Nate Silver says AOC is his actual bet for the 2028 Democratic nomination — and Newsom has already collapsed from 25% to 15% in primary polls.
All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg
Nate Silver says AOC is his actual bet for the 2028 Democratic nomination — and Newsom has already collapsed from 25% to 15% in primary polls.
TL;DR
Nate Silver joins the All-In pod to break down California's ballot-counting dysfunction, the three-way civil war fracturing the Democratic Party, and what the winning 2028 playbook looks like. He puts Democrats at 85–90% to retake the House in 2026 [1] — Nate Silver "Dem House takeover odds per prediction markets: 80-85%: Prediction markets currently price Democrats retaking the House at 80–85%, with Sil…" 49:50 but calls the Senate a toss-up hinging on gas prices and Iran [2] — Nate Silver "Newsom drops from ~25% to 15% in Dem primary polls: Gavin Newsom has fallen from roughly 25% to 15% in Democratic primary polls and from 33…" 55:28 . His boldest call: Gavin Newsom is fading fast in primary polls [3] — Nate Silver "Socialist brand popularity cuts at age ~40: Silver identifies approximately age 40 as the dividing line: voters under 40 are broadly more f…" 42:10 , and AOC is his actual bet for the 2028 Democratic nomination [4] — Nate Silver "The shift from chronological to algorithmic feeds didn't just change how people consume news — it reinforced partisanship by rewarding enga…" 45:30 . The single most useful takeaway — partisanship is so powerful that 43 of 50 states can be called with 97% confidence before a single vote is cast.
Nate Silver joins the All-In pod to analyze California's ballot-counting controversies, map the three-way civil war inside the Democratic Party, deliver 2026 midterm predictions (85–90% Dem House takeover, Senate toss-up), and reveal his 2028 Democratic nomination bet: AOC over Gavin Newsom.
The episode opens with Jason Calacanis welcoming Nate Silver — gambler, statistician, and Silver Bulletin Substacker — who arrives sporting a Knicks hat after attending multiple playoff games. The conversation quickly becomes a genuine sports analytics deep-dive. Silver identifies Karl-Anthony Towns and head coach Mike Brown's defensive system as the decisive variables in the Knicks' title run, arguing that their improvement on both sides of the ball was statistically unusual for a veteran team. He cites Jalen Brunson's absurd 53% shooting from 16–22 feet even when defenders knew what was coming, comparing it to Mariano Rivera's cut fastball. Most strikingly, Silver produces the fact that the Knicks have logged more playoff games than any other team over the past four years — more than Boston, OKC, or San Antonio — and argues that playoff experience is a measurable, real competitive advantage, just as nerves are in poker and golf.
David Sacks opens the political portion of the show by raising what he sees as a suspicious statistical pattern: Nithya Raman's overwhelming advantage in late mail-in ballots compared to in-person and early mail votes in the LA city council race. Silver's answer is methodical — he explains that Democrats have been systematically encouraged to vote by mail since Trump discouraged the practice, and that multiple Democratic candidates in California elections created decision complexity that pushed Democratic voters toward later balloting. He draws a sharp distinction between the California vote count being an accurate tally of votes cast versus whether those votes were cast properly. [1] — Nate Silver "India runs polling stations in the Himalayas and counts every vote within 24 hours. California, the most powerful state in the world's supp…" 17:30 Silver is candid that he doesn't inherently oppose voter ID and finds mail-in voting's verification challenges real, but insists the Heritage Foundation's own data shows election fraud is de minimis — too small to swing any major race. His harshest critique is reserved for the process itself: he's consulted on the Indian election, where every vote — including from Himalayan polling stations — is counted within 24 hours, making California's weeks-long count an embarrassing sign of democratic atrophy. [2] — Nate Silver "India counts votes in under 24 hours: Nate Silver noted that India — with polling stations in the Himalayas — counts its votes within 24 ho…" 18:20
Jason Calacanis asks Silver to explain the fracturing of both parties as Republicans become the populist party and Democrats drift toward the elite. Silver offers his clearest analytical framework: Democrats have three distinct and often incompatible factions. The left — represented by AOC, Bernie, and New York's new mayor Zoran Mamdani — are effective politicians who can expand a tent even if Silver doesn't always agree with them. The abundance liberals, named after Ezra Klein's intellectual project, are centrists who are pro-market, focused on governance quality, and critical of California-style regulatory dysfunction. And the resistance libs are the partisan base who believe Democrats lost in 2024 because Biden was railroaded and Kamala was a Black woman — and who want a brawler who will never apologize. [1] — Nate Silver "Democrats aren't one party — they're three. The left (AOC, Bernie, Zoran), the abundance liberals (pro-market, anti-bad-governance), and th…" 26:11 Gavin Newsom's political identity is built entirely on that third faction, Silver argues, which is why he keeps amplifying Biden even as the rest of the party desperately tries to move on.
