Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Can Betting Markets Outpredict Polls?; Gallup: New High Of 45 Percent In U.S. Identify As Political Independents. GLP-1 Drugs Are Reshaping How Americans Live And Spend. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired January 17, 2026 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:34]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: You want to bet? I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs. It's highly unlikely that federal charges are going to be brought against the ICE shooter who killed an activist in Minneapolis, and any state prosecution might be barred by the Supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution. U.S. Greenland negotiations they seem to have hit a wall. Danish officials said that there's fundamental disagreement after a Wednesday sit down at the White House. And in Iran, protests abated at the end of the week, but questions remain as to the potential ouster of the Supreme Leader.

In each of those cases, politicians, pundits, the public, everybody's trying to determine what's going to happen next. One barometer of increasing influence the predictive or betting markets.

Prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi, they offer bets on all sorts of things sports, the economy, awards, the weather, politics. They take in literally billions of dollars in trades. If it may or may not happen, you can bet on it. In the 2024 presidential election, Polymarket users bet 3.6 billion on the presidential race alone. Kalshi's market was over 500 million.

Something that Polymarket and Kalshi have in common. Donald Trump Jr., who's both an investor in and an unpaid advisor to Polymarket and a paid advisor to Kalshi.

Now consider the headlines that I just referenced. At Polymarket, the odds that the Supreme Leader is out by January 31, 6 percent. At Kalshi, the odds are 39 percent that by the time Trump completes his term he will have purchased at least part of Greenland. And at Polymarket, there's a 20 percent chance the ICE shooter will be charged by March 31.

Some people are turned off by the very idea offering trades on real life events. This is actually nothing new nor is the controversy.

In the aftermath of 9/11, a Pentagon office seeking to prevent another terror strike was ridiculed in some quarters when it suggested that futures trading on terror attacks, assassinations and coups might provide useful insight. In fact, when an Internet site was established by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, they called it DARPA, under the control of then Admiral John M. Poindexter, who'd been Ronald Reagan's national security adviser, the plan was derided in some quarters as grotesque and morally repugnant. That Poindexter had been embroiled in Iran Contra previously didn't help. Still, the Pentagon defended the program initially saying that futures markets trading had been effective in predicting oil prices, elections and even movie ticket sales, so why not terror? Ultimately, though, the plan was scrapped.

At the time, a columnist at the Philadelphia Daily News lauded the effort, writing, "It may sound crazy, but markets are great predictors of world events. The point here was that collective consciousness of experts could be an effective intelligence gathering technique."

Hey, that columnist was me. I also cheered when it was revealed that just weeks after 9/11, the Pentagon assembled about 30 of Hollywood's top creatives, A listers with credits like "Die Hard," "Training Day," "Hill Street Blues," "Platoon," "Friday the 13th," they gathered them all for a bull session where they brainstormed on potential terror scenarios. The 9/11 commission would ultimately conclude that the most important failure was one of imagination.

It's now a quarter century later and there's increasing receptiveness for out of the box thinking. Maybe Admiral Poindexter is owed an apology. Predictive markets are having a moment, as Politico noted in a lengthy piece last year suggesting that political betting might upend conventional polling. Quote, "The rise of political betting is not just lucrative for the betters in the platforms. It also advocates hope that one day it can replace the political prediction industry generally and remake the larger political media ecosystem."

And then there's this quote, "Traders are incentivized with cold hard cash to separate the emotion to make a bet with their head rather than their heart," said John Aristotle Phillips, the CEO of the betting platform Predictit. That means the boosters argue that they're more accurate than traditional polls and analyses of those polls.

[09:04:57]

Some worry about insider trading. In early January, somebody wagered $30,000 that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro would be forced from power before the end of the month. The bulk of the trader bids were made just hours before President Trump announced the surprise nighttime raid. It was long odds, so when it happened, that bet paid off at $400,000.

That wasn't the only time the predictive markets were right. Academics from Vanderbilt compared conventional polling to Polymarket regarding the 2024 election and concluded that the betting market was a better predictor than the pollsters.

Also studying this phenomenon is my next guest, Rajiv Sethi, an economics professor at Barnard College, Columbia University. He too analyzed the performance of the predictive markets in the 2024 election and found that they performed better in the presidential race than for those in Congress. So as we move toward the midterms and thereafter, the presidential election of 2028 continue to pay attention to polls, but also the wisdom of crowds reflected in predictive markets, the idea that the collective judgment of many participants willing to risk their own money can produce accurate forecasts about future events. Professor Sethi joins me now.

