors in New York believe SBF deserves to have his bail revoked, saying there are no likely conditions he will abide by to stop witness tampering. It sounds like Trump a little bit. As evidence, prosecutors pointed to SBF already contacting potential witnesses and sharing personal documents belonging to his former girlfriend, Carolyn Ellison. With the New York Times reminder, Bankman-Freed pleaded not guilty to 13 charges and Ellison pleaded guilty to seven. Where are we with him now? He's sort of sitting at home with his parents in Palo Alto, right? Is that correct?

Teddy Schleifer: He is for now. I mean, prosecutors want to put him in jail until this October trial. One good rule of thumb for any leakers out there: when you leak, you generally don't want to tell people that you leaked.

Kara Swisher: Leaked, right.

Teddy Schleifer: Just a general rule of thumb. You generally want to keep that. But Sam basically under some scrutiny from prosecutors admitted that he leaked this Google Doc from Karen Allison to the New York Times.

Kara Swisher: And now, there's some similarities to Trump, right? Which he's not supposed to, right? Explain. They're not supposed—like with Trump, he's supposed to not say, "You come at me, I'm going to come at you" or "Jack Smith is deranged," whatever. But there's the exact same tension between free speech rights and interfering with a trial, witness intimidation.

Teddy Schleifer: Right. I mean, we're going to talk about Trump later. The idea that he feels he is speaking his truth and Sam Backman Freed feels like he has a right to defend himself.

Kara Swisher: But there's a difference. Remember the Substack posts he was doing earlier this year where he's now going into the Alameda balance sheet, blah, blah, blah. Sure, that's free speech rights. But Carolyn Ellison is the star witness in the trial.

Teddy Schleifer: She is. She's like Pence. She kept extemporaneous notes, apparently.

Kara Swisher: Right. I mean, this is also a self-serving explanation. So take this with a pound of salt. But in the media, we're trying to get any intel we can. Why not?

Teddy Schleifer: Sure. So I don't blame the New York Times for publishing it. And I do believe that defendants have a right to protect themselves, especially when you're being prosecuted in this high profile trial. I think lots of people have probably convicted Sam Beckman Freed already in their minds the same way that when Elizabeth Holmes was sentenced to jail, lots of people thought she had probably been in jail for five years, because you sort of read about the indictment, you forget about the details, and you assume that the bad man did bad things. So I think Sam has a right to protect himself. But where's the line between protecting himself and witness intimidation?

Kara Swisher: Have you talked to him recently?

Teddy Schleifer: Yeah. I've talked to him a couple times over the last couple months.

Kara Swisher: And how does he feel? Is the little unmade bed up okay? Is he doing okay?

Teddy Schleifer: I think he'll be fine. He's 30. He's my age.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, because he looks like a seven-year-old.

Teddy Schleifer: He's by the Stanford campus. He has this 75-pound German shepherd that's his friend. His parents are trying to live their lives as best they can, even though they're kind of implicated in some ways.

Kara Swisher: Well, they are. They were very involved with him. My God.

Teddy Schleifer: His brother just got off on this campaign finance charge, which is huge news for everybody in the political concentric circles around Sam Bankman Freed. Because he was spending so much money on politics. There were so many people who were implicated, probably none more than his brother, who obviously has the exact same last name. And maybe he should change it.

Kara Swisher: Yeah.

Teddy Schleifer: Because the campaign finance charge has dropped. But everyone's already thought he was guilty. That's what people think.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. I don't really feel sorry for him either. But what I do feel good about is Barbie is worth a billion. Scott's not here, but I think I'll take a moment. Barbie is worth a billion. Oppenheimer's made about half that. Greta Gerwig has raked in more than a billion dollars at the global box office, making the first U.S. film directed by one woman to reach a billion dollar mark. You called it. I called it. I did. To what do you owe your clairvoyance and general market savvy?

Teddy Schleifer: Watching the Taylor Swift thing happening, there is a real power to women's spending, to young girl spending, and the love of someone like Taylor Swift. And this had a similar vibe to it. I hate to say "girl power," but it is. And it was also smart. I thought it was much more canny than people expected. It wasn't a silly frothy thing. If you go back the second time, you see a lot of things in it, and people were dying for something like this, something that you could just enjoy, or you could also go, "Huh, that's an interesting point they're making." So I don't know. I just feel like it's a great movie. And Greta Gerwig is a fantastic director and writer.

Kara Swisher: There are some similarities in tech where lots of VCs for a long time just sort of cast dispersions around women's industries. I'm thinking about makeup and glossy versions. People just assume that this is the B-leagues.

Teddy Schleifer: Right, exactly. This is an obvious point, but obviously men are seeing this movie as well. And to some extent, I think this should be a wake-up call to Hollywood. It always does. What sells? It's a fantastic movie. They just think it's some sort of outlier, which it's not. But we'll see. I hope there's not a part two. I hope she doesn't do two.

Kara Swisher: But anyway, let's get to our first big story. Donald Trump keeps breaking his own records for the number of times a former president has been indicted. He's now at three. Last week, a federal grand jury in Washington indicted Trump on four counts of conspiracy and obstruction related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which culminated in the January 6th insurrection. The indictment references his knowing lies about election fraud, recruitment of fake electors in the swing states, and obstruction of the Electoral College vote certifications. And another possible indictment coming out of Georgia before the end of the month. Where are we with this? Because he seems to be trying to make hay out of this situation. He's the leading presidential candidate. DeSantis is a distant second and fading, I would say. You can talk a little bit about—there's a lot of tech supporters of DeSantis, for example. I don't think there's any tech supporters of Trump anymore, but maybe I'm wrong. Some of these charges carry quite a lot of things. I'm going to be a little bit—this 641 years, because he's using it for fundraising. These white collar crimes never get that. They get like a fraction. So I'm not going to let him do that. He's not going to be in jail for 641 years. He may not even go to jail.

Teddy Schleifer: I know, but he may even not go to jail because the Secret Service. He might have to live around if he gets convicted.

Kara Swisher: He's fundraising off these indictments. At a Friday rally in Alabama, he says, "Anytime they file an indictment, we go way up in the polls. We need one more indictment to close out this election." What do we think?

Teddy Schleifer: I mean, that was some conventional wisdom that Trump was saying. The fact that he's kind of right, right? Just one more indictment, two more indictments, and every time he gets indicted, he raises five or ten million. We'll talk to Frank about this, who's coming up. Because there's little signs that maybe not so much.

Kara Swisher: Yeah.

Teddy Schleifer: When you read the indictment, unlike the Stormy Daniels hush money case or frankly the Mar-a-Lago documents case, I feel like the gravity of the charges really hits you in a way that we all experienced January 6th. I'm sure you have cinematic memory of every phone call you took that day, every text, which is obviously not true of our mutual experience reading the Mar-a-Lago documents or mutual experience with Stormy Daniels. So I feel like our lived experience makes the January 6th indictment feel so much more significant than anything else that's happened in politics.

