Subscribe now

On today’s podcast, Nate Silver joins me to talk about the Maine Senate race, the political fallout of the war in Iran, and much more. Nate had some spicy takes, as you’ll hear.

The Maine primary is now completed, and with 80 percent of the expected vote tallied, Platner received 72 percent of the vote. Although Janet Mills had already dropped out of the race, her name remained on the ballot and she received 20 percent. Call it a protest vote.

On paper, Maine should be one of Democrats’ best Senate pickup opportunities this cycle. It’s a blue-leaning state in a Democratic-leaning national environment. But after a series of personal controversies, Platner’s campaign has become something more complicated: a test of how much candidate quality and character matter in an era of strong partisanship.

Nate makes the case that, for the good of the Democratic Party, Platner should drop out. I play devil’s advocate and ask whether Democrats are likely to rally around him anyway once he becomes inevitable.

We also discuss the political risk of a quagmire after the United States’ renewed strikes on Iran in retaliation for a downed Apache helicopter. If the war drags on, and inflation continues to rise, it could shape the midterms more than any one candidate’s scandals.

Then we turn to California, where the slow vote count in the Los Angeles mayoral race has once again raised questions about election administration in the country’s largest state. Nate argues that taking this long to count votes is itself a problem, especially when distrust in elections is already so easy to exploit.

Lastly, since this is a conversation with Nate, we end with a forecast model. Nate walks through what went into his World Cup forecast: things like national GDP and the total market value of a team’s players, and how similar it is to building a presidential forecast model. We also talk about what building the model taught him about the promise and limits of AI.

Share

Read more

Subscribe now

On today’s podcast, Nate Silver joins me to talk about the Maine Senate race, the political fallout of the war in Iran, and much more. Nate had some spicy takes, as you’ll hear.

The Maine primary is now completed, and with 80 percent of the expected vote tallied, Platner received 72 percent of the vote. Although Janet Mills had already dropped out of the race, her name remained on the ballot and she received 20 percent. Call it a protest vote.

On paper, Maine should be one of Democrats’ best Senate pickup opportunities this cycle. It’s a blue-leaning state in a Democratic-leaning national environment. But after a series of personal controversies, Platner’s campaign has become something more complicated: a test of how much candidate quality and character matter in an era of strong partisanship.

Nate makes the case that, for the good of the Democratic Party, Platner should drop out. I play devil’s advocate and ask whether Democrats are likely to rally around him anyway once he becomes inevitable.

We also discuss the political risk of a quagmire after the United States’ renewed strikes on Iran in retaliation for a downed Apache helicopter. If the war drags on, and inflation continues to rise, it could shape the midterms more than any one candidate’s scandals.

Then we turn to California, where the slow vote count in the Los Angeles mayoral race has once again raised questions about election administration in the country’s largest state. Nate argues that taking this long to count votes is itself a problem, especially when distrust in elections is already so easy to exploit.

Lastly, since this is a conversation with Nate, we end with a forecast model. Nate walks through what went into his World Cup forecast: things like national GDP and the total market value of a team’s players, and how similar it is to building a presidential forecast model. We also talk about what building the model taught him about the promise and limits of AI.

Share

Read more

Across much of Europe and the English-speaking world, the populist right has become a major political force. Donald Trump reshaped the Republican Party in the United States. Brexit transformed British politics. Marine Le Pen’s party has become a central player in France. Far-right or right-populist parties have broken through in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, and elsewhere.

Ireland, so far, has been different.

There are anti-immigration activists, small right-wing parties and some independent politicians trying to occupy that space. But Ireland has not had the kind of durable, mass right-populist breakthrough that has become familiar elsewhere.

Hugh and I talk through some of the possible reasons why. Ireland is not living through the same kind of decline narrative that has fueled populism in other countries. In many ways, the country is more prosperous and globally successful than it has ever been. Its experience with immigration is also more recent and distinct from countries like the United States, Britain, and France. And Sinn Féin may occupy some of the political terrain that, in other countries, has been claimed by the populist right: nationalist, anti-establishment, rooted in working-class and rural communities — but on the left.

