A chat with Derek Thompson from A (Abundance) to Z (Zohran). Plus, how Substack is disrupting the media, and some early thoughts on the NYC general election.
Myself, and likely many other subscribers, would appreciate adding these conversations as podcasts episodes so that substack will generate a personal RSS feed. The public RSS feed works in podcast apps but only includes the public excerpt from the conversations. Loving all of the new a/v content!
I think Mamdani will win in a landslide and will be theory 2.
Seems like the dynamic here is very similar to Trump (hear me out). Voters feel unheard and unsupported by the establishment. A newcomer with charisma promises to disrupt the establishment that isn’t looking out for them. People vote for the outsider and assume they will moderate after the election. They don’t moderate.
I also think both cases (Mamdani and Trump) illustrate how much trust the establishment (the village?) has lost with the people.
I would agree on your read for the why Mamdani won the primary,
although I hedge my bets as to the results of the mayoral election as we're groping around in the dark at the moment to track the electorate.
Cuomo and Adams are about the worst options the Democrats could throw at a election, and based on the (very limited) polling (of mixed variety), my read is that Adams and Cuomo are more likely to eat each other's voter base than affect Mamdani's.
Christ, it's like you read my mind! To me, a primary takeaway of Trump is EXACTLY what you say: People are so hungry for anyone who isn't mouthing the same crap we constantly hear from politicians. Trump does this through appealing to lowdown bigotry, setting up groups to dehumanize and telling voters he will hurt them. Mamdani does it, but by giving voters an idea that something else is possible.
1. I agree on let's do a transcript not a video. I never watch the Ezra Klein & guest videos but find the transcripts worthwhile to read. Life is short! Video takes too long.
2. I am surprised that Nate did not discuss the fundamental problem of Mamdani and the "Abundance" agenda -- Mamdani has none of the managerial experience nor the political experience that would predict for a successful mayoralty. "Abundance" cares about delivery. Mamdani has campaigned on some rather bold promises -- "let's make things free" appeals on the affordability dimension. But promises without delivery will only increase frustration. "The rent is too damn high", yes, but there are no silver bullets to fix that and there is no evidence that Mamdani has any skills as a dealmaker and driver of results.
One could just as easily flip the script and say a career politician is going to have a much higher tolerance for red tape and bureaucracy than a fresh faced newcomer.
It's not like Cuomo or Adams have proven that they have decent managerial experience or skills either. The evidence suggests that both candidates are poor at the job they are running for.
The only candidate that had a good record on this was Brad Lander and he lacked the natural charisma that the job of mayor requires as well.
I think Mamdani wins pretty easily in Nov. A solid centrist independent like Mike Bloomberg could have a chance against him but none have emerged (and Jay Walden is not going to fill that role).
Adams is far too compromised by his ever deepening Trumpism and Cuomo just isn't viable, period. As is blazingly clear to every person involved in NYC politics whose last name doesn't start with "C" and end with "O." The only plausible way for Adams to win is for Cuomo to drop out and for Trump to help push Sliwa out of the race. But that just tars him more with the Trumpist bush.
I also don't think you'll see a massive IE campaign agains Mamdani. There will certainly be some but not overwhelming enough to really make a substantial difference. Most business leaders in town are going to be very careful with not trying to antagonize the likely winner. And as Nate points out Mamdani is making all the right moves to try and connect with the few remaining reality based voters left. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing leaks about senior City Hall appointments, which will have no impact with the general public but could go a long way toward calming fears in the business/political worlds.
And finally as Nate is also right to point out the MAGA world meltdown around Mamdani only helps him. Bill Ackman personally bankrolling a puppet candidate would get this card carrying establishment voter on Mamdani's side.
It’s crazy to me that 4 years ago Mamdani was talking about seizing the means of production and defunding the police, and now folks who know better are willing to just overlook it because he’s not part of the establishment. This isn’t ancient history here. Has he explained why his positions have changed, other than now he has to get elected? We barely know this person.
The guy owns 4 acres of land in Uganda, yet lives in a rent stabilized apartment in New York City. Have the locals in Uganda met their neighbor, the absentee American socialist landowner? Also, why did Mamdani’s accent change so drastically from his rap career to his political career? Everything about this guy screams “red flag” - he will comport himself however it takes to get ahead in his current social circle. Beware of highly charming people with very little track record. You might get manipulated.
A lot of voters don’t want the status quo. If there’s a 30% chance it successful and a 70% chance that it fails they’ll vote for the 30% This includes overlooking personal transgressions and past policy statements.