Kara Swisher: Also, reading it, it's a little bit of a testament to journalism. So much of this has been reported. You would think that there would be these huge scoops embedded in the document. But I feel like I read a lot of this in my game.

Teddy Schleifer: It's a lot of details.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, it's absolutely. What's going on with the Sanders? Very few people in Silicon Valley supported Trump before. They were sort of near him. I know Mark Zuckerberg met with him. Elon's met with him. They were on those councils. A lot of tech people were on those councils. They went to that famous 2016 meeting, which I actually scooped. They were all there. Where is the support on the Republican side in the people you cover?

Teddy Schleifer: Look, I think I'd be hard pressed right now to come up with a single personality in Silicon Valley who's excited about Donald Trump. It goes back to what I was saying in this post-Trump era, whatever you want to call it, where people can go back to being Republicans like Mark Zuckerberg and go back to being Mark Zuckerberg. He's not constantly thinking about Trump and how he's positioned vis-a-vis Trump. There is zilch. There is no one in Silicon Valley who I think is excited about Donald Trump. For a long time, and I'm eager to talk to Frank a little later on the show about this, I think lots of people in the industry who are conservative were flocking to DeSantis because he was the only game in town. And there was a feeling like, regardless of whether or not you thought abortion bans should happen at six weeks or 10 weeks or 20 weeks, if you don't like Donald Trump, this is the only person who seems to have a chance of winning. So who cares what you think about Tim Scott?

Kara Swisher: David Sachs is giving him money through that whatever the hell PAC he's got. And then others who is still with DeSantis? Who with Tim Scott? Obviously Larry Ellison was a big backer, early backer of Tim Scott. Where is the money going now since it looks like Trump probably has it wrapped up?

Teddy Schleifer: I think Larry Ellison is going to be a huge story of the next year for me.

Kara Swisher: This is the head of Oracle. Tell me.

Teddy Schleifer: Yeah, sure. I think there is a concern that Larry Ellison could be this cycle's Sheldon Adelson. I don't mean that in a good way.

Kara Swisher: I never thought Sheldon Adelson was a good way. This is the Las Vegas casino magnate who died two or three years ago now.

Teddy Schleifer: Larry Ellison loves Tim Scott. Larry Ellison is an emotional guy who falls hard for people like Marco Rubio, B.B. Netanyahu. He loves him some Tim Scott right now. And the reason he could be the Sheldon Adelson of this time around is there are lots of Republicans who want to consolidate against Trump. We're going to talk about Frank a little later on. The idea is there's going to be this great consolidation where everyone's going to drop out and we're all going to find the white knight, whether it's Glenn Youngkin or Ron DeSantis. And we're going to beat Trump because all the rich people in the world are going to pool together all their money on their little text chain and save democracy from Donald Trump. And then you've got Larry Ellison over here who says, "I am super committed to Tim Scott. No matter what happens, I'm going to spend a gajillion dollars to help this guy," which is just what Sheldon Adelson did for Newt Gingrich in 2012. Newt Gingrich had like negative 0.75 support. But he had one rich guy in his corner who prevented the consolidation. And then Mitt Romney won and that was the Republican primary. So there's lots of concern right now when I talk with major donors that like, how do we get Larry to sing from the same songbook here?

Kara Swisher: So what songbook do they want to sing from? Because DeSantis has just been abandoned by one of his major billionaires. What's his name?

Teddy Schleifer: Robert Bigelow.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. What does he make money on? Paper bags?

Teddy Schleifer: He's a hotel guy, but he also is a prominent investor in UFO research.

Kara Swisher: Whatever. So where are these billionaire clubs? So they want to stop Ellison from doing it and backing DeSantis? I don't see it. I think they're abandoning DeSantis, the billionaires, correct? Is Sachs and Elon doing that or not?

Teddy Schleifer: I feel like David Sachs is much more powerful because of his bark than his bite. And I mean that lovingly to David Sachs. This is a guy who—the amount of money he's spending on politics is not that much. Let's be real. He is not Larry Ellison wealth.

Kara Swisher: But I'm saying there's a group of people that are DeSantis fans, correct?

Teddy Schleifer: Yeah.

Kara Swisher: There's all this hoopla around Elon and like, is he going to fund this or that? These people are actually pretty parsimonious with political spending. Elon is not spending billions of dollars.

Teddy Schleifer: No, he's just yapping his mouth.

Kara Swisher: He's just yapping his mouth. I'm aware.

Teddy Schleifer: But I would argue that that is more important than Elon giving 10 or 20 million bucks. The fact that Elon is—it goes beyond just being a billionaire. I don't think the money matters and ads. People are not hearing as much of it because he says things so much. I don't think he's a political player in this regard. I don't think everyone goes, "Ah, Elon likes this." I think it's maybe negative. "Oh, that asshole likes it. I'm going to go this way."

Kara Swisher: So who are they coalescing behind? If you had to guess, who would it be?

Teddy Schleifer: Well, right now we're recording this in August 2023. And we're in this transitional period where you know who donors do not support, but you don't know who the white knight is. I do think there's going to be lots of donor agita around Glenn Youngkin after November when he hopefully, in his opinion, helps flip the Virginia legislature. There's going to be like, "Oh, we just need someone else." That's the classic fantasy. These donors do not feel that Ron DeSantis or Vivek Ramaswamy or Nikki Haley—there's going to be this dissatisfaction with the field. And I think Glenn Youngkin's phone is going to be blowing up on November 15th to do this last minute save democracy push. But the reason it all sounds like a fantasy, Cara, is this all feels so futile. I'm just feeling like there is a sense when I talk with major Republican donors right now that we're just wasting our time. Trump will be the Republican nominee and some billionaire will spend a couple million on Person X.

Kara Swisher: Which billionaire? Will they all run to Trump then if he's the nominee or not?

Teddy Schleifer: Not to be too nihilistic. It just feels like all these people are wasting their time. The Republican primary base seems unshakable. And whether or not Larry Ellison spends 50 million or 500 million or 500 billion, Trump has shown from 2016 that he did not need these people.

Kara Swisher: In 2020, people were sucking up to him just because he was the only game in town. He was also president.

Teddy Schleifer: Right, sure. But there was no credible Republican primary to Donald Trump in 2020.

Kara Swisher: But they don't want to give the money. They don't want to give the money, correct? Big Republican donors?

Teddy Schleifer: Yes, big Republican donors. I think there'll be a little bit of egg on the face just to admit that these donors are much more impotent than they make themselves feel. These people have huge egos. They see themselves as political savants. The reality is 2016 demonstrated that they don't know what they're doing.