Subscribe now

From there, we get into the bigger Irish story: the country’s remarkable economic rise, its dependence on a small number of large American companies for corporate tax revenue, the strange politics of neutrality and defense, and what it means for a small country to rely so heavily on the kindness, or at least the continued cooperation, of larger powers.

Then Hugh turns the tables and asks me about the United States: gerrymandering, the Voting Rights Act, the two-party system, primaries, Trump, and where the root of America’s political dysfunction lies.

It was a fun and wide-ranging conversation about two very different countries that share some important history.

Subscribe now

Democrats entered the 2026 cycle with a difficult Senate map and a familiar hope: maybe Maine would be the race that helped them claw their way toward a majority.

But after this week, that picture is getting more complicated. Iowa, a state Donald Trump won by double digits, is suddenly demanding more attention. And Maine, a state Kamala Harris carried comfortably, is looking messier than Democrats would like.

On this installment of the podcast, I’m joined by Mary Radcliffe of 50+1 and Jacob Rubashkin of Inside Elections to react to the June 2 primaries in Iowa, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota.

In Iowa, Democrats got their preferred Senate nominee. Josh Turek, a state representative and Paralympic gold medalist, beat Zach Wahls by a wide margin. Turek will now face Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson in what could become one of the most important Senate races of the cycle.

The state has moved sharply right in recent years, but Democrats have reason to think the political environment could put it back on the map. Rob Sand, the Democratic nominee for governor, has led in the limited polling we have. And on the Republican side of the governor’s race, the GOP primary produced a surprise: Trump-backed Rep. Randy Feenstra lost narrowly to MAHA-aligned businessman Zach Lahn, who was a major investor in — depending on your level of generosity — either a medical technology company or a sex-toy company.

We also check in on California, where slow vote-counting means several major races are still unresolved; Montana, where Democrats are trying to navigate an independent Senate bid; New Jersey, where a key House race is taking shape amid Rep. Tom Kean Jr.’s continued absence from public view; and South Dakota, where Republicans are headed to a historically unusual gubernatorial runoff.

Lastly, we circle back to Maine, where Graham Platner’s steady drip of controversies has some Democrats asking whether Iowa might now be a cleaner, more promising part of the Senate map.

Read more

We start in Maine, where Graham Platner’s Senate campaign is disputing the number of women he sexted with — a dozen or half a dozen? Platner has already weathered a series of damaging stories about his past, and so far, Democratic primary voters do not seem especially moved. But it’s unclear how the broader electorate will react to the steady drip of scandal.

Then we turn to Texas, where Ken Paxton is officially the Republican nominee for Senate against Democrat James Talarico. Paxton comes with his own baggage and a much weaker fundraising operation, though a hotly contested primary against John Cornyn may be suppressing his current polling against Talarico. We’re waiting for the dust to settle.

Subscribe now

We also discuss the DNC’s unfinished 2024 autopsy report, which was both incomplete and revealing. The report omitted some of the biggest questions about the 2024 campaign: Joe Biden’s age, the debate, the way Kamala Harris became the nominee, Gaza, and the broader failures of Biden’s presidency. So, does the Democratic Party actually want to understand what went wrong?

Then we preview Tuesday’s primaries for California governor and L.A. mayor, both of which have three candidates polling in the twenties. Given the state’s top-two system, it’s unclear who will advance to the general election: one Democrat and one Republican, or two Democrats?

Subscribe now

Jerome Powell’s tenure at the Federal Reserve is over. His eight-year run included the COVID crash, emergency monetary rescue, the return of serious inflation, the fastest rate hikes in decades and a long political fight over the Fed’s independence.

With Fed leadership in transition, it’s a good time to ask a much bigger question: Who really controls the U.S. dollar? And how almighty is it?

Brendan Greeley’s new book, The Almighty Dollar: 500 Years of the World’s Most Powerful Money, argues that the dollar is older and less American than most Americans realize. The United States didn’t really invent it. And, in some important ways, it has never fully controlled it.

