GD POLITICS

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com

The full episode is available to paid subscribers. Once you become a paid subscriber, you can connect your account to your preferred podcast player here.
I want to give listeners a heads-up about some exciting news: Nate Silver, Clare Malone, and I are starting a weekly podcast with Crooked Media called Still Counting! We’re getting the gang back together every Wednesday to talk politics and numbers starting September 9, and you can subscribe now on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. There’s already a trailer in the feed to give you a taste of what’s to come.
To be clear, GD POLITICS isn’t going anywhere. I’ve loved making this podcast for you all over the past year and a half, and I’ll continue chatting with friends, experts, authors, and others every Monday and Thursday. Now you can also hear from Clare, Nate, and me on Wednesdays!
-----
We’ve been talking for a while on this podcast about how AI is liable to disrupt American politics, whether through joblessness or a bursting stock market bubble. We’re not ruling any of those out, but the most immediate disruption appears to be data centers.
According to a recent Fox News poll, American voters oppose building a data center in their area to support artificial intelligence technology by 40 percentage points.
Politicians are taking note. Both Democrats and Republicans who championed new data centers in their states just last year have since taken sharp turns on the issue.
Last week, the Senate GOP campaign arm released a memo warning that the issue could sink Ohio Senator Jon Husted, writing, “If he loses and data centers get the blame, politicians across the country will take notice — and they will not go near the next one.” The memo goes on to say, “This has become a sleeper issue for the entire election cycle.”
Today, Mary Radcliffe, head of research at FiftyPlusOne, and Nathaniel Rakich, managing editor at Votebeat, help me unpack that conclusion. We also dig into questions about whether the primary vote in Alaska is predictive of the midterm results this fall. Plus, after a fake pollster caught our attention last week, we’re digging deeper into the Wild West of startup pollsters and how they shape public perceptions of political races.

Today’s podcast is about the youth. And when I say youth, I am being generous. What I really mean is millennials, a group that today stretches from the sprightly age of 30 to the ripe old age of 45. (We also talk about Gen Z, but that’s a group that still hasn’t come into its own politically and economically. The youngest Gen Zers are still five years away from the voting booth.)
But millennials are here. They run the largest AI companies in the world, sit in seats of power from Congress to the vice presidency, and are increasingly reshaping American politics in their image.
If you’ve followed Democrats’ mini-summer of discontent, you’ve noticed that, at least within the Democratic Party, they are much more progressive than their elders and more likely to back insurgent candidates who pitch wholesale change.
Though it’s a group that leans left, the young right is also different. They’ve ditched Fox for podcasters, care more about cancel culture than traditional values like same-sex marriage or abortion, and share a skepticism of the status quo with their left counterparts.
In talking about the youth, or the younger half of the country (the median American is 40), we try to get a better sense of this moment in politics and where the ascendant generations are taking us next. We touch on recent intraparty fights and dive into the new political tribes that describe our divisions.
Joining me on this episode is Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights. She also writes the newsletter Type A- and is the author of the book The Selfie Vote: Where Millennials Are Leading America (And How Republicans Can Keep Up).


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com

The full episode is available to paid subscribers. Once you become a paid subscriber, you can connect your account to your preferred podcast player here.
On today’s podcast, we tour the seven states most likely to decide control of the Senate with Silver Bulletin Senior Elections Analyst Eli McKown-Dawson. At the top of the list is… Texas. Silver Bulletin’s forecast currently gives Democrat James Talarico a 59 percent chance of defeating Republican Ken Paxton. We unpack what the model sees in Texas, Ohio, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Alaska and North Carolina—and why candidate quality produces some eye-popping results.
If you’re skeptical of those numbers, we also examine evidence that summer Senate polls have historically overstated Democrats’ eventual performance. Is today’s favorable polling simply another midsummer mirage? Eli explains how the forecast accounts for early polling uncertainty and why presidential year misses don’t necessarily tell us what to expect in a midterm.
We also recap Tuesday’s primaries in Florida, Alaska and Wyoming. Democratic socialist Angie Nixon defeated the much better-funded Alex Vindman in Florida’s Senate primary, three Trump-endorsed candidates lost and two pro-Israel moderate Democrats won decisively in South Florida. Meanwhile, Alaska voters may get to choose between not one but two Republican Senate candidates named Dan Sullivan.
Finally, a purported polling firm released numbers in the Wisconsin gubernatorial primary and Los Angeles mayoral race, then admitted the polls were fake and called the whole thing a “short-term social experiment.” Are we buying that explanation, or did they simply get caught? We discuss how election analysts vet new pollsters and keep fake, amateur and AI-generated polling out of their averages.

During the decade that Donald Trump has dominated American politics, no major part of the electorate has changed as dramatically as Latino voters.
According to Pew’s validated voter data, Democrats’ advantage among Latinos fell from 38 percentage points in 2016 to just 3 points in 2024. Other sources show smaller swings, but the conclusion is the same: The rightward movement among Latino voters was larger than the shift within any other major group defined by age, race, gender or education.
That transformation overturned much of the conventional wisdom formed during the Obama years. Latinos could no longer be treated as a reliably Democratic constituency, nor could immigration be assumed to determine their votes.
On this episode, I spoke with Carlos Odio, co-founder of Equis Research and author of the new Substack The New Dynamic, about what changed and what both parties still misunderstand.
Carlos argues that the shift was not simply a reaction to one campaign, candidate or message. Trump benefited from broader class and cultural divides reshaping electorates across Western democracies. Latino voters were subject to many of the same forces pulling other working-class voters to the right, but their long-standing Democratic allegiance delayed the movement.
Immigration matters, but it’s not the most important issue. Carlos also distinguishes between attitudes toward immigrants already established in the country and attitudes toward people seeking to enter. Latino voters can support a pathway to citizenship for longtime residents while also favoring stricter control of the border. In 2024, the latter concern dominated.
Democrats have since regained some ground, but Carlos cautions against overinterpreting low-turnout elections. Republicans probably now have a higher floor among Latinos than they did before Trump. At the same time, many Latino voters remain genuinely persuadable and traditional campaign models often fail to identify them.
Neither party has a lock on Latino voters anymore. What happens next will depend, in part, on what each chooses to do about it.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com

The full episode is available to paid subscribers. Once you become a paid subscriber, you can connect your account to your preferred podcast player here.
Friend of the pod Nate Silver launched his midterm forecast this week, which means it is officially “Who is going to win?!” season. Buckle up!
It’s also the time of year when I get to pester Nate with questions about his model, such as: What’s going on in Texas? How much do fundamentals matter? And should a forecast take betting markets into account?
On this episode, Nate and I went live on Substack to talk about it all. He explains why the generic ballot, President Trump’s approval rating, recent election results and fundraising data point to a favorable environment for Democrats. We also look at what that could mean for key races in Texas, Alaska and Michigan.
Then we dig into the big polling miss in Wisconsin’s Democratic gubernatorial primary and ask whether it suggests that general-election polls could be headed for a similar failure this fall.
Finally, we weigh how much candidate quality and scandals still matter and why uncertainty is more predictable in some elections than in others.