New York’s Dress Rehearsal For 2028

New York’s Dress Rehearsal For 2028

New York City is not America. It is denser, younger, more renter-heavy and more ideologically left than the country as a whole. But that does not mean its politics are irrelevant to the national Democratic Party. In fact, this week’s congressional primaries in New York may offer a preview of several fights Democrats are likely to have between now and 2028. On today’s episode of the GD POLITICS podcast, politics writer Michael Lange joins me to make the case that Tuesday’s primaries are, in some ways, a dress rehearsal for the next Democratic presidential primary. We talk about the battle between socialists and progressives in New York’s 7th Congressional District, where a retiring Nydia Velázquez has opened up one of the youngest and bluest seats in the country. We also discuss the challenge to Rep. Adriano Espaillat in New York’s 13th District, where questions of race, ideology, Israel-Palestine and incumbency are all colliding. Then we turn to the race to replace Jerry Nadler in New York’s 12th District, one of the best-educated and most politically engaged places in the country, where the politics of artificial intelligence have become central. And we look at Dan Goldman’s primary challenge from Brad Lander in New York’s 10th District, where AIPAC, local political roots and the post-Mamdani left all loom large. Finally, we head north of the city to New York’s 17th Congressional District, one of the most important battleground seats in the country, where Democrats are deciding what kind of candidate they want to put up against Republican Rep. Mike Lawler. The big question running through all of this: Are these races revealing where the Democratic Party is headed, or are they mostly telling us about the strange and specific politics of New York? 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 [https://www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Do Fed-Up Americans Really Move To Canada? And Other Listener Questions

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com [https://www.gdpolitics.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_7] 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 [https://www.gdpolitics.com/listen]. Today’s episode is a long-overdue listener mailbag, which means we’re getting into some of the great questions that have been piling up in the paid-subscriber chat [https://substack.com/chat/1603893?utm_source=pub-nav-bar]. For example, how do likely voter models actually work? Do people really move abroad because of politics, or is that mostly just something people say after an election doesn’t go their way? Could a senator switching parties ever change control of Congress? Are prediction markets headed for a steady stream of insider-trading scandals? And at what point does an unpopular president start losing control of his own party in Congress? There are also some more election-specific questions: whether Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo is one of the most endangered incumbents in the country, what makes Rob Sand a viable Democratic candidate in Iowa, how much the latest round of redistricting could shift the House map toward Republicans, and what history’s highest-turnout midterm might tell us about the political moment we’re living through now. Plus, we answer a question about recently ousted Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who, by the way, co-authored the legislation that made Juneteenth a federal holiday. A listener wanted to know whether he’ll seek retribution in his final months before retirement. This episode is also a bit different from usual: it’s just me, solo, doing my best talk-radio impression and answering as many of your questions as I can before my voice gives out. Thanks, as always, to everyone who submitted questions in the paid-subscriber chat. We didn’t get to all of them, which means we’ll have to do this again soon!

What The Early 2026 Midterm Forecasts Say

We are four and a half months out from Election Day 2026, which means forecast season is officially beginning. On today’s episode of the GD POLITICS podcast, I spoke with two election forecasters whose models are beginning to shape how we understand the midterms: Lakshya Jain, head of political data at The Argument and CEO of Split Ticket, and Zachary Donnini, head of data science at VoteHub. VoteHub’s midterm forecast is officially live, but Split Ticket’s is set to publish later this week, meaning listeners are getting an exclusive preview of the work Lakshya has been doing. The forecasts agree on the big picture: Democrats are favored to win the House, while the Senate is close to a toss-up, with Republicans holding a slight edge. But under the hood, the models diverge in meaningful ways. VoteHub gives Democrats a 72 percent chance of winning the House, while The Argument/Split Ticket puts the odds at 90 percent. The biggest reason is how the two models treat the national political environment. VoteHub’s model is built around a Democratic advantage of about seven points on the generic ballot. The Argument/Split Ticket model, relying in part on its own likely-voter polling, sees something closer to a nine-point Democratic environment. The two also differ on whether to incorporate prediction markets. VoteHub does, though Zach emphasized that Kalshi markets are weighted lightly in low-volume House races and more heavily in higher-volume Senate races. His argument is that prediction markets can sometimes pick up information before polls do, especially from late-breaking scandals or meaningful early-vote data. Lakshya is more skeptical. He sees value in prediction markets, but worries about feedback loops and overreactions. The Senate picture is even more interesting. The two forecasts are almost identical at the chamber level: VoteHub gives Republicans a 55 percent chance of retaining the Senate, while The Argument/Split Ticket puts it at 53 percent. But the race-level forecasts differ substantially. In Georgia, VoteHub gives Sen. Jon Ossoff an 87 percent chance of winning reelection. The Argument/Split Ticket puts him at 98 percent. Lakshya argues that Georgia is simply not red enough, especially in a Democratic-leaning national environment, to justify treating Ossoff as vulnerable. Zach agrees Ossoff is favored, but his model is more cautious because it adjusts for the possibility that competitive states in 2024 were artificially bluer than their underlying partisanship. Other divergences tell us a lot about how forecasting works. In Michigan, Lakshya said he thinks VoteHub’s forecast is probably better than his own, because early polling suggests Democrats may not be as strong there as his fundamentals-heavy model currently implies. In Florida, Zach said Lakshya’s model may be capturing something VoteHub is not: the continued Republican strength among Florida’s older and Hispanic voters. That was the spirit of the whole conversation. Lakshya and Zach are not dueling forecasters, but friends with different ideas about what inputs to use in a model. And that may be the most useful takeaway. Forecasts are not magic. They are structured arguments about what matters, what data should count and how uncertain we should be. In 2026, those arguments point to a Democratic edge in the House, a highly competitive Senate and a midterm that could determine whether Trump spends the final two years of his presidency constrained by Congress or empowered by 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 [https://www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

How Do Democrats Solve A Problem Like Graham Platner?

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com [https://www.gdpolitics.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_7] 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 [https://www.gdpolitics.com/listen]. 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.

Why Right-Wing Populism Hasn’t Taken Off In Ireland

While I was in Dublin recently, I sat down with Hugh Linehan of The Irish Times’ Inside Politics [https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/inside-politics-with-hugh-linehan/id794389685] podcast to talk about Irish and American politics. We start with a question that gets asked frequently about Ireland: Why hasn’t right-wing populism taken off there? 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. 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. 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 [https://www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]