That may sound heady. But these are live questions right now. The U.S. is dealing with renewed inflation pressure, global frustration with American power, the rise of alternative currencies, and a China that would very much like a world less dependent on U.S. money.

Brendan joins the podcast to talk about the past, present and future of the dollar: why so many dollars are created outside the United States, how America’s ability to borrow almost without limit has shaped our politics, and whether dollar dominance is actually good for the country.

Read more

As the country has become more polarized, and the court has become more decidedly dominated by Republican appointees, there is an increasing sense that a branch that describes itself as above politics is, in fact, plenty political — and aligned with Republicans.

Subscribe now

This has led to suggestions, largely on the left, but not exclusively, for changing the court: packing it with more members, instituting term limits, or establishing an enforceable code of ethics.

But today’s guest argues that folks should slow their roll. She argues that the court isn’t as partisan as it’s made out to be, and that it’s in fact the only branch of government that the Founders would have any hope of recognizing today.

Sarah Isgur makes the case in her new book, Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court. She joins the podcast to argue that the court is less partisan, more functional and more constitutionally recognizable than its critics allow.

Subscribe now

We’ve got a jam-packed election update episode for you today.

In Tuesday night’s primaries, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie lost to Trump-backed challenger Ed Gallrein. Massie did much better than other Republicans who have crossed Trump, but he still went down by 10 points.

Former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms won the Democratic primary for Georgia governor outright, while Republicans will head to runoffs in both the governor’s race and the race to take on Sen. Jon Ossoff this fall.

Looking ahead to next week, Trump has finally endorsed in the Texas Senate runoff, backing Ken Paxton after seemingly being ready to endorse Sen. John Cornyn months ago. The betting markets now have a general election against James Talarico looking like a pure toss-up.

We talk about why Trump settled on Paxton, despite the conventional wisdom that he would be a weaker general election candidate, and how loyalty matters inside the GOP as Trump loses ground with the broader electorate.

We also dig into some of the June 2 primaries. We see you, California! And Iowa, and New Jersey, and let’s not forget Montana. Lastly, we check in on where the redistricting wars stand after the Supreme Court’s decision in Callais.

With me to do it all is Jacob Rubashkin, deputy editor of Inside Elections.

Share

Read more

And like clockwork, in case we needed any further confirmation, The New York Times released its latest Trump approval poll on Monday morning. The headline: “Just 37 percent of Americans approve of his performance as president… his lowest approval rating in any Times/Siena survey in either term.”

Nate Cohn went on to write that, “while recent presidencies have often been unpopular and polarizing, no president’s approval rating has been under 38 percent [in the average] for more than a few days in the last 17 years.”

So today we talk about that, and a whole lot more.

Subscribe now

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy lost his primary on Saturday after Trump endorsed against him. With Cassidy’s departure, only three of the 17 Republicans who backed Trump’s second impeachment might remain after 2026. And two of them, Susan Collins and David Valadao, are fighting for their political lives.

We also preview Tuesday night’s primaries in Georgia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. In Georgia, Republicans are choosing a challenger to Sen. Jon Ossoff, while both parties are picking their nominees for governor. In Kentucky, it’s another test of Trump loyalty inside the GOP.

And finally, for the wonks, we’ve got a dispatch from this year’s big polling conference: the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Joining me after attending the conference are Mary Radcliffe, head of research at FiftyPlusOne, and Nathaniel Rakich, managing editor at Votebeat.

A quick note: If you’re not already a paid subscriber, now’s a great time to sign up. Annual subscriptions are currently 20 percent off, which comes out to just $5 a month for twice as many episodes, access to live shows like this one, and more. Come join the crew!

Subscribe now

The GD POLITICS podcast returned to the Comedy Cellar this week with Nate Silver and Clare Malone for another sold-out night of political analysis, games, audience questions, and jokes that were, as always, purely incidental.