I don't think Brandon Johnson is a good comp for Zohran. Johnson is a 49 year old former social studies teacher in over his skis. Zohran is 33 and has already been active in NYC politics for a decade. He is clearly in the AOC mold of aspiring to bigger things, and she has been criticized for betraying some of her extremely left early supporters. He is pragmatic and ambitious, and he won the primary because people are tired of Cuomo and want new voices.
Not saying he'll be a guaranteed huge success if he wins, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him end up in the awkward middle uncanny valley (not progressive enough for the left, too progressive for the moderates), but he is going to pick his battles.
Can I ask, why isn’t the normie vote looking more at Jim Walden? I’m not saying I know anything about him, but he seems like a normal, non-corrupt, moderate alternative to Cuomo and Adams. I think either one of those guys loses to Mamdani. But Walden seems like a Bloomberg-esque socially liberal fiscally conservative candidate that doesn’t have the Cuomo-Adams baggage. Elevate Walden, the boring but competent guy, and you can pull in those voters who don’t want a socialist mayor but don’t want another shitty Democratic dinosaur, either. As multiple articles have pointed out, Mamdani started at 1% in the polls too. Walden seems like the logical choice for center left AND rightish people to get behind if they want to have a shot at victory.
What I said and what you just said in this last comment are not mutually exclusive.
Bill Clinton was (is?) widely regarded as one of the better presidents in the 90s AND nobody wants a Bill Clinton type candidate today.
Now look at Jim Walden, he is currently polling around 1% according to the American Pulse poll released on July 03.
I stand by what I said about Bloomberg's appeal now as a candidate (or Bloomberg-like candidates), his popularity and competence as a past mayor notwithstanding. Nobody wants these candidates today.
Sure, I don’t dispute that Walden’s standing is 1% in current polling. But, as you probably know, guess who else was polling at 1% a few months ago? Zohran Mamdani.
I’d put absence of name recognition much higher than “I don’t like this guy” as the reason for his current situation.
But, I agree with you that voters don’t want a Bill Clinton esque candidate. I mean - that’s Cuomo right? Older guy with a creepy sexual harrassment history? Endorsed by Bill Clinton himself? You are 100% right, and I think if Cuomo is the eventual front runner nominee, the race plays itself out exactly as the primary did.
Same for Adams - guy nobody particularly loved who got indicted for corruption and then rescued by TRUMP’s JD? Fuck, talk about poison for the NYC crowd.
But that’s why Walden is the makes sense choice. As far as I know he doesn’t have any corruption (or other) baggage, but as a normie candidate, he plays very well to the people who are like, JFC can’t we just get a sane, competent, moderate, honest person in there?
If not Walden, who of the current candidates would you recommend to the non-Mamdani voters? (I don’t think Sliwa, as a MAGA-guy, can win in NYC.)
Sure, Cuomo and Adams suck more than Walden. Silwa is a complete kook that is great for making the election entertaining and good for him on running but nobody should want him as mayor. None of this is not saying that much about Walden's quality.
Walden has his share of baggage. He in his lawyer career successfully defended Joseph Cassano, CEO of AIG, for his alleged role in the 2008 financial crisis (very bad look). He defended Molly Bloom who was arrested for taking part in a illegal poker game in LA (not so big but it just adds to the pile). He defended Tether in a case of market manipulation (also bad look). He defended William Anderson in a case of fraud and money laundering in Newsweek magazine.
Now none of these by themselves are damning. All together, it paints a picture of someone who is too comfortable defending the excesses of the rich. If that is what you mean by "moderate" and "honest", I don't think most people want that at all in a NYC mayor that is already too close historically to wealth and power. "Sane" is a purely subjective measure.
I will grant you that Walden is "competent", he did a great job defending these cretins.
If this was before the primary, Brad Lander would have been the best sane competent honest candidate out there for the non-Mamdani voters.
Please publish these as a podcast that I can listen to in my preferred player.
The Substack app is really difficult to use if you dont listen to the audio/video within a week of the episode coming out. Weeks later, it's basically Its impossible to scroll through the Silver Bulletin feed and remember that "Two Theories of Zohran" was the post with the Derek Thompson audio.
I really enjoy Nate's conversations, but without a specific podcast feed, I end up missing most of them.
Regarding that first footnote, what's to criticize about the title "Silver Bulletin"? It's snappy, it's descriptive, it incorporates part of Nate's name, and it's got a nice ring to it. And if he really did come up with it in five minutes, that says more good about him than it does bad about the title.
