SBSQ #9: ⚡ Lightning Round edition ⚡
On Biden vs. the NYT, lab leak vs. zoonotic origins, and the joys of live hockey.
It’s the end of the month — which means it’s time for the May edition of Silver Bulletin Subscriber Questions, the place for paid subscribers to ask me questions about pretty much anything. But it’s also the day after Donald Trump was convicted on almost three dozen hush money charges. In case you missed it, I have an analysis of the political implications of Trump’s conviction here.
I’d originally planned for today’s SBSQ to be focused around a single reader question on the rivalry between Democrats and the New York Times, a topic on which I have, uh, quite a bit to say. But that sort of media criticism is the very definition of a Slow News Day topic. And to let you in on a little bit of a blogging secret, Slow News Day deep-dives don’t tend to hit right when it’s actually a Fast News Day like today — they’re like waving a “hey, look at me!” sign when everyone’s watching a solar eclipse. Plus, my schedule got a little bit scrambled — it’s not every day that a former president gets convicted for paying off a porn star.
So let’s do something totally different. Welcome to … the first ⚡ Lightning Round edition ⚡ of Silver Bulletin Subscriber Questions! I’m going to give myself 90 minutes to get through as many of your questions as possible1, hopefully keeping myself to just a paragraph or two in response [edit: I failed at this]. Feel free to use the comments to chat about this month’s responses or to ask a question for next month — we may need some as we’re pretty much draining the reserve here.
A couple of quick business items first. Today (May 31) is the last day to lock in current pricing in preparation for the launch of the election model for paying subscribers at some point in June; there will be a (slight) price increase going into effect at some point on Saturday. People who are already paid subscribers won’t be affected by this.
And second, there’s a new episode of the Risky Business pod out, where Maria and I cover the politics of crypto and the strategy behind the new rules on flight delays. Plus we share a few more World Series of Poker tips, almost all of which I’ve already ignored in my short time out here in Vegas.
All right, now onto … the ⚡ Lightning Round ⚡ where I wound up covering the following topics, designated with one to four chili pepper icons to indicate the level of spiciness.
Why did everyone stop talking about voting rights? 🌶️🌶️
Would you rather lose in 2024 and win in 2028? 🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️
Are pollsters too liberal about accounting for “likely voters”? 🌶️
Any tips for long-term career-planning decisions? 🌶️
Can Bayesian reasoning get us to the roots of COVID-19? 🌶️🌶️🌶️
How much has AI changed poker? 🌶️
Was Biden wrong to snub the New York Times? 🌶️🌶️🌶️
Am I a closet NHL fan? 🌶️
Why did everyone stop talking about voting rights?
Branden asks:
Do you think, overall, that changes to the laws or practices around voting itself in the U.S. are going to have a meaningful effect on the presidential election? I'm talking about things like limiting mail-in ballots or firing/changing people who've previously been in charge of the polls. There was a heck of a lot of conversation about voter suppression / voter fraud (focus differing by party), and it seems like some states have been doing things, but it's unclear to me if it ultimately will affect the outcome of the upcoming election.
Anecdotally, there seems to be a lot less discussion of voting rights this election cycle than there was last time around. Maybe that’s because we’re no longer in a pandemic, or because Democrats’ efforts to pass voting rights legislation failed.
But I suspect there’s also a more cynical reason. The conventional wisdom — backed up by some empirical research, including my own — had long been that higher turnout helps Democrats because marginalized voters mostly vote blue. However, as I pointed out in yesterday’s post, that is not necessarily true any longer — instead, Trump does best among lower-propensity voters. That’s partly because his gains among non-white voters are mostly with younger voters who are less likely to turn out than older ones.
Does that mean Democrats are suddenly going to start calling for stricter voting ID laws and Republicans for longer early-voting windows? Well, probably not — there’s years of muscle memory to overcome, and I’d say voting rights are still pretty core to Democrats’ self-identity. But this has become an issue with lower political stakes than in the past.
Would you rather lose in 2024 and win in 2028?
Comment is Not Free asks:
If we want to have the highest impact over the next twenty years with Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court how would you game out the next election? With the senate map would it be better for Trump in 2024 (withstanding concerns around democracy) and then get a democrat in 2028 and maybe 2032?
Oh boy, this is getting spicy. And I’m not sure how well spice and lightning mix. So let me note your proviso — we’re assuming that we have normal elections in 2026 and beyond — and game out that election forward.
What we can safely say is that: i) either Biden or Trump will only have one term left; ii) both of them are likely to be unpopular; iii) both of them are really old. Which means, politically speaking, the 2026 midterms are likely to be a disaster for whomever is in charge.