Kara Swisher: Last question on this. So there's Trump. Is the money going elsewhere to governors? Is there other people it's going to so they can at least have—or senators? Is there any backers that's excited them in some way? Because that's another way to control things. You don't have to have the president necessarily.

Teddy Schleifer: Sure. Look, there's how many conversations that I had with major Republican donors during the Trump era who were just like, "Well, I'm really focusing down, blah, blah, blah." It's a way to pretend that you live in this fantasy world where the Republican party is for low taxes and that's it. I think there's going to be clearly some Republican excitement around Virginia after Youngkin.

Kara Swisher: So Youngkin, you say?

Teddy Schleifer: Right. Yeah. There's Virginia elections this year. If he wins, if he doesn't, then he looks like—

Kara Swisher: Right. Then he's certainly not running for president if he gets creamed.

Teddy Schleifer: But I think this feels, if you're a Republican donor, 2024 feels like maybe the last gasp of donors thinking that they can control the process. The big opinion or the conventional wisdom in politics, popularized by Bernie Sanders, is that politicians are beholden to their donors, the billionaires.

Kara Swisher: No, Trump's not beholden to any of them. He could use the money.

Teddy Schleifer: Sure. But I just feel like the way politics really works and the way donor politics really works is that donors really fool politicians into thinking that they have influence, and less like donors capturing politicians. The dog is wagging the tail this time a little bit.

Kara Swisher: So who is lining up for Biden? Who is lining up in that space? Reid Hoffman?

Teddy Schleifer: Yeah. I was going to say you're a huge Reid Hoffman fan, right?

Kara Swisher: Yes, I am. I like—not huge, I would say. Well, the bar is so low.

Teddy Schleifer: Sure. Relative to the other PayPal mafia folks.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. Oh, well, yeah. So who is—is Reed and who else? They seem enthusiastic for Biden?

Teddy Schleifer: I think Reed is the most creative political actor in Silicon Valley. And I say that for good and for ill. Reed obviously stepped in it a lot over the last eight years, but he is the most passionate.

Kara Swisher: He's recovering.

Teddy Schleifer: Yeah, definitely.

Kara Swisher: Is there anybody else coming to the fore now that Sam Bankman-Freed's on house arrest?

Teddy Schleifer: I was going to say, have you heard of this guy named Sam Bankman-Freed? It could be the new big thing in Democratic politics. I think a big story over the last couple of years has been Dustin Moskowitz, one of the other founders of Facebook.

Kara Swisher: Someone else I like quite a bit.

Teddy Schleifer: Yeah, I like Dustin too. And he has popularized a different approach to political philanthropy where he sort of—we don't have to go revisit all of the follies of effective altruism that Sam Beckman Freed has reminded us all of. But Dustin Moskowitz is sort of like the grown up in that world. And he believes that if you have a dollar and you can donate it to procuring an anti-malarial bed in Africa, that's probably a better use of money than trying to elect Barack Obama.

Kara Swisher: But what if the threat to the world isn't Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, but the threat to the world is like Trump nuking the entire world or hypothetically a pathogen that kills millions of people?

[End of Part 1]

Kara Swisher: Then maybe the dollar is better spent on politics. Dustin's a huge player in this role, too. I like him a lot, actually. I think he's really interesting and smart. And his wife also is involved.

Teddy Schleifer: Former journalist.

Kara Swisher: Former journalist, Carrie Tuna. All right, Teddy, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about opposition research in politics and we'll speak with a friend of Pivot, Frank Luntz.

[Ad Break]

Kara Swisher: Teddy, I want to talk about your story from July, which I thought was really terrific, about an opposition research campaign against Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of PayPal, who's been a big Republican donor who is sitting it out, right? Seems to be not, yes?

Teddy Schleifer: Yeah, yeah. I think it's broadly fair to say, yeah.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. And the reason is because he's like, doesn't like, just is sick of it, right? He didn't spend that much money, by the way. He got a lot of throughput for his $30 million, essentially. Opposition researchers dig up dirt on political candidates. This is very common these days. That's extending to their top donors as well. Again, I'm not surprised. Why wouldn't you? Your story is centered on one man in particular, a model named Jeff Thomas. Thiel was in a relationship with him. The opposition researchers wanted to interview Thomas to see if he had any information he could use against Thiel. The opposition researchers led by a Democratic political operative named Jack theory hounded the guy as you wrote. Talk about this. I have an issue with this because like these are all adults, okay, and I get that he had he was mentally fragile, I think because he ended up killing himself. His death was rendered a suicide, right? So, and then of course, they're all the conspiracy theories which is outlandish I thought but talk a little bit about this. The story here is Peter Thiel, who obviously has become a major player in Republican politics. You're totally correct, though, that like David Sacks, bark bigger than the bite. But he spent 30, 40 million, right?

Teddy Schleifer: Yeah, but he got one guy elected.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, sure. J.D. Vance, Blake Masters is not in the Senate. And he was integral to Trump, too. He introduced Silicon Valley people to Trump. I don't know how effective that was, but he was his guy for a while. And he's become disillusioned with Trump, I'm pretty sure. Correct?

Teddy Schleifer: Correct. So Peter has become a target of the left. And this is not to like, you know, break out a violin for, you know, one of the richest people in the world having to deal with some meanie liberals who are looking into his personal life. But there were meanie liberals looking into his personal life.

Kara Swisher: Let me also be clear. He was mean to liberals. Like, come on. He sued the media just because he was in a pique. This is a big boy, a big rich boy. Right. So, you know, and so that let's just make that clear. But go ahead.

Teddy Schleifer: Well, I mean, the question is, where is the line in opposition research, right? Or frankly, where's the line in journalism about what sort of things in someone's personal life are merit for publication or merit for attack versus just letting people's private lives be their private lives? And Kara, I remember, you know, you and I have talked about this privately, just the sense about what in the Me Too era is worth publication, right?

Kara Swisher: We left a lot out at Recode. We were very, we did because if it didn't have a direct issue with the business, like we did write about Sergey Brin's affair because it had a direct impact. Otherwise, the stuff I know, I was like, I don't care if they're taking drugs. I don't care if they're having an affair. I don't care. We never did. And we knew about it, but we didn't write about it.

Teddy Schleifer: Right. But you have the bar of a journalist, right? Now, if you were an opposition researcher who is working to elect Democrats, your bar might be very different. There's no international association of oppo researchers that are going to censure you or remove your credentials. Anything kind of goes. And I feel like what's happening now with Peter Thiel is people are looking into how he kind of conducts himself. And there was this group of oppo researchers who were in West Hollywood trying to interview men who go to Peter Thiel parties. He has a lot of parties. I don't think that's any big secret. I don't care. Good for him. But you can see why if you are a liberal who believes that Peter Thiel is a capital T threat to democracy, it's like, sure, let's go get this guy.

