The Edition: Team Trump, astrologers versus pollsters & debating history

Best of the Spectator

This week: Team Trump – who’s in, and who’s out?
To understand Trumpworld you need to appreciate it’s a family affair, writes Freddy Gray in the magazine this week. For instance, it was 18-year-old Barron Trump who persuaded his father to do a series of long ‘bro-casts’ with online male influencers such as Joe Rogan. In 2016, Donald’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was the reigning prince; this year, he has been largely out of the picture. Which family figures are helping Trump run things this time around, and which groups hold the most influence? Freddy joins the podcast alongside economics editor Kate Andrews. What are the most important personnel decisions facing Trump if he wins next week? (0:58).
Next: do astrologers predict elections better than pollsters?
When pollster Nate Silver declared that dissecting an individual poll is like ‘doing astrology’, it led Andrew Watts to ponder what sorts of predictions astrologers make about elections. Could there be some merit in consulting them? And are astrologists better predictors than pollsters? Andrew joined the podcast to discuss further alongside The Oxford Astrologer’s Christina Rodenbeck, host of podcast Astrology Talk. What do the planets tell us about next week’s US election? (13:18).
And finally: by whose values should we judge the past?
Joan Smith’s new book Unfortunately, she was a nymphomaniac: a new history of Rome’s imperial women is reviewed in the Books section of the magazine this week. An eye-catching title which is ‘as thought provoking as it is provocative’ Daisy Dunn writes. Many popular historians are singled out for criticism for how they analyse women from ancient Rome, including Professor Dame Mary Beard. Is there merit in judging history by today’s standards? Well Mary Beard joined us to provide her thoughts (26:32).
Hosted by William Moore and Lara Prendergast.
Produced by Patrick Gibbons and Oscar Edmondson.