We started with “Hot Take Hat,” pulling buzzy topics at random and giving them the treatment they deserved — from Labour’s meltdown in the U.K. and the global incumbency curse, to Hantavirus panic, Trump’s Iran war, inflation, and the apparently urgent matter of the White House ballroom.

Then we turned to the 2026 midterms, where the redistricting wars have taken another turn. After rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Virginia Supreme Court, what once looked like a possible Democratic counteroffensive is now likely to net out in Republicans’ favor. We talked about how much the new maps could shift the House playing field, the politics of gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act, and the eternal question: Do voters care about any of this, or just the price of gas?

Finally, we debuted a new game: “True or False: Crosstab Diving Edition.” Clare, Nate, and the audience guessed their way through some of the quirkiest and most revealing findings buried inside recent polls — including whether Democrats think an average 8-year-old boy could beat Donald Trump in a fight, which age and gender groups have swung hardest against Trump, and what Americans really think about AI, marijuana, and bisexuality.

Catch the full episode for hot takes, warped maps, wild crosstabs, and a reminder that American politics remains, somehow, both very serious and worthy of laughter.

Share

Read more

A quick note: If you’re not already a paid subscriber, now’s a great time to sign up. Annual subscriptions are currently 20 percent off, which comes out to just $5 a month for twice as many episodes, access to live shows like this one, and more. Come join the crew!

Subscribe now

The GD POLITICS podcast returned to the Comedy Cellar this week with Nate Silver and Clare Malone for another sold-out night of political analysis, games, audience questions, and jokes that were, as always, purely incidental.

We started with “Hot Take Hat,” pulling buzzy topics at random and giving them the treatment they deserved — from Labour’s meltdown in the U.K. and the global incumbency curse, to Hantavirus panic, Trump’s Iran war, inflation, and the apparently urgent matter of the White House ballroom.

Then we turned to the 2026 midterms, where the redistricting wars have taken another turn. After rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Virginia Supreme Court, what once looked like a possible Democratic counteroffensive is now likely to net out in Republicans’ favor. We talked about how much the new maps could shift the House playing field, the politics of gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act, and the eternal question: Do voters care about any of this, or just the price of gas?

Finally, we debuted a new game: “True or False: Crosstab Diving Edition.” Clare, Nate, and the audience guessed their way through some of the quirkiest and most revealing findings buried inside recent polls — including whether Democrats think an average 8-year-old boy could beat Donald Trump in a fight, which age and gender groups have swung hardest against Trump, and what Americans really think about AI, marijuana, and bisexuality.

Catch the full episode for hot takes, warped maps, cursed crosstabs, and a reminder that American politics remains, somehow, both very serious and worthy of laughter.

Share

Read more

Subscribe now

Just about every institution in America has taken a reputational beating this century. And still, the speed and severity with which Americans have turned on the public health establishment remain striking.

In March 2020, when COVID began disrupting American life in earnest, 85 percent of Americans said they trusted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an information source. Today, six years later, that figure is 47 percent. Republicans were the first to lose faith, dropping to around 40 percent during Biden’s tenure, but Democrats have largely caught up during Trump’s second term.

For public health folks, this is an existential threat. If they can’t be trusted, their information can’t persuade, and public health itself becomes more of an academic exercise than an effort to save lives. The current hantavirus outbreak is a stark reminder of the stakes.

It’s easy to blame bad-faith actors for the bind public health now finds itself in. But it’s also hard to have lived through the past six years without a sense that experts have helped bring some of this on themselves. In fact, they’re increasingly acknowledging as much and setting out to course correct.

Sandro Galea, dean of the School of Public Health at Washington University in St. Louis, and Salma Abdalla, a professor at WashU’s School of Public Health, have launched a yearlong project called Purple Public Health, which aims to rebuild credibility with Americans of all stripes. (Sandro came on the podcast last year to talk about MAHA, so he may sound familiar.)

I’m excited to have them on today’s podcast to talk about their work — not just because it matters on its own terms, but also because there’s probably something for all of us to learn about earning credibility in a polarized world.

Subscribe now

When we first started talking about prediction markets in the early days of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, back in 2016, they were something of a novelty and a joke.