David Sacks asks the provocative question: are conditions pushing Democrats toward outright socialism, with a Democratic socialist potentially becoming president in 2028? Silver's answer is carefully empirical. He acknowledges the generational dividing line — around age 40 — where voters who remember the Cold War have very different associations with the socialism brand than those who don't. But he quickly notes the counterforce: America's biggest Democratic losses are concentrated among Hispanic and Asian American voters, the groups most likely to own small businesses and most likely to have escaped socialist economies. These are the most entrepreneurial people in the country, and they're shifting right. [1] — Nate Silver "The biggest Democratic losses are among Hispanic and Asian American voters — the most entrepreneurial groups in America. They came from soc…" 33:40 Silver sees this as one of the most important data signals in current American politics — the very communities that make America great through immigration and entrepreneurship are reading the Democrats' economic messaging as a threat rather than a promise.
Jason Calacanis raises the structural shift from follow-based chronological feeds to engagement-optimizing algorithms, asking Silver how this has changed politics. Silver argues that social media — Twitter in particular — is an incredibly effective machine for compressing complex political views into a single partisan dimension: red vs. blue. He's been personally burned by this: stating that Biden was obviously too old to run, a position 80% of voters agreed with, made him a pariah on Twitter. [1] — Nate Silver "The shift from chronological to algorithmic feeds didn't just change how people consume news — it reinforced partisanship by rewarding enga…" 45:30 He's critical of Elon's regime but is careful to note the algorithmic feed pre-dates Musk's acquisition. His core complaint is simple: if he chose to follow an account, he wants to see that account's tweets without having to additionally 'like' them to keep them in his feed. He also flags the broken chronological order — seeing a World Cup tweet from 6 hours ago without knowing the result had already been spoiled — as a fundamental UX failure that undermined Twitter's core value as a real-time news platform.
Sacks calls for a lightning round on the 2026 midterms. Silver delivers a crisp model-based forecast. Prediction markets already price Democrats at 80–85% for the House; Silver thinks 85–90% is more accurate, citing a perfect alignment of structural forces: an unpopular president, economic anxiety, historical midterm backlash patterns, and strong Democratic special-election results. [1] — Nate Silver "Dem House takeover probability: 85-90%: Silver puts Democrats at 85–90% odds to retake the House in 2026, citing an unpopular president, ec…" 49:56 The Senate is a different story — fundamentally a numbers game where Democrats need to win red states like Texas and Ohio in a blue environment, and where a risky move in Maine (Silver gives Graham Plattner only 50-50 odds against Susan Collins) could squander a winnable seat. He gives Republicans a slight Senate edge that could grow to ~60% depending on gas prices and the Iran conflict. [2] — Nate Silver "Senate: slight GOP edge, ~60% if Iran drags: The Senate is effectively a toss-up, with Silver giving Republicans a slight edge that could g…" 54:00 Silver also delivers the statistical kicker: the odds of Democrats winning the Senate but not the House are approximately 1% — the outcomes are nearly perfectly correlated, so a Senate win means a full Democratic wave.
Jason Calacanis sets up the Newsom question expecting Silver to confirm the conventional wisdom that the telegenic California governor is the front-runner. Instead, Silver delivers a collapse narrative: Newsom has dropped from roughly 25% to 15% in Democratic primary polling and from 33% to 22% on prediction markets, and Silver's Silver Bulletin article documenting this is going live the same day. [1] — Nate Silver "Gavin Newsom has dropped from 25% to 15% in Democratic primary polling and from 33% to 22% on prediction markets. Defending Biden-era polit…" 55:00 The reason is structural, not just personal: Newsom is a continuity candidate in a change-election era, defending Biden and Harris at the moment the party most desperately wants to move on. Meanwhile, Jon Ossoff has a credential Newsom can never buy — he won an election in a purple state as a young, progressively-voting Democrat. Silver doesn't rule out Shapiro, Ossoff, or others, but his actual bet — stated plainly when Sacks presses him — is AOC. [2] — Nate Silver "Nate Silver's 2028 Democratic nomination bet isn't Newsom, Shapiro, or Ossoff — it's AOC. The same forces that brought Trump to power are b…" 57:00 The same anti-establishment forces that swept Trump through the Republican primary are now building on the Democratic side, and AOC is the avatar. Silver notes she's been moderating tactically, is now 36 years old and constitutionally eligible, and has the generational charisma that establishment continuity candidates simply cannot replicate.