Kara Swisher: Right. And so why is this a surprise? I think this happened to the Clintons. This has happened to George Bush. There was a look into his affairs. This is not a new, fresh thing for opposition research. So tell me why this is different. And let me just for people to know this guy, Jeff Thomas, I actually did follow him because I was aware of this relationship. He told Peter about this, Peter Thiel, which you wrote. Peter asked him to move out of the home he was paying for. Sometime later, he dies by suicide.

Teddy Schleifer: Yeah, that's right.

Kara Swisher: This is tragic. But what is the blame here? And I think opposition research is just going to get worse than it has. It's already been pretty bad from what I get. I mean, watching the Clintons, watching the—and some of it might be true about them, by the way, a lot of this stuff. So, you know, I wouldn't ever do it and I wouldn't do stories on it. But certainly a lot of people would these days.

Teddy Schleifer: I think what's new, Kara, is that people are now going after donors in a way that—look, obviously, people have enemies. Everyone's got enemies. Brooklyn has enemies. There are people who look into everyone's personal life since the beginning of time. And when you talk with defenders of the oppo research campaign, as I did, they say, like, they're going after George Soros. They're going after tons of well-meaning liberals and looking into their personal lives. Like, anything goes. I do feel like the bar has gotten so, so low, especially in oppo where—the way that oppo used to work for people who read the news is like, you know, if you see some story that says Joe Manchin didn't pay his taxes, according to records.

Kara Swisher: Or his daughter is this and that.

Teddy Schleifer: Right. Like, let's cut the bullshit here. Reporters are not coming up with that idea. Most of the time that was fed to them by an oppo person. And then you write the story and the story is true. And it's a win-win. The journalist gets a scoop. The oppo person gets their hit, as they're known in the oppo world. The way the oppo is working now, and I think the story illustrates it, is oppo researchers going on Instagram and messaging other gay men in West Hollywood and trying to get them to leak screenshots of their conversations with Peter Thiel. That's human intelligence, as people in spy craft would call that. That's different than high school yearbooks.

Kara Swisher: I suspect spies were also looking at it because of his closeness to all these powerful people. I imagine people are doing it on all these people. And I guess I'm just not surprised. And this is a guy who stuck his head far above the parapet. It's not someone who's just hanging around giving money. He's been very loud. He's been very present. He's sitting next to Trump at a giant tech meeting. Is there something wrong with that? Because when I think of corporate people, I don't know, there was that story when Don Lemon, that one before he was fired, I was like, oh look, he's gonna get fired. I'm seeing this dribbity drab. You see it with media executives all the time. I actually even called him, I said, you're gonna get fired. I was like, yeah, because I was like, come on, it's so obvious. Because in that particular story it was 20 years ago. I was like, so they've been digging, someone's been digging up some stuff. Is that wrong, do you think? Or I don't know. You seem to think it was wrong in the piece or that it had a responsibility to the suicide.

Teddy Schleifer: I think that it's hard to talk about this without really going into every allegation, which we can't really do, which is definitely a challenge of the piece for sure. But the reality is there is some line between personal life that is relevant to the public interest and personal life that is not, right? I mean you're saying, for instance, there are things in Recode where person X is having an affair and it could be salacious and tawdry and would get clicks. And maybe you could squint and argue it's relevant to the business, whatever that means. You never did.

Kara Swisher: Right.

Teddy Schleifer: But then there's the Sergey Brin news, which I definitely do think was the right call to publish about that. And I really feel like we're in this anything goes era now in Oppo, where there's no real repercussions for anything. Because also in the journalism side, there's always someone who's going to publish it, right? I mean, a lot of the story that I wrote about centers on Ryan Grimm at The Intercept. And that's obviously an ideological outlet. And you don't have to get your Oppo published in the New York Times. There was this huge story a couple weeks ago where random anonymous accounts on Twitter were tweeting these DeSantis videos with Nazi imagery. Remember this stuff? And there's no punishment for some random anonymous account tweeting a video. You don't even know who these people are.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, but this is what Trump does publicly.

Teddy Schleifer: They're all doing it.

Kara Swisher: I just feel like they do it and it's going to get worse, the way, and some of it's for the good. Me Too stuff was oppo research, if you really think about it. Some of it finally got out there. And it did have pertinence, right? It did have pertinence. And it seems to me if you stick your head that far, you're going to have people looking into you. I just don't even know why they think they're not going to. Either in the old days, it was you got blackmailed, right? Or you had to leave your job or something like that. In this case, especially with the attacks on Soros and many others, I'm sort of like, well, guess what? Guess what you did? And I think you had a quote from Peter saying that, I guess. Now I feel bad for Hillary Clinton, right?

Teddy Schleifer: No, for Anita Hill.

Kara Swisher: Anita Hill.

Teddy Schleifer: I know.

Kara Swisher: I was like, oh my God.

Teddy Schleifer: Sure, sure.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, yeah. You know, Peter, again, billionaires love to see themselves as the victims of the meanie liberals. The comparison to Anita Hill, though, was precious.

Teddy Schleifer: I know.

Kara Swisher: But I was like, you were a pretty tough, sharp-elbowed dude. Like, you're not, and you should use those. Anyway, very interesting story. I thought it was fascinating. It brings up a lot of things. And again, it's a tragic death of Jeff Thomas in any case. And you should read it. It's on Puck. It made me think a lot. And I was trying to think if it was fair or not to say, you know, to do oppo. I came to the conclusion. Yes, it is. Yes, these people are trying to wield power. And if they're trying to wield power, good luck to them. You know, fire with fire. And again, the George, I could name 20 different big Democratic donors that get targeted. But anyway, let's speaking of which thing of power, let's bring in our friend of Pivot. Frank Luntz is a communications consultant and pollster. He has conducted over 2,500 surveys and focus groups in more than two dozen countries. I've just found out my son loves Frank Luntz. I had no idea. And so does my mother, as usual. You've had some really interesting polls out lately. But first of all, you just got back from Ukraine. You were there, what, 24 hours? Is that correct?

Frank Luntz: Unless I was, I spent 10 hours on the ground in Kyiv. It took almost 48 hours to get there, almost 48 hours to get back. I had the chance to meet with the president, Zelenskyy, and it was an eye-opening experience, I think, to myself. Because I'm Ukrainian. Both of my grandparents on my mother's side, both my grandparents on my father's side are Ukrainian.

Kara Swisher: Wow.