Professor, thank you so much for being here. Why might predictive markets do better than polls?

RAJIV SETHI, ECONOMICS PROFESSOR, BARNARD COLLEGE: Well, polls and poll based statistical models are based on the idea that history is a good guide to the future. So they take in data that has been useful for forecasting in the past and they run it through a model and generate forecasts at high frequency. This is what Nate Silver does on Silver Bulletin, the 538 model, the economist model, and so on. But sometimes history is not a good guide to the future and you need to take into account unusual things or unprecedented events. And traders can do that.

And if they trade on their beliefs, the market price can reflect that. So there are -- there are occasions on which markets perform better than statistical models, especially when history is not a good guide to the future. When a major party candidate drops out, a presumed nominee drops out, or when there's an assassination attempt on a leading party candidate, for example.

SMERCONISH: I referenced the academic work at Vanderbilt where they compared Polymarket to the pollsters in 2024. And then you took it to a different level where you also looked at 2024, but you looked at the presidential race versus House and Senate elections. What was the bottom line?

SETHI: The bottom line was that in the headline market, who's going to win the presidential election? The market beat all three main models. But as you went down ballot, that performance degraded and the models actually did better. And part of this is because financial markets sometimes overreact to information and so you get a lot of volatility, whereas the models are less volatile. And so where you had less activity on the markets, less liquidity, you ended up with the models actually beating the markets.

SMERCONISH: Professor Sethi, I referenced the Maduro trade. You've written about that on your substack. It brings to mind the question of insider trading. Can you give me the brief synopsis of the law as it exists relative to insider trading in this context?

SETHI: Well, in this context, the law is ambiguous, at least with regard to Polymarket. Kalshi is a regulated exchange, so they have much stricter regulations with regard to participation and they exclude a whole bunch of insiders from trading. And, you know, they prohibit certain kinds of activities like spoofing and insider trading. Polymarket, the legal status is ambiguous. You can't trade on classified information but other forms of insider trading may or may not be legal. SMERCONISH: Do you see a day in the not too distant future where the predictive markets, the wagering markets, put the pollsters out of business?

SETHI: No, I don't. But I do see a day in the future where the general public ignores the pollsters and, you know, focuses on the markets. But traders are very attentive to what the pollsters are doing. So the pollsters will be providing information, valuable information, because the traders rely on it even now. But they may do so privately.

They may do so, you know, at some expense.

SMERCONISH: In other words, one of the data points that those who are making the wagers rely on, even if they don't accept it's a factor in their thinking, are the pollsters. The wagers need the pollsters is what I hear you saying.

SETHI: Absolutely. In fact, that's the most important data input, although they take into account all kinds of other things like candidate quality, maybe scandals, maybe lawsuits and so on. But the polling is really at the heart of the forecasting process.

[09:10:00]

SMERCONISH: Well, one last thought. It's not as if people -- I think that the way these markets get used -- help me educate the uninitiated. And I'll take the Super Bowl as an example because I'm noting that both Seattle and LA

have the same odds at Polymarket --

SETHI: Yes.

SMERCONISH: -- that they do at Kalshi. It's not as if people are making a wager and then waiting until the outcome of the game, it's all about arbitrage, right? Like you're making a wager on today's ad -- today's odds, and saying by tomorrow I might be a seller.

SETHI: That's exactly right. Not even by tomorrow, it could be 10 minutes later or 10 seconds later, actually.

SMERCONISH: Right.

SETHI: It's just like the stock market.

SMERCONISH: Right.

SETHI: Yes. Very liquid.

SMERCONISH: Professor Sethi, thank you so much for your expertise. We really appreciate it.

And I want to hear everybody's thoughts at home. Hit me up on social media and I'll read some of your responses throughout the course of the program.

From the world of X, Kris, Distracting people with get rich quick schemes and is just yet another sign of the decline and fall of the American empire quickly approaching the inflection point. Or has it already passed it.