Chapter 1 · 00:00
The episode opens with Jason Calacanis welcoming Nate Silver — gambler, statistician, and Silver Bulletin Substacker — who arrives sporting a Knicks hat after attending multiple playoff games. The conversation quickly becomes a genuine sports analytics deep-dive. Silver identifies Karl-Anthony Towns and head coach Mike Brown's defensive system as the decisive variables in the Knicks' title run, arguing that their improvement on both sides of the ball was statistically unusual for a veteran team. He cites Jalen Brunson's absurd 53% shooting from 16–22 feet even when defenders knew what was coming, comparing it to Mariano Rivera's cut fastball. Most strikingly, Silver produces the fact that the Knicks have logged more playoff games than any other team over the past four years — more than Boston, OKC, or San Antonio — and argues that playoff experience is a measurable, real competitive advantage, just as nerves are in poker and golf.
Nate Silver argues partisanship is so entrenched that 43 states can be called for 2028 right now with near-certainty — not because of rigging, but because polarization is that powerful.
The Knicks have played more playoff games than any team in the NBA over the last four years, and Nate Silver argues that's not a trivial fact. Playoff experience is empirically real — it shows up in nerves, execution, and the ability to come back from deficits.
The Knicks have played more playoff games than any other NBA team over the past four years — including Boston and OKC — and Silver argues that playoff experience is a real, empirically measurable advantage.
Chapter 2 · 10:02
David Sacks opens the political portion of the show by raising what he sees as a suspicious statistical pattern: Nithya Raman's overwhelming advantage in late mail-in ballots compared to in-person and early mail votes in the LA city council race. Silver's answer is methodical — he explains that Democrats have been systematically encouraged to vote by mail since Trump discouraged the practice, and that multiple Democratic candidates in California elections created decision complexity that pushed Democratic voters toward later balloting. He draws a sharp distinction between the California vote count being an accurate tally of votes cast versus whether those votes were cast properly. [1] — Nate Silver "India runs polling stations in the Himalayas and counts every vote within 24 hours. California, the most powerful state in the world's supp…" 17:30 Silver is candid that he doesn't inherently oppose voter ID and finds mail-in voting's verification challenges real, but insists the Heritage Foundation's own data shows election fraud is de minimis — too small to swing any major race. His harshest critique is reserved for the process itself: he's consulted on the Indian election, where every vote — including from Himalayan polling stations — is counted within 24 hours, making California's weeks-long count an embarrassing sign of democratic atrophy. [2] — Nate Silver "India counts votes in under 24 hours: Nate Silver noted that India — with polling stations in the Himalayas — counts its votes within 24 ho…" 18:20
India runs polling stations in the Himalayas and counts every vote within 24 hours. California, the most powerful state in the world's supposed beacon of democracy, takes weeks. That's not a system — it's atrophy.
Nate Silver noted that India — with polling stations in the Himalayas — counts its votes within 24 hours of election day, making California's weeks-long count look like a failed-state problem.
Historical data shows that even with a 0.5% recount threshold in most states, a margin larger than 0.05% has almost never been overturned — meaning large-scale vote-count fraud is essentially impossible to hide.
43 of 50 states can be predicted for 2028 right now with 97% confidence. That's not because of fraud — it's because partisanship is a gravitational force so powerful that candidates barely matter in most of the country.
Chapter 3 · 25:18
Jason Calacanis asks Silver to explain the fracturing of both parties as Republicans become the populist party and Democrats drift toward the elite. Silver offers his clearest analytical framework: Democrats have three distinct and often incompatible factions. The left — represented by AOC, Bernie, and New York's new mayor Zoran Mamdani — are effective politicians who can expand a tent even if Silver doesn't always agree with them. The abundance liberals, named after Ezra Klein's intellectual project, are centrists who are pro-market, focused on governance quality, and critical of California-style regulatory dysfunction. And the resistance libs are the partisan base who believe Democrats lost in 2024 because Biden was railroaded and Kamala was a Black woman — and who want a brawler who will never apologize. [1] — Nate Silver "Democrats aren't one party — they're three. The left (AOC, Bernie, Zoran), the abundance liberals (pro-market, anti-bad-governance), and th…" 26:11 Gavin Newsom's political identity is built entirely on that third faction, Silver argues, which is why he keeps amplifying Biden even as the rest of the party desperately tries to move on.