Ugh, this guest was exhausting to listen to. He's just too full of himself and too out-of-touch with reality. Abundance isn't a new framework or approach - is merely an opportunistic repackaging of tired old rhetoric in an attempt to take advantage of the current anti-establishment sentiment.
Also, seriously saying that Kamala didn't have permission to criticize the Biden administration is crazy. She absolutely *had* to do it and chose not to do it. She hired all of Biden's staff and advisors, and it probably cost her the election.
Let me summarize for you as someone who didn't watch the video but knows what Derek will say based on all his other podcast interviews.
According to Derek, abundance is a fantastic idea that is in no way overly broad and non-specific, and is not a wishlist of different interests that will come to terrible blows IRL.
To be fair to him, abundance has interesting frames of perspective to offer when considering a problem but it is not a uniting philosophy and no two people can agree what abundance actually encompasses. It is the new Rorschach ink-blot test.
If I may say, many people like both of you have to come to Substack to make a lot of money (among the other things you discussed). Personally, I am a college professor and I have budgeted for 2 substacks in addition to my more traditional journalism subscriptions. There are many, many people you will not reach because they can’t afford it.
I'm fascinated by the economics of Substack as relates to personal brand. I'd love to know the percentage of the U.S. public that subscribes to any Substack and the average number of Substack that an indivual follows and pays for.
Your data models are usually so interesting and well researched and then you turn around and repeatedly shill Polymarket as some kind of accurate pulse on public opinion instead of a market where users benefit from inducing unsubstantiated volatility. The Dem primary chart in the two days prior to results looks like a twist tie!
I relate to Nate’s feelings on Zohran. It’s similar to when Trump or Obama first emerged. There’s something about him that makes you want to root for him and gloss over his vulnerabilities.
Myself, and likely many other subscribers, would appreciate adding these conversations as podcasts episodes so that substack will generate a personal RSS feed. The public RSS feed works in podcast apps but only includes the public excerpt from the conversations. Loving all of the new a/v content!
I think Mamdani will win in a landslide and will be theory 2.
Seems like the dynamic here is very similar to Trump (hear me out). Voters feel unheard and unsupported by the establishment. A newcomer with charisma promises to disrupt the establishment that isn’t looking out for them. People vote for the outsider and assume they will moderate after the election. They don’t moderate.
I also think both cases (Mamdani and Trump) illustrate how much trust the establishment (the village?) has lost with the people.
I would agree on your read for the why Mamdani won the primary,
although I hedge my bets as to the results of the mayoral election as we're groping around in the dark at the moment to track the electorate.
Cuomo and Adams are about the worst options the Democrats could throw at a election, and based on the (very limited) polling (of mixed variety), my read is that Adams and Cuomo are more likely to eat each other's voter base than affect Mamdani's.
Cuomo is Mamdani’s Jeb Bush.
Would that make Eric Adams his Hilary Clinton?
Christ, it's like you read my mind! To me, a primary takeaway of Trump is EXACTLY what you say: People are so hungry for anyone who isn't mouthing the same crap we constantly hear from politicians. Trump does this through appealing to lowdown bigotry, setting up groups to dehumanize and telling voters he will hurt them. Mamdani does it, but by giving voters an idea that something else is possible.
1. I agree on let's do a transcript not a video. I never watch the Ezra Klein & guest videos but find the transcripts worthwhile to read. Life is short! Video takes too long.
2. I am surprised that Nate did not discuss the fundamental problem of Mamdani and the "Abundance" agenda -- Mamdani has none of the managerial experience nor the political experience that would predict for a successful mayoralty. "Abundance" cares about delivery. Mamdani has campaigned on some rather bold promises -- "let's make things free" appeals on the affordability dimension. But promises without delivery will only increase frustration. "The rent is too damn high", yes, but there are no silver bullets to fix that and there is no evidence that Mamdani has any skills as a dealmaker and driver of results.
One could just as easily flip the script and say a career politician is going to have a much higher tolerance for red tape and bureaucracy than a fresh faced newcomer.
It's not like Cuomo or Adams have proven that they have decent managerial experience or skills either. The evidence suggests that both candidates are poor at the job they are running for.
The only candidate that had a good record on this was Brad Lander and he lacked the natural charisma that the job of mayor requires as well.
Substack video is not going to catch on. I wonder how much substack is paying all these writers to push video.
Ah, so I'm not the only one suddenly getting videos in all my substacks rather than newsletters.
I've seen four separate interviews with Derek Thompson in the last two days. I'm sure every single interview was different and unique...not.
