GD POLITICS

Heads up: We’ve got a live show at the Comedy Cellar in New York City with Nate Silver and Clare Malone coming up on May 13. We’ll talk about the midterms and the Trump administration, play some games, and take questions from the audience. Grab a ticket, grab a beer, and come join us!
Just about every institution in America has taken a reputational beating this century. And still, the speed and severity with which Americans have turned on the public health establishment remain striking.
In March 2020, when COVID began disrupting American life in earnest, 85 percent of Americans said they trusted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an information source. Today, six years later, that figure is 47 percent. Republicans were the first to lose faith, dropping to around 40 percent during Biden’s tenure, but Democrats have largely caught up during Trump’s second term.
For public health folks, this is an existential threat. If they can’t be trusted, their information can’t persuade, and public health itself becomes more of an academic exercise than an effort to save lives. The current hantavirus outbreak is a stark reminder of the stakes.
It’s easy to blame bad-faith actors for the bind public health now finds itself in. But it’s also hard to have lived through the past six years without a sense that experts have helped bring some of this on themselves. In fact, they’re increasingly acknowledging as much and setting out to course correct.
Sandro Galea, dean of the School of Public Health at Washington University in St. Louis, and Salma Abdalla, a professor at WashU’s School of Public Health, have launched a yearlong project called Purple Public Health, which aims to rebuild credibility with Americans of all stripes. (Sandro came on the podcast last year to talk about MAHA, so he may sound familiar.)
I’m excited to have them on today’s podcast to talk about their work — not just because it matters on its own terms, but also because there’s probably something for all of us to learn about earning credibility in a polarized world.


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.
When we first started talking about prediction markets in the early days of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, back in 2016, they were something of a novelty and a joke.
My then-colleague Clare Malone once quipped, “Who’s even putting money on these markets … Scottish teenagers?” From then on, we referred to online bettors as Scottish teens.
Back then, the prediction markets that got the most attention were Betfair, based in the U.K., and PredictIt, based in New Zealand. Both took off in terms of volume and media attention during Brexit and Trump’s first election. But after 2016, PredictIt got bogged down in regulatory drama, and Betfair was largely inaccessible to Americans. In their place, Kalshi and Polymarket became the main characters in the American prediction market story.
Today, prediction markets are no longer much of a novelty or a joke.
Recently, an active-duty U.S. Army soldier was charged with using classified information for personal gain after he made more than $400,000 betting on Maduro’s ouster on Polymarket. He was allegedly involved in planning and executing Maduro’s capture.
Betting trends point to potentially similar insider knowledge being used in Iran War prediction markets in February and March of this year. And Israeli prosecutors filed indictments against an Israel Defense Forces reservist and a civilian for allegedly using classified military intelligence to bet on Polymarket in the run-up to strikes on Iran last summer.
The list goes on. Kalshi suspended three American political candidates for insider trading after an internal probe found they had bet on their own campaigns. Weather instruments at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris appear to have been tampered with in order to rapidly increase the temperature — perhaps with a lighter or hair dryer — and cash in on a weather prediction contract.
As things stand, prediction markets seem likely to keep growing in popularity and media attention. On Polymarket, more than half a billion dollars has already been wagered on the outcome of the 2028 presidential election. One estimate suggests that total volume across prediction markets could reach $1 trillion annually by 2030.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in Washington and the states are increasingly talking about cracking down on the markets, and state attorneys general have been filing lawsuits.
So today, we’re diving into the messy world of prediction markets: their history, how they work, the arguments for and against them, how they’re regulated, and what their future holds.
Joining me is Jacob Studwell, growth and engagement officer at PredictIt — home of the Scottish teens.

Heads up: We’ve got a live show at the Comedy Cellar in New York City with Nate Silver and Clare Malone coming up on May 13. We’ll talk about the midterms and the Trump administration, play some games, and take questions from the audience. Grab a ticket, grab a beer, and come join us!
The Senate map is coming into focus. Maine Gov. Janet Mills dropped out of the Democratic primary last week, leaving former Marine and oyster farmer Graham Platner as the presumptive Democratic nominee against Sen. Susan Collins.
Mills was trailing Platner by 30 points on average before she dropped out. Meanwhile, Platner — despite no shortage of early scandals, including the infamous Nazi tattoo and online writings that ranged from calling rural whites racist and stupid to asking why Black people don’t tip — was raking in cash and rallying voters. It was a poor showing for Mills herself, but also for the establishment that drafted her to run in the first place.
On today’s podcast, Sahil Kapur of NBC News joins me to discuss what the truncated Maine primary tells us about the Democratic Party right now: the “Biden trauma tax,” the value of “authenticity,” and whether Democrats are experiencing something like their own Tea Party moment.
We also survey the rest of the Senate map, from North Carolina and Alaska to Ohio and Texas, and ask which races are actually most likely to flip. Then we turn to Washington, where the longest partial government shutdown in history has ended and Trump’s war in Iran is testing the War Powers Act.


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

Heads up: We’ve got a live show at the Comedy Cellar in New York City with Nate Silver and Clare Malone coming up on May 13. We’ll talk about the midterms and the Trump administration, play some games, and take questions from the audience. Grab a ticket, grab a beer, and come join us!
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, striking down Louisiana’s congressional map and significantly raising the bar for challenges under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The decision was not the full doomsday scenario that some voting rights advocates feared. The Court did not strike down the Voting Rights Act altogether, nor did it say that race can never be considered in redistricting. But the 6-3 conservative majority did make it harder to prove that a map illegally dilutes minority voting power, especially in an era when race and party are so closely correlated.
So where does the fight over gerrymandering go from here?
Nathaniel Rakich of VoteBeat joined me to break down what the Court actually decided, how the ruling could affect the 2026 and 2028 House maps, and why the next phase of the redistricting wars may hinge less on the courts and more on federal legislation, constitutional amendments, or some future anti-politics reform movement.


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

Heads up: We’ve got a live show at the Comedy Cellar in New York City with Nate Silver and Clare Malone coming up on May 13. We’ll talk about the midterms and the Trump administration, play some games, and take questions from the audience. Grab a ticket, grab a beer, and come join us!
Tuesday marks one year since the Liberals won Canada’s federal election, securing Mark Carney as prime minister despite a Conservative victory looking like a foregone conclusion just months earlier.
A year later, Carney’s popularity and power have only grown. His approval rating sits at about 60 percent, and after winning three by-elections earlier this month, the Liberals now govern with a majority in Parliament.
The combination of Carney’s tack to the center and a backlash against American economic threats has transformed Canadian politics. Minor parties have been sidelined, new parts of the electorate have been absorbed into the Liberal coalition, and Canadians appear to be giving Carney the benefit of the doubt despite challenging economic circumstances.
The biggest question for Liberals now is how long Canadians’ economic patience will last — and how long Trump’s influence will, too. Philippe Fournier of 338Canada and Éric Grenier of The Writ joined me to discuss it all.


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