Nate Silver Predicts: Democrats Take the House, Newsom Is Fading & AOC Might Win It All in 2028
with Nate Silver
29 Jun 20265 min read1h 30m
TL;DR
Nate Silver argues that partisanship — not fraud — explains California's slow vote counts and Democratic dominance, noting that 43 of 50 states can be predicted with 97% confidence for 2028. He sees Democrats as slight favorites in 2028 but warns their establishment strategy of picking 'least unacceptable' candidates keeps failing, while AOC represents a genuinely distinct left faction that could break through. Trump's approval rating has fallen to 38%, driven by Iran, gas prices, and political fatigue.
Key Moments
Nate Silver
“I think California's system is completely unacceptable. I've done um some consulting work on like the Indian election where you like literally have polling stations in the Himalayas and they actually stagger their elections. But once election day happens, they count their vote within 24 hours. I think it's ridiculous and very failed state that California takes longer than that.”
Silver critiques California's ballot counting process while discussing whether the slow count creates the appearance of impropriety
“Partisanship is the gravity that dictates every election in the US, right? Like my job, don't worry, I will get criticized if we say, "Oh, whatever Gavin Newsome or AOC is a 55% favorite," and they lose. But like, but 43 of the 50 states, stated, we could probably predict right now with 97% confidence who they'll vote for in 2028. And it's not because of rigging. Because polarization and partisanship are very powerful forces that we can't seem to escape from.”
Silver responds to Jason's question about whether California's voting system structurally advantages Democrats and locks in their control
“Obama still has a I looked at this today a 57% approval rating postfacto with independence. Biden is at 20%. Um, and like look, I think a lot of Democrats and Republicans, certainly, maybe even more so, Republicans, frankly, under Trump feel as though you don't even have to try to turn out the other side or persuade people. It's just a numbers game.”
Silver contrasts Obama's cross-partisan appeal with Biden's collapse among independents to illustrate why Democratic establishment strategy keeps underperforming
“I think Democrats are slight favorites to win in 2028. It wouldn't shock me if AOC or Newsome or Shapiro or Assaf or whoever wins. If they're underdogs again in 2032, look what's happening in the UK where I mean it's kind of become like a running joke, but we're going to be through like what like six prime ministers in 9 years or something and they're probably the US's like closest comp.”
Silver lays out his 2028 and 2032 forecasting outlook, comparing US political cycling to the UK's rapid leadership turnover
“Donald Trump and our approval ratings now is down to 38%. People are upset about Iran. They're upset about gas prices. They're upset about just fatigue of having, you know, a singular center star of politics over the past. You know, Trump kind of is like it's fatiguing a little bit. And so, like, it's an uphill battle for the GOP.”
Silver explains why despite Democratic structural weaknesses, Republicans face a tough 2028 cycle given Trump's current standing
Nate Silver is a statistician, author, and founder of FiveThirtyEight, widely known for his probabilistic election forecasting models. He now runs Silver Bulletin on Substack, where he covers elections, sports, and prediction markets. Silver is also an avid poker player and sports bettor who has been limited by major sportsbooks for being too sharp.
Takeaways
1
Democrats have three distinct factions, not one Silver maps the Democratic coalition as: the left (AOC, Bernie, Zohran), the abundance libs (Ezra Klein-style centrists critical of California-style governance), and resistance libs (pro-Biden, anti-media, Newsom's base). Each faction has different candidate preferences and different theories of how Democrats lost — understanding which faction is ascendant shapes who gets the 2028 nomination.
2
Sharp bettors are being pushed to prediction markets Silver says he has been limited by DraftKings and MGM like most sharp bettors, and has migrated activity to Polymarket where limits don't exist. He notes hedge funds are increasingly active in these markets, which raises the question of whether prediction markets will eventually exhibit the same sharp-vs-recreational dynamic that killed retail sportsbook edges.
3
43 of 50 states already decided for 2028 Silver estimates that 43 states can be called for 2028 with 97% confidence right now, before a single vote is cast. This means the entire presidential election effectively comes down to 7 swing states, making candidate selection in those states disproportionately decisive for both parties.
4
Newsom's resistance-lib strategy looks like a losing bet Silver argues that Newsom's playbook — defending Biden, signaling loyalty to the resistance base, never apologizing — mirrors Trump's style but without the electoral record to back it. The Democratic establishment's track record of picking 'least unacceptable' candidates (Harris, Kerry, Hillary) has produced one win in four cycles, and that win came during a once-in-a-century pandemic.
5
Playoff experience is a measurable, non-trivial edge Silver applies his modeling lens to the Knicks' championship run, arguing their league-leading playoff game count over four years was a genuine statistical signal — not noise. He draws a parallel to poker and golf, where nerves in high-stakes situations produce measurably worse performance from otherwise elite players making their first deep run.
6
Trump at 38% approval makes 2028 an uphill GOP battle With Trump's approval at 38% driven by Iran, gas prices, and political fatigue, Silver sees Democrats as slight 2028 favorites — but warns they are capable of squandering that advantage. He explicitly says it 'wouldn't shock' him if the Democratic 2028 winner becomes an underdog in 2032, pointing to UK-style rapid turnover as the likely new normal.
7
Partisanship, not fraud, drives California results Silver says there is no evidence of fraud in California elections — the statistical 'blue shift' in late mail ballots is fully explained by Democrats systematically voting later and by mail. He argues California's real problem is a slow, chaotic counting system that creates the appearance of impropriety, not actual manipulation.