Kris, I don't agree with you and that's certainly not where I'm coming from to talk about, you know, hey, you can get rich quick by predicting when the supreme leader of Iran falls. No, I'm saying -- I'm saying that two decades ago, you know, going on 25 years ago when Admiral Poindexter had this idea that we wanted to prevent another September 11th and maybe the markets can tell us something and he was derided for it, he was onto it because now look at where we are, that the predictive markets are outpacing doing better than the pollsters with regard to elections. I'll say it more simply, I think that our government leaders would be foolish not to at least be paying attention to all of the predictive information about world events.

Up ahead, the story for years has been red versus blue but Gallup's own data tell a different truth. Next, why the fastest growing political group in America is the one that both parties and frankly, the media keep ignoring. I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com this hour and answer today's poll question, should the 45 percent of Americans who self ID as political independents be able to vote in party primaries?

And when one in every eight Americans is taking weight loss drugs, this stops being just about health. Up ahead, this disruptive impact of GLP1s.

When you're voting on the poll question sign up for my free daily newsletter. You'll get the work of cartoonists who are extraordinary, including our newest addition, Eric Allie. He's a libertarian. Look at what he just drew for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:16:59]

SMERCONISH: Gallup showing some independent reporting. Year after year when Gallup announces their survey of party identification the results of their annual identification of party affiliation, the story is framed as Republican versus Democrat. Here look at Gallup's release from a year ago January 16, 2025 regarding 2024 data. Headline, GOP holds edge in party affiliation for third straight year. And the lead of their release says Americans political party preferences remain closely divided in 2024, with Republicans having a slight edge for the third consecutive year.

And then, as you can see here, the rest of the media follow that framing. Look at those headlines, GOP holds slight edge, more voters shift to Republican, more Republicans Identify -- more Americans identify as Republican. And yet, if you look further along in the Gallup analysis, you learn that they initially asked Americans whether they identify as Republican, Democrat or Independent. And what was the result? A plurality said, I'm an Independent.

But that wasn't in the headline, which I've repeatedly called out. But this year, vindication. Because here is this week's headline summarizing 2025 party identification. New high of 45 percent in U.S. identify as political Independents. By the way, the piece was written by Jeffrey M. Jones, the same senior editor who wrote last year's article, and it's accurate.

More Americans identify as Independents than as Republicans or Democrats. And, lo and behold, look what happened, the media followed the framing. Look at those headlines. The New York Times, Independents reach new high as young voters avoid labels or the Associated Press picked up all across the country, young Americans increasingly rejecting the Democratic and Republican parties. The Hill, Record high identifies as political independence.

It's a big story. The trend toward voters identifying as Independent is important. And looking at Gallup's data, it's unmistakable. People who see America through red and blue lenses need to know that for the last 15 years, Independent has polled higher than Republican or Democrat in terms of self-identification. And today a record 45 percent identify as independent.

While equal shares, just 27 percent say that they're an R or a D. It's a huge gulf. So which group is driving the rise in this Independent association? There's a clear pattern. The older the voter, the less likely they are to be Independent.

When it comes to boomers and the silent generation, only about one in three consider themselves to be Independent. And then there's Generation X at 42 percent. Millennials 54 percent. Do you see the pattern here? Gen Z, 56 percent.

[09:20:04]

The kids are going independent and they don't want to be associated with either party. And respectfully, while Gallup does outstanding work and I rely on their data, it's almost as if in past years they presuppose that independence wasn't a real answer. Independents have for years been the largest political group. I'm happy now that this is the way it's being presented. I acknowledge there's some cachet.

For some they want to be regarded as an Independent. Maybe they really lean strongly one way or the other. I don't, I don't want to belong to either party. That's why I'm currently a litigant. Full disclosure in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court seeking to open our closed primary system here at home in P.A.

And I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question. Do you think that the 45 percent of Americans who self ID as political Independents ought to be able to vote in party primaries?

Here to talk about the rise of Independents is Rachel Janfaza, founder of the Up and Up, a media firm that's focused on Gen Z and a member of Gen Z herself.

Rachel, the why question. Why are younger voters gravitating more toward a label of being Independent? RACHEL JANFAZA, GEN Z RESEARCHER & WRITER: So I hold listening sessions with young people across the country and have been doing so for years and have been saying for a while that young people feel politically homeless. And when you look at the state of both political parties in the country right now, it's not that hard to see why. On one side you have President Donald Trump and his administration, there's ICE raids in the streets, there's the potential of new war and foreign conflict, and that's not something that's appealing to many young Americans. And on the other side, the young people tell me that the Democratic Party doesn't really stand for much. They don't see what the brand is.