Frank Luntz: So there but for the grace of God go I. And I've been to Ukraine five or six times already. And every time I left, I wanted to call my grandparents and say to them, thank God, thank you so much for deciding to come to America, for deciding to risk it all and make a difference in the people who came after you. I am so blessed that they made that tough decision. And I think of how hostile we are to immigration in this country. I don't understand the darkness and the meanness and the divisiveness. And I don't understand the seeming love of Putin or love of Russia when they're doing so much destruction and damage and really destroying a people. I don't get it.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. So you went there to visit and to understand what was happening on the ground, right? Had you been there before the beginning of these hostilities?

Frank Luntz: Yes. I think this is either my fifth or sixth time. It's a beautiful country with beautiful people, and it's being destroyed. I went to meet with this children's organization, this defensive children organization, because they're stealing kids and taking them into Russia. I paid homage to the people in the various communities who had given their lives to support their country. And there are these Republicans who seem to be pro-Putin. I don't get it. I don't understand. This is not the country that I grew up in. This is not the party that I joined 40 years ago. It's hard to believe it's been that long.

Kara Swisher: So talk about that. Why are they doing that? Is it politics? Let's switch to politics. Why do they think, and it's not just them, it's Teddy and I have written about Elon Musk and a whole bunch of people are seemingly pro-Putin, anti, well, not anti, I don't know, because he's also doing Starlink there. So there's a real movement politically among Republicans to do so. Not everybody, by a stretch, Lindsey Graham's very supportive of Ukraine. Lots of Republicans are. Why has that happened from your perspective, politically?

Frank Luntz: In two words, Donald Trump. Early in this conflict, he talked about Putin being brilliant. And I urge listeners who don't want to hear this, go back to the original speeches of Donald Trump in the opening of the war and how he praised Russia. He praised Putin. He said this makes total sense. He's a brilliant strategist. Of course he would do this. And even now, even now he would force Ukraine to make peace when their country has been invaded, their people have been killed, their infrastructure's been destroyed, children have been suffering. And in essence, there are people within the Republican Party who want Ukraine to capitulate. It's not their fault. And this is part of what's wrong in politics right now, is that I don't believe the public knows the truth. I don't believe that they actually understand what's going on there, because if they did, they would have a different point of view. I'm sure I sound to a listener like I've lost control, but I have to tell you, every time you and I talk, it's worse than the time before. The combination of social media, of AI, of politics, of division, of hate towards each other, it's getting worse. And I think that we're going to lose control between now and Election Day. And I don't know if we can withstand it. I don't know.

Kara Swisher: All right. Talk about that. How do you get those? So Trump's shifted people's opinions here. Ordinarily, most Americans would be like the Russians? No, thank you. What does it take to get them off that bandwagon and following that?

Frank Luntz: I think it's a skill that people don't focus on and it's not words. So what brought me to prominence is not what helps bring about the change. I think you have to see it. I think you have to feel it. I think you have to experience it, which means the pictures become more important than the language. What you show and what people see is more powerful than what they hear. So that's change number one. Number two is they have to understand, in a word, consequences. What are the consequences should Russia win? What are the consequences should Ukraine win? Because it's not just about those countries. And frankly, it's not even just about China. It's about us as human beings. Do we fully understand the consequences of ChatGPT, of AI, of technology? Do we understand the content? And I don't believe we do. And I think that that's got to be a change that we have to start looking at the impact of our decisions.

Kara Swisher: So you do polls one after another, and it doesn't seem to be moving in that direction. As you said, they don't seem to care about the legal woes in Trump's case. They listen to him on Ukraine. It doesn't seem like any Republican candidates have a chance of beating him at this point. He can beat himself, I guess. That's the way it goes. Where are we right now? You've done a lot of poll groups. I've been following them. They shift back and forth in an interesting way. But give us a sort of roundabout of where we are right now. Let's focus on the Republican side.

Frank Luntz: On the Republican side, Ron DeSantis, the governor, and he said to me in Iowa that I'm too critical of him. So let me say something in support of his candidacy. He has the best advertising of any candidate, a one-minute ad that talked about how our culture is changing, how the things that we came to take for granted aren't what they used to be. And it's really, really impactful. That said, Republicans don't want government choosing winners and losers. They don't want weaponization. If they don't like it from Joe Biden, they're not going to like it from a Republican either. So DeSantis' numbers all across the country have been deteriorating. In his place in Iowa, Tim Scott is rising, and in New Hampshire, Chris Christie is rising. Different states, different electorates, different priorities, different candidates. At this point, we have never had on either the Republican or the Democratic side someone with this much of a lead that doesn't get the nomination. So you're correct there. But I got to tell you, as I look at this, as I listen to the words, the phrases, the emotions, the passion of that Trump vote, I don't know if anything can change it. I don't know if even great debate performances in August, September, October, November will change this outcome. And here's why. Trump is perceived as a victim. He's perceived as being persecuted. His enemies are the same enemies as the average Republican. And so every time he gets indicted, his numbers go up. And people are just not willing to hear an alternative narrative right now. They get their information from sources that affirm them rather than inform them. The people they talk to are all in a silo. And this is a much bigger issue that I know you deal with. I know this podcast deals with. We're screwed as a society because we can't even listen to people that aren't affirming what we already believe.

Kara Swisher: Okay. Teddy?

Teddy Schleifer: Frank, a very memorable campaign for me to cover was I covered the Wendy Davis campaign in 2014, which she lost by, I think it was 21 points. And that race has kind of put a stamp in my mind about how races are covered and whether or not what it means for a race to be quote unquote competitive. We all covered that race in Texas, the Houston Chronicle, like it was a five point race. And that means covering this ad or that ad or why is Wendy Davis visiting Houston or Dallas, blah, blah, blah. And she lost by 21 points. And I felt like we all wasted our time covering this race because she was never going to win. I'm thinking about the Republican primary right now and whether or not reporters and frankly, people like us are wasting our time. We're arguing about Tim Scott rising in Iowa or Chris Christie rising in New Hampshire and going from 5 percent to 10 percent or DeSantis firing a third of his staff. Like whatever the news of the day is. Do you think there actually is a Republican primary at this point? Let me put this way. Would you call the Republican primary competitive?

Frank Luntz: At this moment, you're correct. At this moment, it isn't. But we've never had a president who, in the middle of this campaign, based on when the trials are scheduled, he could be found guilty. He could be heading to prison, technically, in the middle of the campaign. So how can you not cover it this way? How can you not hear from every voice? And my issue, I'm glad you raised it, is that the people who are supposed to keep us sane, the people who are supposed to tell us the truth and interpret what's happening, has lost all credibility, all trust. And it shouldn't be that way. And I'm going to say something that's heretical. I need the New York Times. I need the Washington Post. I need the Wall Street Journal, because they're the ones who will say, wait a second, Mr. Former President, what you say is not true. But if the public won't believe your reporting, if they won't believe either what you say, how you say it, or what you choose to say, then we really are screwed. And that's the source of this. And you can hear it in my voice. That's the source of this angst. That's the source of this frustration is that there's no way to bring accountability into this election because the people who are supposed to do it, the FBI, the intelligence, the Justice Department, everything has been politicized and polarized. And I'm using screwed because I don't want to use the F word on the radio.

