Partisanship is the gravity that dictates every election in the US. 43 of the 50 states, we could probably predict right now with 97% confidence who they'll vote for in 2028. And it's not because of rigging. Because polarization and partisanship are very powerful forces that we can't seem to escape from.
Welcome back to the All-In interview program with Nate Silver β gambler, statistician, podcaster, Substacker (Silver Bulletin). Subscribe for a "Hyundai" ($95). Nate's wearing his Knicks hat β once in 53 years, once in his lifetime at least. He went to the Trump game ("not the right game to go to, but I wanted to cover it for my readers"). Showed up at 6:05 for an 8:30 game.
On the Knicks championship run β "I had the Knicks to win the Eastern Conference Finals and then bet them to win the Finals against either OKC or San Antonio. The ticket was not cheap." On Atlanta game where they were up 77-22 at some point: "as somebody who builds models, to see that level of signature significance and dominance β that's real, that's not noise."
Nate doesn't bet through "big Tony" β DraftKings and MGM have limited him, the prediction markets do not. "I can solve for poly market. If you're a sharp bettor, it becomes easier to concentrate your activity on prediction markets where you have very smart people and hedge funds making bets."
On what made the Knicks special: "I think it's Mike Brown and Cat. Number one on defense β Jaylen Brunson, my favorite player, is undersized, not a terrific one-on-one defender. But every other defender, including Towns, are at least average if not better. They became a much better defensive team in the second half β the best defense in the NBA in the playoffs."
"Cat presenting β I think he's one of the 15 best players in the league. The Knicks have the most playoff games out of any team in the past four years, more than Boston, more than OKC. Playoff experience does matter. Nerves are a thing. To have had experience in a lot of high-stakes games β it really does help."
Jason teases the topic of "Spencer Pratt fraud" mail-in ballots β Nate corrects: "Just the LA election." Friedberg asks about the surge for Nipia Ramen in late mail-in ballots after Karen Bass appeared ahead in person.
I'd say there's no evidence of fraud. The mistake is to assume each ballot comes in independently when there are systematic differences between groups and when they cast their ballots. Democrats have long been encouraged to vote by mail. California's system is completely unacceptable. I've done consulting on the Indian election where you literally have polling stations in the Himalayas β they count their vote within 24 hours. It's ridiculous and very failed state that California takes longer than that.
Friedberg presses on the statistical difference between in-person and mail-in, and the ballot harvesting concern from Skid Row. Nate: "I think the California vote count is an accurate tally of the votes that were cast." Whether they were cast by the proper individuals is a separate question β there's propaganda around this, and mail voting has verification challenges.
Jason on voter ID and politics: "Look, voter ID would be pretty reasonable. I'm not against voter ID. You show your ID to get into a bar." But the Democratic edge in low-information / mail voting has shifted β Democrats now overperform in special elections and midterms, not high-turnout Trump-on-ballot races.
"It's a system much too slow where you have different branches of ballots that are kind of differently. Younger more progressive people tend to vote later and/or by mail. The prior on Pratt advancing in California would be pretty low potentially. Even a very talented Republican β Spencer Pratt β winning the mayorship of LA, expecting that is unrealistic. California is a capital-D democratic state, not idiosyncratic blue like Maine. It's a machine state."
Jason on the "appearance of impropriety" β Heritage Foundation finds maybe a couple thousand fraud cases, dimminimous. Nate: "The American election system is very decentralized β as a kind of old-school liberal who's against centralized power, I think that's quite brilliant. But yeah, there are certainly cases. Al Franken in 2006 came down to a recount of 200 votes. An 0.5% recount threshold in most states β almost never have you had a margin larger than 0.05% overturned."
Friedberg: does this system create irreversible Democratic control over California elected seats?
Democrats have lost plenty of elections recently β but not in California. Partisanship is the gravity that dictates every election in the US. 43 of the 50 states, we could predict right now with 97% confidence who they'll vote for in 2028. And it's not because of rigging. Polarization and partisanship are very powerful forces that we can't seem to escape from.