And the branding of both of these traditional political parties has sort of fallen flat on the youngest generation of voters. At the same time, this is a generation that bucks status quo and defies traditional norms across every part of our culture and society. And so politics is no different. And they're rejecting labels there as well.

SMERCONISH: I'm at least able to remember the 1980s and to remember when Ronald Reagan was the conservative champion from California and Tip O'Neill was the liberal lion from Massachusetts and yet they were collegial with one another. And in that era, the Reagan '80s remembered for conservatism. In actuality, according to National Review, the majority of the Congress, 60 percent, comprised of moderates. But to your point, younger voters today, they've only known the climate that I'm describing and that you're describing, right? The contention this is all that they've ever been able to experience.

JANFAZA: Totally. And they see it all the time, whether it's at home, at school, or on their social media feeds. Our generation is constantly scrolling and being inundated with vitriol on both sides. And I think young people have in the past gotten a reputation as, you know, in 2020, they were seen as predominantly liberal. In 2024, there was so much talk about how they were moving to the right.

But the young people that are speaking out and speaking up online are the loudest and most divisive voices and the most passionate about these various issues. But really, in the middle, there's this swath of politically homeless young people who might have a little bit they appreciate from one party and another bit they appreciate from the other party somewhere. They're not necessarily moderate or centrist, but they actually can appreciate different policies and issues that both parties are leaning into.

SMERCONISH: Rachel, names who can harness this. Like, look at the political landscape and look toward 2028 and identify, hopefully on both sides of the aisle, individuals that you see who could provide what younger voters who are identifying as Independent are looking for.

JANFAZA: Yes. So I've written recently about how young people are done with the establishment. They're looking for a people first politics. And again, that doesn't mean that the candidate has to be a socialist or a populist. But I think the populist messaging really has struck a chord with young people who just feel like they've been -- they've been left out by the traditional political parties. And so you see the rise of Zohran Mamdani in New York City and the way that young people supported him. But at the same time, young people turned out in higher numbers than in 2021, in the 2025 elections in New Jersey for Mikie Sherrill and in Virginia for Abigail Spanberger. So the truth is there's not one candidate who's going to be able to crack the code of how to reach young people. But they a type of candidate that has a message that resonates for them about the issues they're facing in their daily lives. The top one is the economy.

SMERCONISH: OK, but wait a minute. I can't -- I can't let you off the hook. Does AOC on the left have what they're looking for? Does J.D. Vance on the -- does Marco Rubio, who's got the qualities that you think can attract this voting base?

[09:25:09]

JANFAZA: So we asked in our 2026 prediction listening sessions which political either candidates, creators or movements young people felt would be on the rise in 2026. AOC was the name that came up. Erika Kirk was a name that came up. They're looking for leaders who they feel are speaking to them, who are charismatic, who are across social media platforms but not just online, are showing up in person. And whether it's on the left with Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or with Erika Kirk on the right, they're doing that.

SMERCONISH: OK. I've got to think about that race. AOC and Erika Kirk could be one for the ages.

Rachel Janfaza, thank you so much for your expertise. We appreciate you.

And everybody at home, make sure you're following me on X and also subscribing to my YouTube channel then maybe I can read in real time your social media reaction. Party primaries are for members of those parties to choose who they wish to represent their party. Why is that a hard concept for people? Founding fathers didn't want parties, but here you want to eat cake and have it too, says William the 18th.

Hey William the 18th, I have an idea for you. If you're not going to let me vote in your party primary despite the fact that I'm one of the 45 percent in this country, according to Gallup, who identify as an Independent, then stop asking me to pay for it.

I want to remind everybody, go to my website at smerconish.com and vote on today's poll question. You know how I'm voting. Should the 45 percent of Americans who self ID as political independence that's an all-time high according to Gallup, be able to vote in party primaries?

Still to come, your social media reaction by commentary. Plus, can't wait to talk about this, as GLP1 drugs become easier to take and more widely used, the ripple effect just beginning. From gyms to grocery stores to restaurants, what could these drugs upend next? Sign up for the newsletter when you're casting your ballot at smerconish.com the free and worthy daily newsletter. Check out the work of our prize winning editorialists like Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:47]

SMERCONISH: Hey, gang, follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel and maybe I'll read your comment in the course of the program.