For what it's worth I appreciate the redundancy because I only saw him here.
I think Mamdani wins pretty easily in Nov. A solid centrist independent like Mike Bloomberg could have a chance against him but none have emerged (and Jay Walden is not going to fill that role).
Adams is far too compromised by his ever deepening Trumpism and Cuomo just isn't viable, period. As is blazingly clear to every person involved in NYC politics whose last name doesn't start with "C" and end with "O." The only plausible way for Adams to win is for Cuomo to drop out and for Trump to help push Sliwa out of the race. But that just tars him more with the Trumpist bush.
I also don't think you'll see a massive IE campaign agains Mamdani. There will certainly be some but not overwhelming enough to really make a substantial difference. Most business leaders in town are going to be very careful with not trying to antagonize the likely winner. And as Nate points out Mamdani is making all the right moves to try and connect with the few remaining reality based voters left. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing leaks about senior City Hall appointments, which will have no impact with the general public but could go a long way toward calming fears in the business/political worlds.
And finally as Nate is also right to point out the MAGA world meltdown around Mamdani only helps him. Bill Ackman personally bankrolling a puppet candidate would get this card carrying establishment voter on Mamdani's side.
It’s crazy to me that 4 years ago Mamdani was talking about seizing the means of production and defunding the police, and now folks who know better are willing to just overlook it because he’s not part of the establishment. This isn’t ancient history here. Has he explained why his positions have changed, other than now he has to get elected? We barely know this person.
The guy owns 4 acres of land in Uganda, yet lives in a rent stabilized apartment in New York City. Have the locals in Uganda met their neighbor, the absentee American socialist landowner? Also, why did Mamdani’s accent change so drastically from his rap career to his political career? Everything about this guy screams “red flag” - he will comport himself however it takes to get ahead in his current social circle. Beware of highly charming people with very little track record. You might get manipulated.
A lot of voters don’t want the status quo. If there’s a 30% chance it successful and a 70% chance that it fails they’ll vote for the 30% This includes overlooking personal transgressions and past policy statements.
I am not spending the time to watch long videos. And Mr Silver, if you continue this trend, I'm not renewing my subscription when it expires.
I don't think Brandon Johnson is a good comp for Zohran. Johnson is a 49 year old former social studies teacher in over his skis. Zohran is 33 and has already been active in NYC politics for a decade. He is clearly in the AOC mold of aspiring to bigger things, and she has been criticized for betraying some of her extremely left early supporters. He is pragmatic and ambitious, and he won the primary because people are tired of Cuomo and want new voices.
Not saying he'll be a guaranteed huge success if he wins, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him end up in the awkward middle uncanny valley (not progressive enough for the left, too progressive for the moderates), but he is going to pick his battles.
Can I ask, why isn’t the normie vote looking more at Jim Walden? I’m not saying I know anything about him, but he seems like a normal, non-corrupt, moderate alternative to Cuomo and Adams. I think either one of those guys loses to Mamdani. But Walden seems like a Bloomberg-esque socially liberal fiscally conservative candidate that doesn’t have the Cuomo-Adams baggage. Elevate Walden, the boring but competent guy, and you can pull in those voters who don’t want a socialist mayor but don’t want another shitty Democratic dinosaur, either. As multiple articles have pointed out, Mamdani started at 1% in the polls too. Walden seems like the logical choice for center left AND rightish people to get behind if they want to have a shot at victory.
Nobody wants a Bloomberg type candidate. That is your first core mistake in your analysis.
I dunno. I work near NYC, and used to live there myself, and Bloomberg is widely regarded as one of the best mayors the city ever had.
So for people that don’t want Mamdani to become mayor - and that seems to be a reasonably large group of people - what kind of candidate DO they want?
What I said and what you just said in this last comment are not mutually exclusive.
Bill Clinton was (is?) widely regarded as one of the better presidents in the 90s AND nobody wants a Bill Clinton type candidate today.
Now look at Jim Walden, he is currently polling around 1% according to the American Pulse poll released on July 03.
I stand by what I said about Bloomberg's appeal now as a candidate (or Bloomberg-like candidates), his popularity and competence as a past mayor notwithstanding. Nobody wants these candidates today.
Sure, I don’t dispute that Walden’s standing is 1% in current polling. But, as you probably know, guess who else was polling at 1% a few months ago? Zohran Mamdani.
I’d put absence of name recognition much higher than “I don’t like this guy” as the reason for his current situation.