"You see a little of crossartisanship in New England β Charlie Baker, Phil Scott in Vermont. Even in the South like Beshear in Kentucky β a moderate but Democratic governor. For some reason you don't see it as much in California. Maybe because it's so large that voters can't touch the candidates up close. California has always been the laboratory of weird and eccentric political ideas β but it's become a machine state."
"I am very concerned about polarization. It leads to lower quality of governance. It's exacerbated by gerrymandering β Democrats have paid the price where the triangulation 'pick the least worst nominee' works in blue states but hasn't given Democrats effective general election nominees. Between Biden in 2024 (I consider Biden to have lost before Harris lost instead), they kind of won the gimme in 2020 β Obama still has 57% approval with independents. Biden is at 20%. A lot of Democrats and Republicans feel you don't even have to try to turn out the other side. It's just a numbers game."
Jason: "Republicans used to be country club elites β now populist party. Democrats used to be working class β now liberal weird socialist party. What's going on with the vibes?"
Nate: "Democrats really have three factions."
(1) The Left. "Avatars might be Zoran, AOC, Bernie Sanders β all of whom are quite effective politicians in their own way. Zoran understood how to be a Knicks cheerleader for example. AOC β you can take or leave, she's become a more effective tactical politician. Bernie, what he's built being a freaking old guy from Vermont, the socialist mayor of Burlington, coming quite close and beating Clinton in 20 states in 2016 was impressive. Historically the left has not had a lot of big wins outside of the bluest states."
(2) The Abundance Libs (Ezra Klein). "More pro-free market. They sometimes deny that they're centrist β I think they're pretty centrist. They are the ones very concerned with California as a case study of poor governance. Generally speaking, it's the purple states, sometimes the red states where things are more functional, where there's more housing, where when you get out of the airport to catch an Uber, there's not some convoluted system where you wait 20 minutes for a shuttle like at LAX. Population growth, jobs data β those are states where people have moved to."
(3) The Resistance Libs. "Often very partisan, often cheerleading for the blue team. They thought Joe Biden was railroaded out of the 2024 race. They're really Gavin Newsom's constituency."
Why is Gavin Newsom going out of his way to endorse the Bidens when Biden, even among Democrats, is not all that popular anymore? Everyone else wants to move on. Well, it's because it's a signal to the resistance libs: I have your back. I'm a fighter. The reason we didn't win in 2024 was because the media was unfair to Biden and/or because Kamla Harris was a Black woman. So pick a white guy who will fight for you and tweet in all caps and you'll win. I don't [believe that].
Jason: "Like the Trump playbook. Never apologize. Go on the attack." Nate: "Absolutely. He had some proof of concept β the redistricting thing was a smart tactical move. Democrats are going to lose seats, but without California they probably lose even more. But the triangulating spirit of 'let's pick Kamla Harris because she's the least unacceptable' or Hillary or John Kerry β the establishment doesn't seem to understand that almost every election now is a change election. Look at what's happening in the UK β six prime ministers in 9 years. It's not a good time to be a defender of the status quo."
Friedberg: "Do socialists rise as president 2028? Has the data shifted that much?"
Nate: "Huge generational divides. I'm 48, still remember the Cold War, the Berlin Wall falling. For me the connotations of socialism are close adjacent to communism, long history of failure. People who are older don't realize the socialism brand is much more popular among younger Democrats."
"By the same token, America is still a supremely capitalist country. I have lots of critiques of the tech sector in my book β we still are attracting the best and brightest young talent from all around the world. The AI capital boom is responsible for keeping our economy, at least the stock market, in relatively good shape."
The biggest differences are concentrated among Hispanic and to some extent Asian-American voters. Who do you think are the most likely people to own small businesses in the US? Recent immigrant groups are very entrepreneurial. It's one thing that makes the United States great. But you have seen shifts in those groups β the most entrepreneurial groups β away from Democrats.
Friedberg: "They escaped socialist countries β the economic mobility from free markets is what gave folks opportunities. But the second and third generation American middle class are probably more likely to be convinced of the benefits of socialism."