Alain -- your question should be, should the 45 percent of Americans who I.D. as political independents be required to vote in both party primaries if --

Both party primaries? You want me to vote -- you want to give me two votes? OK, I'll take it. I'll take it.

I cry uncle. Listen, the articulation and the framing of this thing is it's about time. It's about time.

I should make this crystal clear. Last year, last year, more identified as independent than Republican or Democrat. And this year it's the same. It's just higher.

Can I put up the headline from a year ago, meaning January of 2025, when Gallup came out with -- it's last year's Gallup headline, their release, the R versus D one. Can you put that up on the screen, gang, quickly? Last year.

Oh boy, do we not have it? No. Last year's Gallup headline, Gallup. The way they cast it is what I want to show. Maybe this was not a good idea.

OK. Well, the point is this. Gallup came out and they said, hey, Republicans, there are more Republicans than Democrats. And after they cast the die then came all of those headlines. There we go. Yes.

So, Gallup comes out with the result of their party identification data. This is one year ago reflecting on 2024. And they say, hey, there are more Rs than Ds. And now, now put up the headlines from the media. Thank you.

The headlines from the media that followed their presentation. And what did the media do? GOP, again, holds edge. More Americans identify as Republicans.

I got to tell you something. This is going to cause some of your hair to go on fire. I'm going to invoke the name of Rush Limbaugh because Rush used to talk about the drive-by media.

Like the media sometimes can be lazy. And the media has been lazy on this issue for years. Simply parroting Gallup's presentation when anybody who took the time to read the analysis would have known -- the story here is not that there are more Rs than Ds. It's that there are more Is than Ds or Rs. And this year, maybe because I browbeat them here on CNN last year, they finally got it right.

The headline from Gallup was, there are more independents than there are Republicans or Democrats. I have to believe that comes as a shock to many of you that in terms of self-identification, 45 percent of Americans say, I'm an I, compared to only 27 percent who say, I'm a D or I'm a -- an R. And the whisper down the lane took place again this year in the media, and everybody got it right.

I hope it's a wakeup call because I think it's really big. People need to know, no, we're not all Rs and Ds in this country. And the way, by the way that they got to that initial headline was that they would ask two questions.

[09:35:00]

They would say, do you -- do you regard yourself as an independent, a Democrat, or a Republican? I'm an independent.

And then it was almost like Gallup didn't believe you. Yes, you say you're an independent, but now pick between the Rs and the Ds. And then they wrote that story. And that's the one that got picked up by the drive-by media.

There you go, Rush. I've invoked your name. Yes, and everybody's hair is on fire. Ladies and gentlemen, don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Should the 45 percent of Americans who self I.D. as political independents be able to vote in party primaries?

Still to come, weight loss drugs have already changed medicine, and now they're starting to change how Americans shop and eat, and even exercise. What happens when a health trend begins to rewire the entire consumer economy?

Sign up for the newsletter at Smerconish.com. You will receive the work of editorial cartoonists like Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:12]

SMERCONISH: Weight loss drugs. They may begin as a health story, but they're quickly becoming a consumer story and possibly a societal one. According to Axios, and data from KFF, about one in eight U.S. adults now taking a GLP-1 drug. Think Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, Zepbound. And that number is expected to keep growing.

Axios reports that the fitness industry is already trying to figure out what this means for them. Will people on GLP-1s work out more or decide they don't need to go to the gym at all. Some gyms are betting on both.

High end chains like Life Time and Equinox, rolling out programs specifically for GLP-1 users, focusing on strength training to prevent muscle loss. Planet Fitness says it's in talks with GLP-1 providers.

But this doesn't stop at the gym. "The Washington Post" reporting that GLP-1 drugs are already reshaping how people eat, how they shop, travel, spend money.

GLP-1 users are buying fewer snack foods, drinking less alcohol, spending more on protein, fresh produce and activewear, and even changing how often they eat out.

Restaurants are testing smaller portions. Grocery brands are marketing GLP-1 friendly products. Clothing retailers are seeing a shift toward smaller sizes. And now access is about to expand again.