Kara Swisher: You can use the F word. It's not the radio. You can use the F word. So according to Quinnipiac University poll, nearly half of all Americans would consider voting for a third party. You brought that in. You did focus groups with some of them. Why don't we see those numbers supported in actual elections? I was thinking this yesterday. I was like, there just kind of has to be a third party now, you know, especially among disaffected Republicans, at least, and maybe some Democrats. Can you talk a little bit about that happening, whether it's No Labels or whoever? What kind of impact does that have?

Frank Luntz: I think No Labels can have a significant impact, but the key is that it's not another party. It cannot be political. It cannot be bipartisan. It has to be nonpartisan. It cannot be the best of the Democrats, the best of the Republicans. It has to get around all that, because if it's political, then it's part of the same thing that the public is saying, enough. And in fact, if you ask me, what is the one word that describes how the most Americans feel right now about our politics, about the election, about a system of government, it's "enough" with an exclamation point. And No Labels has the opportunity to—whichever candidate it ends up running, maybe Joe Manchin. Joe Manchin's perfect, but he's not the only one. Maybe John Sununu from New Hampshire, maybe Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii, even a Mark Cuban, even a business person. But it's not bipartisanship. It's nonpartisan, nonpolitical, nontraditional. It's someone who truly comes from outside the system, has the experience that would enable them to do the job, because the thing after not being political, they want results. By the way, it's not getting things done. Getting things done is the process. They want actual results. And the third value that we're looking for is the truth. This person better not be political, better not have been shown to say one thing and do another. If you can show accountability, results, and the truth, you're credible.

Teddy Schleifer: Frank, I had one question on polling regarding No Labels and just third-party candidates in general. I feel like there is a very intense attachment to the center-right, low taxes, but keep abortion rights this hypothetical candidate when we talk about it. And I think the show has been polling at a time like now. Right. It's August 2023. We're talking about polling an election that is 16 or 14 months away. Do you feel like there is any sign in kind of polling that people might like that sort of candidate theoretically, but then when they actually go to vote, they're just driven by partisanship and it's like, sure, they could be a Wall Street Republican for Trump anyway. Or this is our choice. I'd like something other than Coke and Pepsi, but I guess that's what I have to pick, right? I'm wondering whether that polling is overstating these people's appeal.

Frank Luntz: Absolutely not. This is different. You have a president who is 80 years old who's asking for support for when he's 86 years old. You have another candidate who's asking support when the guy's being indicted, seems like every week for another crime. And the public is looking at both these candidates and saying, no, both of you go away, give us something different. I worked for Ross Perot, so I've been through this on a personal level back in 1992. And Ross Perot ended up with 19% of the vote and he was certifiably crazy. Think of what has happened since 1992, how much more negative we are, how much less optimistic we are, how much that we believe that the two-party system is broken. It's not working for people because nothing that they're looking for is getting done. And both sides demonize each other. If Ross Perot can get 19% of the vote, and as I say this, I'm so emotional that I'm actually spitting all over my computer. If Ross Perot can get 19%, an independent candidate can get at least 25, even 30 percent. Can they win? I don't think so. But you cannot count them out.

Kara Swisher: Can't count them out. OK, when you talk about that, it's one of the things that tends to happen is that in our history, we've had this happen. Parties change. There have been several different shifts. Do you imagine this is one of those times? And how does it actually come about? Because in the case of you are sort of comparing Donald Trump with Biden, he has passed some significant legislation compared to most presidents, by the way. It doesn't seem to sink in with people or he doesn't get credit for it. Inflation is now at 3%. You know what I mean?

Kara Swisher: It's things have calmed down considerably. He's not going to get credit for it because of the age thing pretty much. That's the big rap on him, correct? Is his age, not that they don't like him or that they don't think he's effective, correct? Or am I wrong about that?

Frank Luntz: But Donald Trump also has a significant set of accomplishments. He brought our attention to China, which no previous president, Republican or Democrat, had done. He addressed the issue of economic development. We were having quarter after quarter after quarter of serious, significant economic growth. The unemployment rate under Trump, they said it could never get that low, and it did. So Trump himself can point to this.

Kara Swisher: But he doesn't.

Frank Luntz: Exactly. He spends a lot of time talking about election fraud. So instead of focusing on, "Okay, I did this, this is step one, let's now focus on the future," he's so trapped in 2020 that not only do I think that he would lose if he's the Republican nominee, I think he would bring the entire Republican party down with him. The American people don't want to look backward. It's part of what makes us uniquely American. We're focused on the future. And he's creating this sense of resentment and revenge that also wasn't really a part of our culture. And it's now become that way. And that's my criticism. That's my focus.

Teddy Schleifer: So you just said you don't think he could win. I have to tell you, several of my Trumpy relatives are tired of him. They really are. And they weren't before. They absolutely weren't. They're like, "I think he might be guilty." Like they are. It's getting through. I know you don't think it is, but I think it is with not the crate, not the ones that go and buy all the hats. That's a different group that's never going to change. But the ones that were like, "I like this tax thing. I like the China thing. I like this." They're all like, "What a fucking loud mouth pain in the ass. And I think he's probably a criminal." And that's what they think. Now, I don't know who they're going to vote for. I don't think they'll vote for him. I don't think they'll vote for anybody, actually, is what I think. And that's why Joe Manchin suddenly becomes a viable option.

Frank Luntz: Yeah, they would vote for him. So I'm glad that you raised this because I've been unable to present this on cable news. Those who want to sink Donald Trump aren't doing it the right way. If you insult his supporters, they will never leave him. If you demonize the good stuff, they won't hear the bad stuff. I keep saying to anyone who will listen: if you want to indict him for criminal behavior, don't give him five days to define what that indictment is about. He doesn't play by the same rules. He doesn't act the way any other candidate acts, so you have to understand that. And it's not about killing him with kindness, but demonizing is not going to get you where you want to go.

Kara Swisher: Which, although Biden's been quiet, hasn't he? He has been quiet. He hasn't gone on the offensive against him on that at all. I haven't heard a word.

Frank Luntz: I haven't heard a word from him about this indictment at all. He's on the beach. He's riding his bike around.

Kara Swisher: That's my impression.

Frank Luntz: He's nervous because of what is happening with Hunter Biden.

Kara Swisher: With Hunter, right.