But, I agree with you that voters don’t want a Bill Clinton esque candidate. I mean - that’s Cuomo right? Older guy with a creepy sexual harrassment history? Endorsed by Bill Clinton himself? You are 100% right, and I think if Cuomo is the eventual front runner nominee, the race plays itself out exactly as the primary did.
Same for Adams - guy nobody particularly loved who got indicted for corruption and then rescued by TRUMP’s JD? Fuck, talk about poison for the NYC crowd.
But that’s why Walden is the makes sense choice. As far as I know he doesn’t have any corruption (or other) baggage, but as a normie candidate, he plays very well to the people who are like, JFC can’t we just get a sane, competent, moderate, honest person in there?
If not Walden, who of the current candidates would you recommend to the non-Mamdani voters? (I don’t think Sliwa, as a MAGA-guy, can win in NYC.)
Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation.
Sure, Cuomo and Adams suck more than Walden. Silwa is a complete kook that is great for making the election entertaining and good for him on running but nobody should want him as mayor. None of this is not saying that much about Walden's quality.
Walden has his share of baggage. He in his lawyer career successfully defended Joseph Cassano, CEO of AIG, for his alleged role in the 2008 financial crisis (very bad look). He defended Molly Bloom who was arrested for taking part in a illegal poker game in LA (not so big but it just adds to the pile). He defended Tether in a case of market manipulation (also bad look). He defended William Anderson in a case of fraud and money laundering in Newsweek magazine.
Now none of these by themselves are damning. All together, it paints a picture of someone who is too comfortable defending the excesses of the rich. If that is what you mean by "moderate" and "honest", I don't think most people want that at all in a NYC mayor that is already too close historically to wealth and power. "Sane" is a purely subjective measure.
I will grant you that Walden is "competent", he did a great job defending these cretins.
If this was before the primary, Brad Lander would have been the best sane competent honest candidate out there for the non-Mamdani voters.
Please publish these as a podcast that I can listen to in my preferred player.
The Substack app is really difficult to use if you dont listen to the audio/video within a week of the episode coming out. Weeks later, it's basically Its impossible to scroll through the Silver Bulletin feed and remember that "Two Theories of Zohran" was the post with the Derek Thompson audio.
I really enjoy Nate's conversations, but without a specific podcast feed, I end up missing most of them.
Regarding that first footnote, what's to criticize about the title "Silver Bulletin"? It's snappy, it's descriptive, it incorporates part of Nate's name, and it's got a nice ring to it. And if he really did come up with it in five minutes, that says more good about him than it does bad about the title.
Ugh, this guest was exhausting to listen to. He's just too full of himself and too out-of-touch with reality. Abundance isn't a new framework or approach - is merely an opportunistic repackaging of tired old rhetoric in an attempt to take advantage of the current anti-establishment sentiment.
Also, seriously saying that Kamala didn't have permission to criticize the Biden administration is crazy. She absolutely *had* to do it and chose not to do it. She hired all of Biden's staff and advisors, and it probably cost her the election.
Somehow I watched the whole thing and can't remember a single thing Derek said
Let me summarize for you as someone who didn't watch the video but knows what Derek will say based on all his other podcast interviews.
According to Derek, abundance is a fantastic idea that is in no way overly broad and non-specific, and is not a wishlist of different interests that will come to terrible blows IRL.
To be fair to him, abundance has interesting frames of perspective to offer when considering a problem but it is not a uniting philosophy and no two people can agree what abundance actually encompasses. It is the new Rorschach ink-blot test.
Voters didn’t want risk averse.
If I may say, many people like both of you have to come to Substack to make a lot of money (among the other things you discussed). Personally, I am a college professor and I have budgeted for 2 substacks in addition to my more traditional journalism subscriptions. There are many, many people you will not reach because they can’t afford it.
I'm fascinated by the economics of Substack as relates to personal brand. I'd love to know the percentage of the U.S. public that subscribes to any Substack and the average number of Substack that an indivual follows and pays for.
As would I! I fear it’s educated elites talking to one another.
IMO Zohran will benefit from GOP’s unhinged reaction against him, the way hysterical lib reaction against Trump helps Trump.
Your data models are usually so interesting and well researched and then you turn around and repeatedly shill Polymarket as some kind of accurate pulse on public opinion instead of a market where users benefit from inducing unsubstantiated volatility. The Dem primary chart in the two days prior to results looks like a twist tie!
I relate to Nate’s feelings on Zohran. It’s similar to when Trump or Obama first emerged. There’s something about him that makes you want to root for him and gloss over his vulnerabilities.