Democrats aren't one party — they're three. The left (AOC, Bernie, Zoran), the abundance liberals (pro-market, anti-bad-governance), and the resistance libs (fighting for the Biden-Harris legacy). Newsom owns the third faction, and that's precisely his problem.
The UK is on its 6th prime minister in 9 years. The US keeps swinging between parties. The 2028 winner could be the underdog by 2032. The era of incumbency advantage is over — voters everywhere are in revolt against whoever is in charge.
The biggest Democratic losses are among Hispanic and Asian American voters — the most entrepreneurial groups in America. They came from socialist countries, built businesses through free markets, and the party is speaking a language that sounds uncomfortably familiar.
Chapter 4 · 34:48
David Sacks asks the provocative question: are conditions pushing Democrats toward outright socialism, with a Democratic socialist potentially becoming president in 2028? Silver's answer is carefully empirical. He acknowledges the generational dividing line — around age 40 — where voters who remember the Cold War have very different associations with the socialism brand than those who don't. But he quickly notes the counterforce: America's biggest Democratic losses are concentrated among Hispanic and Asian American voters, the groups most likely to own small businesses and most likely to have escaped socialist economies. These are the most entrepreneurial people in the country, and they're shifting right. [1] — Nate Silver "The biggest Democratic losses are among Hispanic and Asian American voters — the most entrepreneurial groups in America. They came from soc…" 33:40 Silver sees this as one of the most important data signals in current American politics — the very communities that make America great through immigration and entrepreneurship are reading the Democrats' economic messaging as a threat rather than a promise.
The most neglected voters in the US are culturally conservative but economically progressive — they distrust concentrated power and want to own their own destiny. The candidate who speaks to them with anti-oligarch rhetoric and small-business optimism wins 2028.
Silver frames Democrats' recent presidential record as 1-for-4, counting Biden's 2024 withdrawal as a loss and arguing the only win — 2020 — came during a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Obama still has a 57% approval rating with independents post-presidency. Biden is at 20%. That gap tells you almost everything about why the Democratic brand is struggling — and why continuity candidates like Newsom are in trouble.
Obama retains a 57% approval rating among independents post-presidency, evidence that his cross-partisan rhetoric produced lasting goodwill the current Democratic Party lacks.
Post-presidency, Joe Biden's approval rating among independents sits at just 20%, compared to Obama's 57% — a stark illustration of how far the Democratic brand has fallen.
Silver identifies approximately age 40 as the dividing line: voters under 40 are broadly more favorable to socialism, while those over 40 retain Cold War-era skepticism of the label.
The shift from chronological to algorithmic feeds didn't just change how people consume news — it reinforced partisanship by rewarding engagement over heterodoxy. Twitter under Elon perfected this, creating a machine where saying something 80% of people agree with can still get you canceled.
Chapter 5 · 45:48
Jason Calacanis raises the structural shift from follow-based chronological feeds to engagement-optimizing algorithms, asking Silver how this has changed politics. Silver argues that social media — Twitter in particular — is an incredibly effective machine for compressing complex political views into a single partisan dimension: red vs. blue. He's been personally burned by this: stating that Biden was obviously too old to run, a position 80% of voters agreed with, made him a pariah on Twitter. [1] — Nate Silver "The shift from chronological to algorithmic feeds didn't just change how people consume news — it reinforced partisanship by rewarding enga…" 45:30 He's critical of Elon's regime but is careful to note the algorithmic feed pre-dates Musk's acquisition. His core complaint is simple: if he chose to follow an account, he wants to see that account's tweets without having to additionally 'like' them to keep them in his feed. He also flags the broken chronological order — seeing a World Cup tweet from 6 hours ago without knowing the result had already been spoiled — as a fundamental UX failure that undermined Twitter's core value as a real-time news platform.
Prediction markets have Democrats at 80–85% to retake the House in 2026; Silver thinks it's closer to 85–90%. An unpopular president, economic anxiety, historical midterm patterns, and strong special-election results all point the same direction.
Prediction markets currently price Democrats retaking the House at 80–85%, with Silver suggesting his own models lean slightly higher toward 85–90%.