"Where the cut point is is probably around age 40. I saw before the New York mayoral race that people made block-by-block neighborhood projections based on where Zoran would be good versus Cuomo β just based on knowing where younger more progressive people live. Part is economic anxiety. Also your experience growing up. The first election I was old enough to vote in was Clinton '96 β triumph of the West, robust economy. By the time the Great Recession hit, I already had a job, a foothold. People who were in college when September 11 happened might be the cut point. Sometimes I joke people in their 40s through early 50s are the only sane people in the US β that second half of Gen X. We've never had a Gen X president. Kamla Harris would have been a boomer too technically."
Friedberg notes 45 million college graduates in the last decade with significant debt β "I'd argue that's a function of the federal student loan program. It really condemns people to a life that's very hard to grow your way out of."
On news consumption: "We had an era where you had very centralized news delivery β TV and radio, three or four major networks with huge editorial control. I worked at the New York Times β when I first got there you'd still have the page-one meeting every day, the editors deciding what is news. Now it's decentralized. Social media plays a role. Phones and social media affect youth satisfaction a lot. Ironically maybe AI will change this β initial evidence is the models gravitate toward consensus views. Claude or ChatGPT is probably less polarizing than Blue Sky or Twitter."
Jason: "It used to be follow-based β you build your filter, your list. Then TikTok comes out with the FYP, YouTube goes full algorithm, X has gone basically full algorithm. The filter bubble is becoming incredibly pronounced."
I don't think a person should have a correlated stance on taxes and abortion and Gaza and the free market and whatever else. Partisanship is a very powerful force to squish this very complicated array of political issues onto just one dimension. Social media, Twitter in particular, is a very effective mechanism for that. I get totally yelled at for any bit of heterodoxy β like saying Biden is obviously too old, Democrats you're going to lose unless you replace him. Even though it's a stance literally 80% of voters agree with, will make you seem like a heretic on Twitter.
"I've been critical of Elon β although some things predate him like the algorithmic feed. If I choose to follow Jason or the New York Times or Knicks Fan TV, I want to see their tweets without having to give the algorithm an additional signal. The depreciation, breaking the chronological feed is annoying. If I'm watching the World Cup and there's a tweet from 6 hours ago suddenly surfacing β 'what just happened?' β that's not surfacing things in the right order."
Jason: "I told the Twitter team you should have a button: show me every post from this person. I want every single post from Knicks Fan TV. No way to do that except like every post and then your feed goes off the rails."
Nate: "The for-you algorithm is pretty decent for what it is. You do have to train it. For a while I got a bunch of fight videos. Click 'don't show me this anymore' β pretty responsive. The algorithm knows right now I want tweets about the World Cup and is Giannis getting traded. But I don't like any algorithm that presumes it's smarter than the user. If I subscribe to somebody and haven't muted them, then show me their tweets. You can mix in things you think I'll like."
"Twitter was never going to be a hugely profitable company. It was a unique resource for following the news. I wish that functionality had been preserved β this started before Elon although has been continued since."
"We'll have a model out within a few weeks β a little delayed by the World Cup and redistricting stuff. Prediction markets say Democrats are around 80-85% to take the House and 40-45% to take the Senate. Both seem reasonable. If anything it's a little low on the House β I think more like 85 or 90."
The House is the one where everything points the same direction. Democrats are facing a very unpopular president, an economy voters have anxiety about, Trump's new Middle Eastern wars. On top of that β the very long history of the president's party drawing a backlash at midterms, recent incumbency backlash all around the world, good results for Democrats in NJ and Virginia last year and special elections. The redistricting thing helps the GOP a little, but you're fighting against a lot of gravity.
"The Senate is more of a numbers game. Even in a pretty blue environment, Democrats have to win some seats in red states. Taking a big risk in Maine β a state that by all rights they ought to win in a D+8 year and a D+10 state β but Graham Platner is only two points ahead of Susan Collins. I take him at 50/50. That's an unnecessary risk."
"The GOP will be able in these red states β a candidate like Terar Rico, probably a toss-up race, and Paxton is a far less than ideal Republican nominee. Partisanship is still a powerful force. People are saying why are they attacking Telerico on things that are not above board β critiquing his sexuality. Because Texas is a really red state, Trump's not popular β you go for the lowest common denominator. In our system that works a fair amount of the time."
