GD POLITICS

To some eyes, the Supreme Court faces a legitimacy crisis. Favorable views of the court are hovering around historic lows. Just 40-some percent of Americans have a positive view of the institution, down from 60 percent or more in 2020. And views by party are, predictably, sharply divided, with Democratic approval in the 20s.
As the country has become more polarized, and the court has become more decidedly dominated by Republican appointees, there is an increasing sense that a branch that describes itself as above politics is, in fact, plenty political — and aligned with Republicans.
This has led to suggestions, largely on the left, but not exclusively, for changing the court: packing it with more members, instituting term limits, or establishing an enforceable code of ethics.
But today’s guest argues that folks should slow their roll. She argues that the court isn’t as partisan as it’s made out to be, and that it’s in fact the only branch of government that the Founders would have any hope of recognizing today.
Sarah Isgur makes the case in her new book, Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court. She joins the podcast to argue that the court is less partisan, more functional and more constitutionally recognizable than its critics allow.


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.
We’ve got a jam-packed election update episode for you today.
In Tuesday night’s primaries, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie lost to Trump-backed challenger Ed Gallrein. Massie did much better than other Republicans who have crossed Trump, but he still went down by 10 points.
Former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms won the Democratic primary for Georgia governor outright, while Republicans will head to runoffs in both the governor’s race and the race to take on Sen. Jon Ossoff this fall.
Looking ahead to next week, Trump has finally endorsed in the Texas Senate runoff, backing Ken Paxton after seemingly being ready to endorse Sen. John Cornyn months ago. The betting markets now have a general election against James Talarico looking like a pure toss-up.
We talk about why Trump settled on Paxton, despite the conventional wisdom that he would be a weaker general election candidate, and how loyalty matters inside the GOP as Trump loses ground with the broader electorate.
We also dig into some of the June 2 primaries. We see you, California! And Iowa, and New Jersey, and let’s not forget Montana. Lastly, we check in on where the redistricting wars stand after the Supreme Court’s decision in Callais.
With me to do it all is Jacob Rubashkin, deputy editor of Inside Elections.

As I was sorting through polls last Friday, preparing for Monday’s podcast recording, I started thinking, “Hmm, Trump’s approval is looking bad. Like, a new level of bad. It’s probably time to talk about it.” Across the polling averages, Trump seemed to be nearing, or already at, the worst numbers of his second term.
And like clockwork, in case we needed any further confirmation, The New York Times released its latest Trump approval poll on Monday morning. The headline: “Just 37 percent of Americans approve of his performance as president… his lowest approval rating in any Times/Siena survey in either term.”
Nate Cohn went on to write that, “while recent presidencies have often been unpopular and polarizing, no president’s approval rating has been under 38 percent [in the average] for more than a few days in the last 17 years.”
So today we talk about that, and a whole lot more.
Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy lost his primary on Saturday after Trump endorsed against him. With Cassidy’s departure, only three of the 17 Republicans who backed Trump’s second impeachment might remain after 2026. And two of them, Susan Collins and David Valadao, are fighting for their political lives.
We also preview Tuesday night’s primaries in Georgia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. In Georgia, Republicans are choosing a challenger to Sen. Jon Ossoff, while both parties are picking their nominees for governor. In Kentucky, it’s another test of Trump loyalty inside the GOP.
And finally, for the wonks, we’ve got a dispatch from this year’s big polling conference: the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Joining me after attending the conference are Mary Radcliffe, head of research at FiftyPlusOne, and Nathaniel Rakich, managing editor at Votebeat.


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

A quick note: If you’re not already a paid subscriber, now’s a great time to sign up. Annual subscriptions are currently 20 percent off, which comes out to just $5 a month for twice as many episodes, access to live shows like this one, and more. Come join the crew!
The GD POLITICS podcast returned to the Comedy Cellar this week with Nate Silver and Clare Malone for another sold-out night of political analysis, games, audience questions, and jokes that were, as always, purely incidental.
We started with “Hot Take Hat,” pulling buzzy topics at random and giving them the treatment they deserved — from Labour’s meltdown in the U.K. and the global incumbency curse, to Hantavirus panic, Trump’s Iran war, inflation, and the apparently urgent matter of the White House ballroom.
Then we turned to the 2026 midterms, where the redistricting wars have taken another turn. After rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Virginia Supreme Court, what once looked like a possible Democratic counteroffensive is now likely to net out in Republicans’ favor. We talked about how much the new maps could shift the House playing field, the politics of gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act, and the eternal question: Do voters care about any of this, or just the price of gas?
Finally, we debuted a new game: “True or False: Crosstab Diving Edition.” Clare, Nate, and the audience guessed their way through some of the quirkiest and most revealing findings buried inside recent polls — including whether Democrats think an average 8-year-old boy could beat Donald Trump in a fight, which age and gender groups have swung hardest against Trump, and what Americans really think about AI, marijuana, and bisexuality.
Catch the full episode for hot takes, warped maps, cursed crosstabs, and a reminder that American politics remains, somehow, both very serious and worthy of laughter.

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