My then-colleague Clare Malone once quipped, “Who’s even putting money on these markets … Scottish teenagers?” From then on, we referred to online bettors as Scottish teens.

Back then, the prediction markets that got the most attention were Betfair, based in the U.K., and PredictIt, based in New Zealand. Both took off in terms of volume and media attention during Brexit and Trump’s first election. But after 2016, PredictIt got bogged down in regulatory drama, and Betfair was largely inaccessible to Americans. In their place, Kalshi and Polymarket became the main characters in the American prediction market story.

Today, prediction markets are no longer much of a novelty or a joke.

Recently, an active-duty U.S. Army soldier was charged with using classified information for personal gain after he made more than $400,000 betting on Maduro’s ouster on Polymarket. He was allegedly involved in planning and executing Maduro’s capture.

Betting trends point to potentially similar insider knowledge being used in Iran War prediction markets in February and March of this year. And Israeli prosecutors filed indictments against an Israel Defense Forces reservist and a civilian for allegedly using classified military intelligence to bet on Polymarket in the run-up to strikes on Iran last summer.

The list goes on. Kalshi suspended three American political candidates for insider trading after an internal probe found they had bet on their own campaigns. Weather instruments at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris appear to have been tampered with in order to rapidly increase the temperature — perhaps with a lighter or hair dryer — and cash in on a weather prediction contract.

As things stand, prediction markets seem likely to keep growing in popularity and media attention. On Polymarket, more than half a billion dollars has already been wagered on the outcome of the 2028 presidential election. One estimate suggests that total volume across prediction markets could reach $1 trillion annually by 2030.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Washington and the states are increasingly talking about cracking down on the markets, and state attorneys general have been filing lawsuits.

So today, we’re diving into the messy world of prediction markets: their history, how they work, the arguments for and against them, how they’re regulated, and what their future holds.

Joining me is Jacob Studwell, growth and engagement officer at PredictIt — home of the Scottish teens.

Share

Read more

Subscribe now

The Senate map is coming into focus. Maine Gov. Janet Mills dropped out of the Democratic primary last week, leaving former Marine and oyster farmer Graham Platner as the presumptive Democratic nominee against Sen. Susan Collins.

Mills was trailing Platner by 30 points on average before she dropped out. Meanwhile, Platner — despite no shortage of early scandals, including the infamous Nazi tattoo and online writings that ranged from calling rural whites racist and stupid to asking why Black people don’t tip — was raking in cash and rallying voters. It was a poor showing for Mills herself, but also for the establishment that drafted her to run in the first place.

On today’s podcast, Sahil Kapur of NBC News joins me to discuss what the truncated Maine primary tells us about the Democratic Party right now: the “Biden trauma tax,” the value of “authenticity,” and whether Democrats are experiencing something like their own Tea Party moment.

We also survey the rest of the Senate map, from North Carolina and Alaska to Ohio and Texas, and ask which races are actually most likely to flip. Then we turn to Washington, where the longest partial government shutdown in history has ended and Trump’s war in Iran is testing the War Powers Act.

Subscribe now

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, striking down Louisiana’s congressional map and significantly raising the bar for challenges under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The decision was not the full doomsday scenario that some voting rights advocates feared. The Court did not strike down the Voting Rights Act altogether, nor did it say that race can never be considered in redistricting. But the 6-3 conservative majority did make it harder to prove that a map illegally dilutes minority voting power, especially in an era when race and party are so closely correlated.

So where does the fight over gerrymandering go from here?

Nathaniel Rakich of VoteBeat joined me to break down what the Court actually decided, how the ruling could affect the 2026 and 2028 House maps, and why the next phase of the redistricting wars may hinge less on the courts and more on federal legislation, constitutional amendments, or some future anti-politics reform movement.

A year later, Carney’s popularity and power have only grown. His approval rating sits at about 60 percent, and after winning three by-elections earlier this month, the Liberals now govern with a majority in Parliament.