Just weeks ago, the FDA approved the first oral version of Wegovy, a daily pill with another GLP-1 pill, from Eli Lilly, expected soon. And this week, the FDA also asked drugmakers to remove warnings about suicidal thoughts from GLP-1 labels after a review found that there was no evidence of increased risk.

So, this is no longer a niche medical trend. It's a shift that could rewrite fitness and food and retail and travel, and how people think about their bodies and their time.

Joining me now is Ali Furman, a partner at PwC who tracks consumer markets and says GLP-1 are driving what she calls a psychological shift in how Americans live and spend.

Ali, it seems counterintuitive to me that GLP-1s, you know, losing weight by injection or a pill, could actually be good news for gyms. But maybe that's just me because I work out just to be able to eat and drink. How do you see that trend going?

ALI FURMAN, U.S. CONSUMER MARKETS INDUSTRY LEADER, PWC: Gyms are only part of the story, Michael. I mean, this is a seismic shift in consumer behavior that we're seeing across several different spend categories.

Just to pick up the gym point. I mean, people that are obese, that lose a significant amount of weight on this drug, all of a sudden are more agile and they can live more active lifestyles than they've ever had. So, we do see an increase in gym memberships spend based on the data thus far in the last 12 months for GLP-1 drug users.

SMERCONISH: In other words, I've shed some pounds because of a GLP-1. I'm feeling good about myself. Hey, I want to now go get toned up.

FURMAN: Exactly. I mean, household penetration of this drug just in the last 12 months has gone from 9 percent of U.S. households having at least one GLP-1 drug user to 20 percent of households having at least one GLP-1 drug user. That's just from January to December 2025 when the barriers to entry have remained so high.

It's expensive. It's an injectable. Access is difficult. You need a prescription to get it.

Fast forward to '26 with the oral pill format coming out, that's going to make using it a lot easier for people. It's going to become more affordable. Direct to consumer access is improving through some of the pharmaceutical companies' efforts.

So, we are going to see adoption increase significantly more. I mean, 70 percent of the U.S. population is considered overweight. Forty percent is considered obese. So, when these barriers to entry fall, we're going to see exponential increase in adoption. And when you see that you see increase --

SMERCONISH: Ali --

FURMAN: Yes.

SMERCONISH: I always respect those entrepreneurs who can see around corners. And I wish that I were one. Give me an example that is a favorite of yours, if you have one, where you might not think that people losing weight with GLP-1 is going to have that kind of a ripple effect, but it does.

FURMAN: Yes, there's implications to the beauty industry and wellness services. So, we're seeing a significant increase in products that improve skin elasticity and mitigate hair loss. These are side effects of the drug that have an esthetic bent to them. So, we're seeing growth there.

We're seeing an increase in spa services. They're up 30 to 60 percent year over year. I'll even step back one more. This isn't an entrepreneurial one, but airline fuel efficiency.

If planes weight goes down just one percent, there's a material impact on fuel efficiency. I mean, there are so many implications that we are just starting to scratch the surface of in terms of new industries that may be formed, new products that may come out.

[09:45:07]

You know, there's a lot of opportunity to serve this growing demographic on their holistic health journey that's being powered by GLP-1s.

SMERCONISH: You used the word disruptive. And I think Airbnb or I think Uber. Is this more of a disruptive influence than either of those examples?

FURMAN: It's equivalent to some of the greatest technological disruptions that we've seen in our time like the iPhone. Consumer interest in something like Ozempic, we've studied this consumer search interest online has exponentially exceeded that of the iPhone in the same time frame. So, consumers have a serious interest in this drug adoption rates are rivaling that of some of these technological disruptions, especially when you consider such high barriers to entry.

I mean, you can go into any store and buy an iPhone. All the other things related to the drug you need a prescription. It's expensive. It's an injectable, and people are averse to that. It's still being adopted at a faster rate than the iPhone when it first came out.

So, that's significant. It says a lot. And the fact that it affects people's minds and bodies -- you know, there's a psychological component to this that really needs to be paid attention to. Fifty percent of people on this drug who have gone through a weight loss journey report feeling happier and more self-confident.

Imagine the societal implications of a happier, more self-confident society. I mean, we can only start to fathom what that might mean for going out more, dating more, divorcing more. Perhaps more children will be born. I mean, there's so many broad implications that we just need to continue to keep an eye on.