Friedberg: "Can Trump do anything to shift things back?" Nate: "If he can get gas prices down. Such a visible indicator β you drive by the Chevron station. Very contingent on how long the conflict war in Iran persists. His unfavorable ratings are very entrenched. Democrats are very enthusiastic despite their misgivings about their own party. To vote for your generic Democrat against a generic Republican is a pretty easy ask. That's fairly baked in."
The odds of Democrats winning the Senate but not the House are like 1%. So condition on Democrats winning the Senate, they'll almost certainly have won the House, and governorships. If Democrats win the Senate, that means it's a really blue year overcoming wins in places like Ohio, Iowa, Alaska β and therefore probably the rest. All the dominoes fall that way.
Jason: "Gavin Newsom in 2028 β enigma of a politician, worst-run state but polished. Is he still on the up?"
He's not. We have an article up on Silver Bulletin which we'll publish shortly. Newsom has fallen in Democratic primary polls from around 25% to 15%. He's fallen on poly market from like 33% to 22%. I think he was benefiting from name recognition. Now Democrats see a candidate like John Ossoff in Georgia β another good-looking young guy but with the credential Newsom will never have of winning an election in a purple state.
"I think it's good Democrats are showing a bias toward younger candidates β like what happened with Zoran too. I wouldn't discount someone like an AOC. Chuck Schumer might be very vulnerable in the 2028 primary. People saying 'we are sick and tired of the Democratic establishment β I'll take a more septous or more leftwing version, but not the same.' Newsom is in a pretty defensive position β that's why you see him having Hunter Biden on his podcast."
Jason: "AOC is now 36 years old so she qualifies. Could she become the equivalent of Trump β the outsider, the burn-it-down vote?" Nate: "She's my bet. Yeah."
"For many years in the Republican primary the establishment always won out. Rick Santorums, Sarah Palins, Herman Cains who'd get 40% but the country club establishment would prevail. Then it doesn't take that much of perpetually growing dissatisfaction. Young people don't understand why they would care about a party brand anyway β the Democratic party brand is a lame brand as certainly the GOP is."
On the perfect 2028 platform: "I am an elite. Most elites like me say socially liberal, economically moderate. I'm not sure that view is actually an electoral winner. The most neglected voters are people who are culturally a little more conservative but economically more progressive β not in the same way as AOC. When you have the world's first trillionaire, people have anxiety about AI. Combining a little of the right kind of anti-oligarch rhetoric with moderation on woke stuff, still supporting small business β especially for men, young men want to feel they control their own destiny."
Why I've been more defending of Zoran Mamdani living in New York β he's at least getting the ins and outs. We have really nice new airports. Our crime is relatively low compared to California. I used to live near Penn Station Madison Square Garden β never walked around feeling unsafe there. When I visit SF, you have to be more careful. Combining functional performance in government with whatever message you want is part of it. Maybe a little more optimism too β Obama presented a more optimistic take.
"The most electable Democrat might be a John Ossoff β younger, pretty progressive if you look at his voting record but isn't a brawler the way Newsom is trying to be. It's insane we had a candidate trying to be president until he was 86 and the alternative was 82. You don't see very many CEOs or leaders running the biggest country in the world as an 82-year-old."
On Obama's playbook: "Even Obama in 2008 combined positioning to the left of Clinton on issues like Iraq with the whole 'we have gay sisters in blue states and red states and we play little league' post-partisan rhetoric. Newsom has tried to moderate β he had Charlie Kirk on his podcast last year, he's against the billionaire tax, tried to moderate on culture war issues. But he nominated an institutional candidate from California who lost all the swing states by two to five points. I don't believe Democrats will be persuaded that just because you're white and have different anatomy, that wins."
Closing: Jason: "We will have you back on for live election coverage. Everybody go to Silver Bulletin and pop out a Hyundai ($95). Place some bets at Poly Market β our favorite partner, Nate's favorite partner."