GD POLITICS

We’ve got a podcast full of election updates today. We kick things off with the latest in the gerrymandering wars. Both Texas and California approved new maps in their state legislatures. For Texas, that makes it pretty much a done deal, pending lawsuits. For California, that means the maps now go to the voters to approve and we have some new polling on what they think at the start of all of this.Now eyes are turning to Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Florida for more Republican gerrymandering and to New York, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon and Virginia for more Democratic gerrymandering. Although, much of the Democratic gerrymandering may have to wait a cycle.Next we look to the New York City mayoral race, one of the hottest items of the fall’s off-year elections. It’s getting about as New York as you can imagine. There’s more scandal surrounding Eric Adams, including one associate trying to bribe a reporter with cash stuffed in a bag of Herr’s potato chips. Zohran Mamdani led his supporters on a city-wide scavenger hunt and got panned online for failing to do a bench press rep solo at a campaign event. And Cuomo is attracting big money from Mamdani-skeptic New Yorkers, with his super PAC raising 1.3 million in a single week.We also check in on the national environment, lest we get to Texas, California and New York-centric. With me to do it all is my former colleague and newly minted Chief Election Analyst at Decision Desk HQ Geoffrey Skelley. 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

Do moderate candidates do better in elections? It’s a question that has rocked the online world of election data nerds in recent days.There has been hair pulling, locker stuffing, and swirly giving. Sorry, I mean, there has been online snark, Substack posts and replies, competing Twitter and Bluesky threads, academic credential waving, and accusations of bias.What started this whole thing is a little metric called WAR, which is oftentimes used in sports and means “wins above replacement.” Basically, how well does a particular politician perform in an election compared to how a generic candidate from their own party would have done.The folks at SplitTicket, helmed by Lakshya Jain, have been using this metric to analyze electoral politics for a while and have found that the benefit to being a moderate is notable. From 2018 to 2024, according to their data, Blue Dog Democrats did about 5 percentage points better than progressive Democrats in House elections.The folks at Strength In Numbers, helmed by Elliott Morris, recently published their own version of WAR, showing a smaller benefit to political moderation, about a 1 to 1.5 percentage point benefit, with significant uncertainty bands around those numbers. Elliott concluded in an article that moderation is overrated in electoral politics.This initial disagreement sparked a broader debate between other Substackers, academics, and election wonks who took one side or another.Today, for the first time since this debate began, the two sides sit down together to hash it out on the GD POLITICS podcast. Joining me on this episode are Lakshya Jain and Elliott Morris. 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

The video version of this podcast is available to paid subscribers here.The gerrymandering wars are continuing apace. Texas Democratic legislators are returning to their state this week after leaving in order to block a Republican attempt to redraw the state’s congressional maps. Their return means Texas Republicans can move forward with their gerrymandered maps, which aim to add five Republicans to the state’s congressional ranks.California Governor Gavin Newsom has kicked off his own retaliatory gambit, attempting to add five seats to the Democratic roster in his state, with new maps that will be considered by the California legislature this week and – if all goes to plan – considered by California voters in a referendum this fall.Speaking of gambits, Ipsos announced that it is partnering with Stanford to create AI survey respondents that are twinned with real people. Is this “Good Data, Bad Data or Not Data?” And will survey respondents be the first casualties of the great AI job displacement?Also, as we sat down to record Monday morning, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders were meeting with President Trump to present their vision for how to bring about an end to the war in Ukraine, after Trump seemed to side with Russian President Vladimir Putin last Friday.Trump’s relationship with Russia was a highly scrutinized part of his first term, but what do Americans think now? And how involved do they want the US to be in ending the war in Ukraine?With me to discuss it all are two dear friends of the pod, Mary Radcliffe and Nathaniel Rakich. 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.comThe full episode is available to paid subscribers. Once you become a paid subscriber, you can connect your account to your preferred podcast player by following the directions here.As students begin to head back to school, American higher education is in its most fraught position in recent memory. Most prominent among the challenges is President Trump’s pressure campaign against elite universities.There have been federal funding freezes linked to accusations that schools haven’t done enough to stem anti-semitism and remove race considerations from admissions. There have also been cuts to scientific research, roadblocks for international student visas, and new limits on federal student loans.There are also broader concerns about higher education that predate Trump or have little to do with him: The rising cost of tuition, concerns about the return on investment, and the growing gender imbalance amongst those who graduate. Women now receive about 60 percent of bachelor’s degrees in the U.S.To top it all off, there are emerging questions about whether artificial intelligence will shrink the availability of entry level jobs that a degree prepares many students for.On today’s episode we get into as many of these challenges as possible with Preston Cooper. He’s an economist and senior fellow at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute. He’s done extensive research into the value proposition of American higher education, and has estimated the return on investment of 53,000 different degree and certificate programs across the country.

In this engaging discussion, Adam Aleksic, a linguist and author known as Etymology Nerd, dives into how social media algorithms are reshaping our language and, consequently, politics. He discusses the rise of terms like 'unalive' and the impact of niche communities on mainstream slang. Adam highlights how memes influence political ideologies and voter engagement, emphasizing that authenticity in communication is crucial. The conversation also reveals how word choice can dramatically alter public perception, especially in today's digital landscape.

Jacob Rubashkin, the deputy editor of Inside Elections, joins the discussion to dissect the evolving landscape of Senate elections. He highlights Kamala Harris's decision not to run for governor and examines Jerry Nadler's primary challenge amid age concerns. The conversation shifts to Texas, where newly gerrymandered maps aim to boost Republican seats ahead of the tough 2026 elections. Lastly, Rubashkin touches on the shifting dynamics within the Democratic Party, addressing challenges from younger candidates and the implications of Congressional careers.

Join Ben Casselman, Chief Economics Correspondent at The New York Times, and Tara Sinclair, Chair of the Economics Department at George Washington University, as they dissect the alarming revisions in U.S. job statistics. They delve into potential political interference at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, exploring how trust in economic data shapes growth and decision-making. The conversation also highlights the dangers of data manipulation, drawing parallels with economic crises in Argentina and Greece, and underscores the need for integrity in federal statistics.

Lenny Bronner, a Senior data scientist at The Washington Post, joins Galen Druk to tackle pressing listener questions. They discuss public opinion on the Gaza conflict, revealing generational divides in perspectives, especially among younger voters. Insights on whether Americans would elect a gay president spark an engaging debate. The duo also explores the intriguing contrasts in heat-related death statistics between the U.S. and Europe, alongside the shifting political ideologies of young men and their implications for future elections.

In this discussion, Jeff Asher, a data analyst with experience in the New Orleans Police Department and CIA, dives into the significant drop in U.S. murder rates. He highlights how cities like New York and San Francisco are experiencing historic lows, despite public perception believing crime is rising. They explore the complexities behind these trends, the influence of police response times, and innovative strategies for improving safety. Asher argues for better communication of these realities to bridge the gap between crime statistics and societal beliefs.

Tyler Pager, White House Correspondent for The New York Times, shares insights into the tumultuous year leading up to the 2024 election. He examines President Biden's unexpected decision to seek re-election amid a discontented party and a struggling approval rating. The conversation explores Donald Trump's rare comeback attempt and the psychological factors driving both candidates. Additionally, Pager discusses the Biden administration's challenges in addressing public concerns over inflation and immigration, revealing the complexities behind political strategies during a period of turbulence.