Subscribe now

The combination of Carney’s tack to the center and a backlash against American economic threats has transformed Canadian politics. Minor parties have been sidelined, new parts of the electorate have been absorbed into the Liberal coalition, and Canadians appear to be giving Carney the benefit of the doubt despite challenging economic circumstances.

The biggest question for Liberals now is how long Canadians’ economic patience will last — and how long Trump’s influence will, too. Philippe Fournier of 338Canada and Éric Grenier of The Writ joined me to discuss it all.

Subscribe now

Tuesday marks one year since the Liberals won Canada’s federal election, securing Mark Carney as prime minister despite a Conservative victory looking like a foregone conclusion just months earlier.

A year later, Carney’s popularity and power have only grown. His approval rating sits at about 60 percent, and after winning three by-elections earlier this month, the Liberals now govern with a majority in Parliament.

The combination of Carney’s tack to the center and a backlash against American economic threats has transformed Canadian politics. Minor parties have been sidelined, new parts of the electorate have been absorbed into the Liberal coalition, and Canadians appear to be giving Carney the benefit of the doubt despite challenging economic circumstances.

The biggest question for Liberals now is how long Canadians’ economic patience will last — and how long Trump’s influence will, too. Philippe Fournier of 338Canada and Éric Grenier of The Writ joined me to discuss it all.

Subscribe now

Virginia voters approved a gerrymander of their congressional map by a slim margin on Tuesday. As we discussed on Monday, the new map could elect 10 Democrats and just one Republican this fall, replacing the current delegation of six Democrats and five Republicans.

It’s a dramatic turn in the mid-decade redistricting saga that began with Texas’s Republican gerrymander last summer. As things stand, Democrats could end up as the net beneficiaries of an effort initiated by President Trump.

We dig into those results at the top of today’s podcast, then turn to the listener mailbag. We’ve been getting lots of great questions in the paid subscriber chat on Substack at gdpolitics.com. (A reminder to paid subscribers to take advantage of that!). I’ll start a new thread there so you can drop in questions whenever you like.

Today’s questions cover the California governor’s race, whether candidate attractiveness affects election outcomes, that poll suggesting the Democratic Party is less popular than ICE and the GOP, whether MAGA identification has declined, and what to watch in the midterms — especially the Senate. We even get into the Nebraska race, which one listener argues deserves more attention.

Joining me are Mary Radcliffe, head of research at FiftyPlusOne, and Lenny Bronner, senior data scientist at The Washington Post.

Read more

Nate Silver, Clare Malone and I are back at the Comedy Cellar on May 13 for more rowdy political analysis, games, and audience questions. By then, the midterm primaries will be back underway, Election Day 2026 will be just six months away, and we can only guess what will be dominating the headlines. Grab a ticket, grab a beer, and come join us!

Who: Nate Silver, Clare Malone and Galen Druke

What: A live show!

When: Wednesday, May 13 at 6pm ET

Where: The Village Underground at 130 W 3rd St, New York, NY

Why: Why not?!

How: Tickets here!

Subscribe now

Virginians are heading to the polls on Tuesday to decide whether to redraw the state’s congressional map, part of Democrats’ response to Republicans’ push for mid-decade redistricting.

If the measure passes, Virginia could go from a delegation of six Democrats and five Republicans to one with 10 Democrats and just one Republican. But that outcome is not yet certain: polling shows a closely divided public.

In Florida, legislators are preparing for a special session next week to decide whether, and how, to redraw that state’s map. Recent Democratic overperformances, combined with a state constitution that bars partisan gerrymandering, make the politics there more complicated.

Once Virginia and Florida settle on their paths forward, we should finally — in the middle of primary season — have a clearer sense of what the 2026 congressional map will look like.

That’s our focus on today’s podcast. We also dig into broader questions around election administration, including Republicans’ push to pass the SAVE America Act, Trump’s executive orders, and decisions still pending at the Supreme Court.

And we round things out with the latest midterm fundraising numbers and last week’s New Jersey special election. Joining me for all of it is Nathaniel Rakich, managing editor of Votebeat.