Silver puts Democrats at 85–90% odds to retake the House in 2026, citing an unpopular president, economic anxiety, and the historic pattern of the incumbent party underperforming in midterms.
Chapter 6 · 50:01
Sacks calls for a lightning round on the 2026 midterms. Silver delivers a crisp model-based forecast. Prediction markets already price Democrats at 80–85% for the House; Silver thinks 85–90% is more accurate, citing a perfect alignment of structural forces: an unpopular president, economic anxiety, historical midterm backlash patterns, and strong Democratic special-election results. [1] — Nate Silver "Dem House takeover probability: 85-90%: Silver puts Democrats at 85–90% odds to retake the House in 2026, citing an unpopular president, ec…" 49:56 The Senate is a different story — fundamentally a numbers game where Democrats need to win red states like Texas and Ohio in a blue environment, and where a risky move in Maine (Silver gives Graham Plattner only 50-50 odds against Susan Collins) could squander a winnable seat. He gives Republicans a slight Senate edge that could grow to ~60% depending on gas prices and the Iran conflict. [2] — Nate Silver "Senate: slight GOP edge, ~60% if Iran drags: The Senate is effectively a toss-up, with Silver giving Republicans a slight edge that could g…" 54:00 Silver also delivers the statistical kicker: the odds of Democrats winning the Senate but not the House are approximately 1% — the outcomes are nearly perfectly correlated, so a Senate win means a full Democratic wave.
Donald Trump's current approval rating has fallen to 38%, driven by public frustration over Iran, gas prices, and general political fatigue — giving Democrats a structural advantage heading into 2026.
The Senate is effectively a toss-up, with Silver giving Republicans a slight edge that could grow to ~60% depending on whether the Iran conflict and gas prices remain painful through election day.
The odds of Democrats winning the Senate but not the House are roughly 1% — the two outcomes are almost perfectly correlated, meaning a blue Senate wave sweeps everything else with it.
Gavin Newsom has dropped from 25% to 15% in Democratic primary polling and from 33% to 22% on prediction markets. Defending Biden-era politics in a change-election environment isn't bold — it's a trap.
Chapter 7 · 55:20
Jason Calacanis sets up the Newsom question expecting Silver to confirm the conventional wisdom that the telegenic California governor is the front-runner. Instead, Silver delivers a collapse narrative: Newsom has dropped from roughly 25% to 15% in Democratic primary polling and from 33% to 22% on prediction markets, and Silver's Silver Bulletin article documenting this is going live the same day. [1] — Nate Silver "Gavin Newsom has dropped from 25% to 15% in Democratic primary polling and from 33% to 22% on prediction markets. Defending Biden-era polit…" 55:00 The reason is structural, not just personal: Newsom is a continuity candidate in a change-election era, defending Biden and Harris at the moment the party most desperately wants to move on. Meanwhile, Jon Ossoff has a credential Newsom can never buy — he won an election in a purple state as a young, progressively-voting Democrat. Silver doesn't rule out Shapiro, Ossoff, or others, but his actual bet — stated plainly when Sacks presses him — is AOC. [2] — Nate Silver "Nate Silver's 2028 Democratic nomination bet isn't Newsom, Shapiro, or Ossoff — it's AOC. The same forces that brought Trump to power are b…" 57:00 The same anti-establishment forces that swept Trump through the Republican primary are now building on the Democratic side, and AOC is the avatar. Silver notes she's been moderating tactically, is now 36 years old and constitutionally eligible, and has the generational charisma that establishment continuity candidates simply cannot replicate.
Gavin Newsom has fallen from roughly 25% to 15% in Democratic primary polls and from 33% to 22% on prediction markets — a significant collapse tied to his continued defense of Biden-era politics.
Nate Silver's 2028 Democratic nomination bet isn't Newsom, Shapiro, or Ossoff — it's AOC. The same forces that brought Trump to power are building inside the Democratic Party, and AOC is the avatar for that dissatisfaction.
No indexed bits in this chapter.
Nate Silver's 2028 Democratic nomination bet isn't Newsom, Shapiro, or Ossoff — it's AOC. The same forces that brought Trump to power are building inside the Democratic Party, and AOC is the avatar for that dissatisfaction.
43 of 50 states can be predicted for 2028 right now with 97% confidence. That's not because of fraud — it's because partisanship is a gravitational force so powerful that candidates barely matter in most of the country.