SMERCONISH: In my introduction of you, one of the things that I referenced was portions, restaurants, people eating out. I'm shocked sometimes at the amount of food that -- and I've got a healthy appetite, but I'm shocked at the amount of food that some restaurants will put in front of you. Is the amount of a portion, a typical portion, going to be changed as a result of this?

FURMAN: We are seeing some restaurants look into innovations around smaller portions, specific ingredients, and types of food that are appealing to this demographic. Things that are nutrient dense, high protein. Hydration is another category that we're seeing an uptick in.

Broadly speaking, in the restaurant industry, people that are on this drug spend about 5 percent less on quick service restaurants, and they tend to shift their spend to casual dining establishments, which is showing us they are favoring quality and experience over quantity. And in general, people on this drug consume about 40 percent less calories than they had previously. So, you know, they are prioritizing quality and experience when they go to restaurants.

SMERCONISH: A quick final question. Impulse control, right? If it's raining in the amount that I want to eat, I'm today talking about predictive markets. I'm talking about gambling. What about booze? What about gaming?

FURMAN: There's clinical trials going on for a lot of additional efficacies around this drug, including addiction treatment, things like alcohol and gambling. People that are on this drug, for example, report lower compulsion behavior. So they say, for example, they stop biting their nails. And that's interesting.

So, we will see further efficacies as they go through clinical trials come on label in the not too distant future. It's already approved for certain forms of cardiovascular health, sleep apnea. It's in process of clinical trials for cancer related things. There's -- there's a lot of anecdotal evidence around even things like fertility.

So, it's a space to continue to watch. It is evolving. There's a lot of science and research and investment going on. And I think the key takeaway is this is a growing demographic that is rewiring their consumer behaviors and consumer demand signals.

So from a business standpoint, you really have to pay attention. There's opportunity and then there's headwinds as well.

SMERCONISH: Ali, that was awesome. Game changer is my takeaway from your briefing. This is -- this is much more than weight loss. It is a game changer. Thank you.

To everybody at home, make sure that you're following me on X and subscribing to my YouTube channel so that I can read some of your social media during the course of the program. It's nice to see people concerned about health again. Glad fat pride is a thing of the -- was it? Was that -- was that -- was that a thing? I don't know.

Are you reading, you know, Bobby into this somehow, the MAHA movement? It's all good from what I heard from her. I'll bet a lot of market decisions are being made by people watching this segment. Like, oh, you know what this is going to impact? I think I need to buy X stock or Y stock or get out of something.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question. Go to Smerconish.com and answer this. Should the 45 percent of Americans who self I.D. as political independents, that's an all-time high, be able to vote in party primaries?

[09:50:01]

You know, close primary state like Pennsylvania or Florida or New York. Subscribe to my daily newsletter while you're there. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons like that which Rob Rogers drew for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: OK, gang, there's the result of the poll question so far. Oh, I love that. Yes, 37,000 and change. Should the 45 percent of Americans who self I.D. as political independents be able to vote in party primaries? Eighty-six percent of us say yes.

Here's some of your social media reaction to today's program. What do we have? From the world of X.

If one is a proud independent, then why do they need or want to vote in a party primary? Says Biscuit Boom.

Good question. Thank you for asking it. It's a midterm election year, right?

[09:55:01]

Four hundred and thirty-five congressional seats in play, theoretically. Ask somebody who's a number cruncher like David Wasserman, from "The Cook Political Report With Amy Walter," and he'll tell you of the 435, or our own John King, you know, the experts that probably only 35 or so of them are in play. Everything else is predetermined in the primary.

The primary is the whole ball of wax. So, you're shutting out people from the process where the real winners are selected. And something else, just about the whole independent thing, we got to water down the fringes. We got to water down the people at the far end of the spectrum and allow those who are critical thinkers in the middle to have more of a say.

Another social media reaction. What do we have? Keeping my eye on the clock.

Independent is the label meaning apathetic. Nope, nope, nope, that is not true. It is not synonymous with apathe --

Do you think that I'm apathetic? Do you think I'm independent? Or I hear people, oh, independent. That stance -- I stand for everything. I've got issues -- I have positions on everything. They're just not in those faux ideological boxes over here or over there. Progressive on social issues, conservative on fiscal issues.

Hey, by the way, gang, I am off next week. So, curb your enthusiasm. It doesn't mean that I've been fired, at least not yet.

And if you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you so much for watching.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)