SBSQ #2: Should Democrats be excited about special election results?
Plus, where to stay on a poker trip to Las Vegas.
Hello and welcome to the first real edition1 of Silver Bulletin Subscriber Questions, which I’m abbreviating as “SBSQ” in order to avoid a wordy headline.
This is an opportunity for paid Silver Bulletin subscribers to ask me questions about pretty much anything. In the comments, you should feel welcome both to riff on this month’s answers or to ask questions for the next edition, which will run sometime in November.
To upgrade to a paid subscription, you can use the button below. In October, around 25 percent of Silver Bulletin stories ran with a paywall — that’s probably about the equilibrium that I’m striving for going forward.
In this month’s edition of SBSQ:
Will Republicans repeal major climate legislation?
Is writing a book like working on a statistical model?
Do special election results have predictive power?
Who won the James Harden trade?
Where should I stay in Las Vegas for a poker weekend?
Which sports do you predict will gain or fall in popularity?
Will Republicans repeal major climate legislation?
Max asks:
Do you see any signs that the climate-related aspects of the [Inflation Reduction Act] would be repealed if Republicans took control in 2024? It seems like a mix of it being hard to change the status quo, that it’s basically tax cuts for things businesses (and to a lesser extent consumers) already want, and that a lot of funds are flowing to “red” states makes me think it may largely stay intact. I also see it as a positive politically that something like the hydrogen hub program chose some fossil-fuel adjacent projects to shed a bit of the “left-wing, environmental” image.
First thing: it won’t necessarily be all that easy for Republicans to hold the House in 2024 — even though they’re probably favorites to pick up the Senate. Republicans just barely won the House last year despite winning the popular vote by almost 3 points. It’s not crazy to think that if 2024 is something like a D+1 political environment instead of an R+3, Democrats would gain enough House seats to retake the chamber — even though Joe Biden could lose the Electoral College under those conditions. Uncertain questions include the outcome of redistricting battles, particularly in North Carolina and New York, and whether GOP members of Congress will pay any electoral price for their caucus being a shitshow. If Republicans do hold the House, it might not be by a particularly wide margin — so it might not be easy for them to pass much of anything.
But if they are in a position to pass legislation? Republicans might target the corporate tax provisions of the IRA — or the additional IRS spending it authorized — before the bill’s climate components. In general, the Republican Party has been willing to walk over broken glass to lower taxes, but has been less willing to spend political capital to cut spending.
Now, this relatively rosy outlook for the IRA is presented with low confidence. Republicans might figure they have to do something to own the Democrats and — well this would be something. Opinion on climate change remains extremely polarized:
But as I think you’re getting at, Nick, public opinion is one thing; political salience is another. Climate seems to be taking a back seat as a culture war issue, replaced by other things like trans rights, wokeness/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, abortion, Israel, Ukraine, immigration and COVID. The days of Republicans critiquing “latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving” liberals — a trope that invokes crunchy environmentalism — almost make me feel nostalgic.
Is writing a book like working on a statistical model?
Ian Tingen asks:
Hey Nate!
What are the most important differences you’ve unearthed between all the inquiry-driven roles you’ve had in your career?
(E.g. a data-driven researcher vs. a journalism-driven researcher vs. a storyteller?)
Best,
Ian
I went to a friend’s birthday party a few weeks ago, and she introduced me to “a few of the other writers”. I found it funny, because I’ve never thought of myself as a Capital-W Writer. But writing is how I’ve spent most of my time lately. I’ve written something like 80,000 words for my book since the start of the year — and another 50,000 for this newsletter. I’ve never had a more concentrated period of writing in my life.
It’s been a good year, because I tend to be happier when I can sink my teeth into some long-term projects. Sometimes, those are statistical projects, though after a burst of model-building in 2018-20202, lately they haven’t been.
In some ways, book-writing and model-building remind me of one another. Indeed, one of the things that large language models teach us is that language has a relatively mathematical structure, maybe more than was once assumed. And this book has involved a lot of traditional reporting — I’ve interviewed about 200 people so far, plus there’s been a lot of travel and other research. So I’m collecting evidence, evaluating it rigorously, and forging it into something (hopefully) greater than the sum of its parts. That’s not too different than building a statistical model.
But the analogy only goes so far. When I create a statistical model, I generally start with a simple version and add wrinkles over time. It’s an act of assembly. A book is something different — more like an act of sculpting. You collect all the raw material first, and then you chip away at it to reveal some inner truth.
Do special election results have predictive power?
Dean Myerson asks:
Question for next time: Much coverage in the left media about special election results and Democratic over-performance. I think there is evidence that they are predictive - eventually. But we are still 14 months before the election. Do you consider those results so far to have any predictive value, say, for next years Congressional races, especially the House (Senate races are much more about the individual candidate)? Or does the data say that we really need to wait till next spring to say that.
In an era of lower trust in polling, it’s understandable that people want to focus on actual, verifiable voting results. Democrats have had good results in special elections lately even as the party has gone through a rough patch in the polls. But my provisional thoughts are that you should still stick with the polling — it might be wrong, but I don’t think that special election results add much additional value. More on that below the paywall.