Frank Luntz: And it's, I just think that we've weaponized politics to a degree that—and I recognize we did the same thing 150 years ago. The campaign against Grover Cleveland in 1892 was vicious. The campaign against Thomas Jefferson in 1800 was vicious, but—

Kara Swisher: Remember it well.

Frank Luntz: We didn't have social media.

Kara Swisher: Well, Joe Biden remembers it all. We did not have social media. Trump is three years younger, but go ahead. Keep going.

Frank Luntz: But he acts so much younger.

Kara Swisher: He's still old.

Frank Luntz: We didn't have social media. We didn't have AI. We didn't have the ability to only collect news from one perspective. And I think that it's just making everything so much worse.

Teddy Schleifer: Do you get the sense, Frank, that any regular Americans are able to recall or frankly just string together a couple sentences about the kind of legal fracas that Trump finds himself in right now? I ask that because I think as a news consumer, I'm somewhat concerned that just the cacophony of different Trump-related legal scandals right now—there's now three indictments, there could be a fourth indictment coming out of Georgia right now. Legal stories in general are difficult to follow, right? Filing, motion to dismiss, maybe it's going to a different judge, a different courtroom. There's going to be four overlapping stories at the exact same time. And I know that to the average news consumer, they might just be generally aware that, "Oh, Trump is in legal trouble, period." And the details don't really matter. But I also wonder if that could be bad for democracy. If there could be a sense that all of this just sort of merges into one general "details don't matter, deep state out to get Trump" narrative. That's not actually persuading people because there's almost too many indictments and too much chaos. And maybe that works to Trump's advantage. And it's hard as journalists to write about these things in a digestible way because there's almost too much happening. And I wonder if Trump can take advantage of that.

Frank Luntz: Well, first, I always target my language to everyday ordinary Americans. I don't call them "normal Americans." I don't call them "regular Americans" because that's pejorative and that's harmful. If they're everyday ordinary Americans, that's you and me. By the way, this stuff does matter. So the listener will not be able to see how I'm looking or how you look and what you say, but it does matter. Second is that the key has to be to clarify so that you're trying to simplify something that's very complicated. And third, you can't be shown to have a point of view. You can present the evidence, you can present the facts—which is actually more important than the evidence—and do so and lay it out. First, second, third, fourth, fifth. Frankly, the newspapers have an advantage for the first time in the last 10 years because they can actually print it and people can see 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, all 10 points. But I've been looking and they're not doing it.

Kara Swisher: You mean print the indictment themselves? Or explain it, clarify it?

Frank Luntz: Explain it point by point by point. Enumerate. One, two, three, four, five.

Kara Swisher: Well, they have. That's not true. The Times did it and so did the Post just soon.

Frank Luntz: But they have to keep on doing it. By the way, one time, and then you have all the criticism of it day after day after day, one time doesn't do it. It has to be some sort of repetition. It is not being communicated in a way that people hear it and therefore it will fail. You don't have a choice here. If you want the public to be fully informed and understand what's at stake, you have to communicate in their language, using their words, using the method that they receive it, not yours, not mine, just theirs.

Kara Swisher: Okay. I have one more question. You were talking about social media and AI and ChatGPT. What impact do you think it's going to have? What is the most important element from the tech point of view? Is it the tech billionaires giving money? Is it the social media? Is it Twitter? I think Twitter has sort of fallen on harder times and I don't think it's as relevant as it was. Who do you think is the big decider here, the most influential part of the system right now?

Frank Luntz: And I actually don't look at it that way. I'm in a relentless pursuit of the truth, wherever it may take me, which means that I criticize people who I used to support. It means I support those who I once criticized. People will not know the truth with the combination of social media and AI and the way that everything is changing. You were at an event I was at. You heard my voice on the screen and they played something I did not believe. And it sounded like my voice. I had people standing around me saying, "Did you say that?" Obviously I hadn't. The truth is in jeopardy. The truth, the facts. And that is the warning that I give everyone listening: that you're not going to be able to know what is fact and what is fiction unless we figure out some way. And I'll acknowledge something to you. I have talked to representatives, senators and congressmen, that they have to get this under control, that they cannot just say it's freedom of speech, cannot be regulated because if we let this—

Kara Swisher: You're talking my language, Frank. You know I've been doing it for a decade.

Frank Luntz: Yes. And actually, your ideas and your philosophy behind it, with my language and messaging, we might actually save democracy. I'm serious. I'm serious about this. I think that this could be the last election that we have as a country if we don't get our act together.

Kara Swisher: Whoa. All right. So your prediction—I was going to say what happens in 2024—"last election" is your prediction?

Frank Luntz: If we don't get it together. It's not my prediction, but I'm saying that just as the experts say that there's a 15% chance that AI could destroy the world, well, there's a 15% chance that it could destroy American democracy. And it's not just happening here. It's happening in other countries across the globe. Democracy is under attack, and we need to find some ways to ensure that it survives and thrives.

Kara Swisher: All right. I'm going to then make you end on a high note. What is that thing we need to do? Legislation? Is it what? Because it's quite powerful.

Frank Luntz: You know, I have great concerns about it. There has to be legislation that you cannot tell people that the vaccines are unsafe when it's a lie. This is affecting how we think about health. It's affecting our behavior. And this is just the beginning. What happens in the next pandemic? And because of AI, these narratives that are simply false are spread throughout the population. What are we going to do? What are we going to do when we have an economic meltdown and AI starts to blame certain people? It starts to make accusations that are simply factually untrue. I'm on the side—at least let's make sure that our children are not poisoned. Let's make sure that young people, that we have some sort of controls in social media so that a 10-year-old or 12-year-old is not being fed information that causes her to believe that she's fat, that causes her to want to take drugs, that causes her to behave in a way that's damaging to her. The young women and young men in this country, they can't defend themselves. They're 10, 12 years old. They don't know the difference. Let's at least start with legislation to affect young people. And then we'll deal with the adults later.

Kara Swisher: Well, Frank, optimistic as always. I don't know what to say. Give me one optimistic thing. You have to. I'm sorry. I'm going to make you.

Frank Luntz: Okay. The Baltimore Orioles were my baseball team when I was a kid. I have left them over the last 20, 25 years to support other teams. My sense of optimism is if the Baltimore Orioles can actually have a winning season, then America can survive.

Kara Swisher: Okay. I'm going to leave it at that. Frank, as usual, thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

Frank Luntz: It's my honor.

[Frank Luntz exits]

Kara Swisher: Well, Teddy, that was a dose of sunshine and daffodils. Swisher Lunch 2028.

Teddy Schleifer: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. He's changed quite a bit, let's just say.

Kara Swisher: Yeah.

Teddy Schleifer: I mean, he said combine your technical know-how with his messaging ability.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. Mr. Contract of America feels a little liberal, more liberal than me.