Democrats aren't one party — they're three. The left (AOC, Bernie, Zoran), the abundance liberals (pro-market, anti-bad-governance), and the resistance libs (fighting for the Biden-Harris legacy). Newsom owns the third faction, and that's precisely his problem.
This episode
Factual claims made this episode, and whether a source was named.
43 of 50 US states can be predicted with 97% confidence for the 2028 presidential election right now, based on partisan polarization.
India counts its votes within 24 hours of election day, including from polling stations in the Himalayas.
In most US states with a 0.5% recount threshold, a margin larger than 0.05% has almost never been overturned in a recount.
Barack Obama has a 57% approval rating among independents post-presidency, while Joe Biden's approval with independents is 20%.
Prediction markets price Democrats at approximately 80–85% to take the House and 40–45% to take the Senate in the 2026 midterms.
The odds of Democrats winning the Senate but not the House in 2026 are approximately 1%, as the two outcomes are nearly perfectly correlated.
Donald Trump's approval rating is currently at 38%.
Gavin Newsom has fallen from approximately 25% to 15% in Democratic 2028 primary polls and from 33% to 22% on prediction markets.
Bernie Sanders came close to defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary, winning about 20 states.
The Heritage Foundation's voter fraud database documents only a de minimis number of fraud cases — a few thousand — which could never swing a major election even if multiplied by 10x or 20x.
The New York Knicks have played more playoff games than any other NBA team over the past four years, including more than Boston and OKC.
Approximately 45 million people graduated from college in the United States in the last decade, many with significant student debt burdens.
Jalen Brunson shot approximately 53% from 16 to 22 feet during the Knicks' championship run.
This episode
California governor discussed as a fading 2028 Democratic presidential contender, having dropped from 25% to 15% in primary polls while defending the Biden-Harris legacy.
Discussed as the most likely 2028 Democratic presidential nominee — Nate Silver's personal bet — due to her outsider appeal and growing effectiveness as a politician.
Current US president, discussed with 38% approval rating driving Democratic enthusiasm for the 2026 midterms and creating structural disadvantage for Republicans.
Referenced repeatedly as the symbol of Democratic electoral failure, with a post-presidency independent approval rating of just 20%.
New York City mayor discussed as an example of a left-wing politician governing pragmatically and building cross-coalition appeal through competence and positivity.
Held up as the model for effective Democratic politics, retaining 57% approval with independents post-presidency due to his cross-partisan rhetoric.
New York Knicks star guard discussed as Nate Silver's favorite player and the offensive engine of the 2025 NBA champion Knicks.
2024 Democratic presidential candidate discussed as an example of a triangulating establishment pick who lost all swing states by 2–5 points and couldn't distance herself from Biden.
Knicks center whose acquisition and defensive improvement were cited by Silver as the key factors in the Knicks' championship run.
Georgia senator cited as a credible 2028 Democratic presidential contender — young, progressive-voting-record, but with the unique credential of winning in a purple state.
Los Angeles city council candidate whose late surge in mail-in ballots prompted discussion of ballot harvesting and California's counting system.
Cited as an avatar of the Democratic left faction, notable for nearly defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary by winning 20 states.
Referenced as the owner of X/Twitter whose algorithmic changes have contributed to political polarization and filter bubbles, though Silver notes some trends pre-date his ownership.
2025 NBA champions, discussed in depth by Nate Silver as the backdrop for the episode — Silver wore a Knicks hat and wagered on their playoff run.
Blockchain-based prediction market platform; Nate Silver disclosed he consults for Polymarket and uses it for betting given limits at traditional sportsbooks.
Conservative think tank cited as having investigated US election fraud, finding only de minimis cases insufficient to swing any major election.
Discussed as a platform that has shifted from a chronological news feed to an engagement-maximizing algorithm, entrenching political polarization and punishing heterodox views.
Nate Silver's Substack newsletter, plugged as the platform where he publishes election models, political analysis, and the Newsom polling data discussed on the show.
Central case study throughout the episode — its slow ballot counting, dominance by Democratic machine politics, and governance failures are repeatedly contrasted with better-functioning states.
Cited as a benchmark for electoral efficiency — India runs polling stations in the Himalayas and counts all votes within 24 hours, making California's weeks-long count look inexcusable.
Stats
We use essential and analytics cookies to run Vuci. To understand how the site is used: Privacy Policy.
Install Vuci on your phone
Add it to your home screen for a faster, app-like experience.
Install Vuci on your phone
Tap the Share button, then “Add to Home Screen”.
A new version is available
Reload to get the latest Vuci.