Teddy Schleifer: Sure, sure, sure. Interesting. Anyway, I think he's 100% right about Ukraine. It's an existential issue. The Russians are really thugs.

Kara Swisher: Anyway, one more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails.

[AD BREAK]

Kara Swisher: Okay, Teddy, let's hear some wins and fails. Why don't you go first?

Teddy Schleifer: Sure. Let's do—can we start with a win?

Kara Swisher: Yes, please. You can start with whatever you want. You're such a positive fella.

Teddy Schleifer: Let's do Sean Hannity.

Kara Swisher: Oh, man. Sean. I know. Rare positive mention for our friend Sean.

Teddy Schleifer: I love that you call him "your friend." None of these people are my friends. Friend of Pivot, Sean Hannity. He's welcome to come on. I feel like this debate with Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis is going to make Sean Hannity relevant in the world of Washington.

Kara Swisher: I think he likes Gavin Newsom.

Teddy Schleifer: Sure. I mean, it was a little bit flirty, that interview. A little, because Gavin is a handsome man, let's just say. And I was like, does Sean Hannity have a little man crush on this guy? I think he does. So, Hannity obviously is like—when's the last time we thought about Sean Hannity in the Tucker Carlson era of Fox, where this was the dominant personality? Hannity just was not relevant at all. And for the first time, people are talking about Sean Hannity, which if you're Sean Hannity or you're Sean Hannity's friends or agents, you're just happy to be talked about.

Kara Swisher: It really does seem like that debate is happening. Right. I mean, yeah, it's now arguing. You know, when he's not such a giant asshole, he's not a bad interviewer, honestly, when he's not just sucking up.

Teddy Schleifer: Yeah, I hate to say it, but when he does a good job, he does a good job. Like he's not bad and he has good instincts. He just—when he lets Trump do an interview, he lets everything slide. That's all. And then you're like, come on. And you can see it in his head, like, "I really need to say something, but I'm not going to because I really enjoy the suck-uppery."

Kara Swisher: But I thought the Gavin Newsom interview was actually quite good. I think they both—I thought it was well done, actually, in that case. And I thought Gavin gave as good as he got in that situation.

Teddy Schleifer: So what do you think is going to happen? They should do a cage match. That would be interesting.

Kara Swisher: Sure, sure. I was like, yeah, I was going to say, what do you think is likely to happen?

Teddy Schleifer: Oh, my God, Gavin would kick his ass.

Kara Swisher: No, what's likely to happen? The Newsom-DeSantis debate or the Elon-Mark fight.

Teddy Schleifer: All right, so win. It should be some sort of parlay bet here.

Kara Swisher: Okay, I accept your win. Go ahead.

Teddy Schleifer: Okay, sure. My fail? Yeah. So I just got back from Switzerland, Kara, and I'm going to say my fail is the American train system. I was just in Europe, and I know this is not—

Kara Swisher: They're so good. They're so good.

Teddy Schleifer: It is amazing. I have so many stories of our train running two minutes late, and there's like a bus and a boat and everyone is coordinated. And it's a beautiful, beautiful symphony where the boat will take you right on time to the gondola to the funicular train. And I know I'm getting emotional here. But yeah, it made me realize, why can't we have nice things in the United States? In the US, it's like your train is running late, see you in three days when you're stranded at Penn Station. But the Swiss, it was really beautiful just to see the entire way that the transit system of the United States could work. But meanwhile, the infrastructure bill that was passed by Democrats pretty much centered on roads, right? It centered on highways. It centered on cars. I don't think we can blow up the US train system and start over from scratch. But being in the land of the mountain train made me wonder why we can't have nice things.

Kara Swisher: My win is an astonishing piece by Jen Senior, who's one of my favorite writers at The Atlantic. It's a story about her aunt. It says, "The Ones We Sent Away." It's a remarkable story about an aunt of hers, her mother's sister, who—you read this about someone like Rose Kennedy or something like that—but about Americans at some point during the past century sequestered from public view. Warehoused, disappeared, roughly shorn from the family tree. And her aunt, Adele, was institutionalized when she was a young child in the 1950s. And the advice they would give to parents, and now today they are not. They are mainstreamed into education and they improve quite a bit. And so then she went and visited someone who was like her aunt. And this kid is thriving at home with a very dedicated parent, mother especially. And I just found this piece to be really pertinent about the way we warehoused people. And I think upcoming with all the problems we have around the elderly and where to put people, how we deal with care, it was speaking of truly American tragedy and a lot of fails in a lot of ways too. It's worth your reading. It had so much pertinence today. And on my fail, I mean, it was very briefly, the Times is reporting on Clarence Thomas, speaking of billionaires, undisclosed lists. In this latest, one of his friends—this looks like a friend of his, Anthony Welters, former executive at UnitedHealthcare, who sold his company—bought him his RV, essentially. And it looks like he probably didn't pay off the loan. I don't know, allegedly, because he wouldn't say whether he paid it or forgave it. He said it was "satisfied," which means it wasn't paid off, probably. So you know, it's just more stuff: tuition help for family members, travel on private jets and yachts. And I know all these justices, but no one does the grifting like Clarence Thomas. I think it's a systemic problem. It should be much more transparent. Republicans obviously won't budge. But it's an ongoing embarrassment. This guy is pretending he's in—it's like a luxury RV. It's not like a regular guy's RV.

Teddy Schleifer: I've been in a regular guy's RV. But it's like a hotel on wheels. It's a Four Seasons on wheels. Reading about that story made me very fascinated. There's an entire kind of RV cottage industry where there are all these conventions and clubs and high-end—

Kara Swisher: But there are regular ones. These are high end.

Teddy Schleifer: Right, sure, sure, sure. I mean, I'm obviously familiar with an RV park, right? Which is an RV club for normal people. But that there's this entire high-end stratification even within the RV industry. I had no idea that existed.

Kara Swisher: Clarence Thomas really needs to stop. Anyway, we want to hear from you, the listeners. Send us your questions about business, tech, or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show, or call 855-51-PIVOT. Again, Teddy, that's the show. Explain where people can find you.

Teddy Schleifer: Sure. We are at Puck News, and I write a weekly email for people who are interested in the world of tech, wealth, and philanthropy and politics. It's called The Stratosphere, and anybody who's listening should subscribe to Puck.

Kara Swisher: Yes, they should. And actually, there's a lot of money in tech, I understand.

Teddy Schleifer: Allegedly. Allegedly, allegedly.

Kara Swisher: Anyway, we'll be back on Friday for more Scott Free August. We've got more fantastic guests. I will read us out. Today's show was produced by Lara Naiman, Travis Larchuk, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Endretot engineered this episode. Make sure you're subscribed to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back later this week with another breakdown of all things tech and business.