Nate Silver On Gambling And Politics

A fun chat with the famous stats guy, poker master, and old friend.

Nate is a statistician and writer focused on American politics and sports, and a longtime friend from the blog days. He was the founder and editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight, and now he writes his own substack, Silver Bulletin. He’s the author of The Signal and the Noise, and his forthcoming book is On the Edge: How Successful Gamblers and Risk-Takers Think (pre-order here).

You can listen right away in the audio player above (or on the right side of the player, click “Listen On” to add the Dishcast feed to your favorite podcast app). For two clips of our convo — on the pluralism of gay social networks, why poker is so male — pop over to our YouTube page.

Other topics: Nate growing up in the Midwest obsessed with sports and the debate team; the Best Little Boy in the World syndrome; coming out while living abroad; how the LGBT Society in 1999 was apolitical; gays as heterodox thinkers in media; the joys of code-switching; the diversity of sports fans and poker players; the sexism in poker; Maria Konnikova and Maria Ho; how a poker player can benefit from discrimination by defying stereotypes; Erving Goffman and risk-taking; testosterone; Nate grossing $750,000 in poker; the flow state of gambling under extreme pressure; how Gen Z is more risk-averse than older generations; immigrants as risk-takers; the morality of gambling; addiction; people peeing at slot machines; Fauci’s noble lie for masks; the Swedish model during Covid; effective altruism; Obama the poker player being cool under pressure vs. Trump’s impulsivity; Truman’s gambling mindset and Hiroshima; the online poker boom; how Nate doesn’t want to be known as the political forecast guy; the misconception of him as a partisan Dem; Will Stancil; how the economic perceptions of the public are usually accurate; Biden’s age; his people blaming the media for his problems; the convention option for switching nominees; the White House not boosting Kamala Harris; her flaming out before Iowa in 2020; Claudine Gay’s plagiarism; Twitter under Musk; and, yes, Angry Birds!

Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Jeffrey Rosen on the Stoics and happiness, Rob Henderson on class and “luxury beliefs,” Christian Wiman on resisting despair as a Christian, George Will on Trump and conservatism, and Abigail Shrier on why the cult of therapy harms children. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other pod comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

On last week’s episode about the Trump case in Georgia, a dissent:

You, Isikoff, and Klaidman were much too lenient about Fani Willis sending substantial amounts of taxpayer dollars to her lover. Previous Dishcast guest Josh Barro, on his own podcast, provides an excellent summary of the serious ethical conflict (starting at the 19:15 mark). The gist: a person with whom Willis was having a romantic relationship had a financial interest in the case taking longer and thus generating more billable hours. Many commentators were puzzled over why she took such an expansive view of the crime and charged so many defendants with RICO, making it a much more complex and difficult case than a more targeted prosecution of Trump would have been. We can now see that her interests may have conflicted between her role as a prosecutor and her financial concern for her lover — and herself, since they took lavish trips together.

It’s infuriating that Trump may get off the hook on the most solid case against him because of this prosecutor’s misconduct.

I did express incredulity at the encomiums that Mike and Dan and the rest of the MSM bestowed upon her. But we were more focused on the perpetrators of the plot to reverse the election results. Another listener on the episode:

I enjoyed your conversation with Isikoff and Klaidman. However, at the end, I believe you are severely underestimating the amount of damage that a re-elected Trump could do to our country and our allies. You have recognized that Trump has already stated multiple times that he should have total immunity from prosecution and thinks he is above the law. His followers may draw the obvious conclusion that being a completely loyal supporter would likely be a “get out of jail free” card, allowing them to do whatever they want to the wimps and cucks who think the rule of law still applies.

Just as worrisome, Trump has already said he will end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, which obviously means he will make clear to Zelensky, and Putin, that he will cut off all aid to Ukraine if Zelensky does not sign a peace treaty with (i.e. surrender to) Putin. That means surrendering at least 20-25% of Ukraine over to Russia, and foregoing any military alliance with the US or NATO, thus allowing Putin to gain complete control of Ukraine in a year or two.

Trump’s unwillingness to support Ukraine will also signal to Xi Jinping that Trump is very unlikely to interfere if China blockades and then invades Taiwan. Once that happens, all of our allies in Europe and East Asia will realize that their alliance with Trump’s America is basically worthless and will have to make their own deals with Putin and Xi Jinping. Kim Jung Un may be emboldened to invade South Korea.

After Putin takes over Ukraine, he will try to subvert and then invade one or more Baltic countries, and will convince Trump that it’s in Trump’s interest to let him do so. Putin has already figured out how to flatter Trump’s ego and persuade him — or intimidate him — into saying and doing whatever Putin wants. The world will be transformed in ways that may be good for Trump’s ego but will be very bad for most Americans.

Biden has undoubtedly lost some brain cells over the past four years, but his administration has managed an amazing soft landing for our economy, exceeding all pre-2020 predictions. Inflation is down to 2%, unemployment is below 3.9%, and GDP is up more than in any other developed country. His administration has managed multiple crises abroad, including strengthening NATO and helping Ukraine push back an invasion by a much larger country with a much larger military plus nuclear weapons. Biden is helping to prevent (so far) the war between Israel and Hamas from becoming a much larger regional war.

I seriously doubt a malignant narcissist who has indicated he will only appoint complete loyalists would be able to accomplish any of those things. It’s unlikely that any competent, ethical, intelligent person would even want to work in a second Trump administration.

We are still getting many emails over the popular pod with Justin Brierley. From a Dishhead who listened to it twice:

A snowy day and I was trapped inside doing chores when I listened, again, to your Brierley talk. So good. I was particularly interested in how the materialists try to explain the inexplicable. I remembered something I read years ago by Teilhard de Chardin discussing the problem of consciousness. He said consciousness was “matter become aware of itself.” Explain that transformation, Mr. Dawkins.

Another fan of the episode:

I’m another anecdotal data point in the “surprising rebirth of belief in God,” having started attending church again in the past couple of years after about 25 years out — most of that spent within the lefty secular humanist worlds of academia and the arts. It is still hard for me to believe in the way Sunday School taught me to, given the critical-skeptical mindset that is so deeply ingrained. But it was exactly your point about the “metaphorical” aspect of the Resurrection — that Jesus clearly did not reappear in the same guise but in unrecognizable, perhaps post-material form — that gave me permission from my own critical mind to believe. I don’t have to care if the story is true in the way a science experiment or historical account is true in order to find wonder and connection with my fellow humans and the universe.

Communion is an especially beautiful ritual to me now, the joy of sharing a meal with friends extrapolated — again, quasi-metaphorically — to all of humanity. I have never had an experience of revelation like Brierley’s teenage one (maybe I need to try mushrooms!), but there is something prosaically ecstatic in finding my way through awkwardly, even going through the motions of belief.

Beautifully expressed. Thank you. And another:

I’ve been a subscriber since almost the beginning, and I am so happy to support the Dish! Thank you for introducing me to a whole host of wonderful thinkers like John Gray, Aurelian Craiutu, etc, but also for your discussions about faith and purpose with Justin Brierley last week.

Discussions like that are Christianity at its best; it doesn’t feel stale and dogmatic when I hear Christians speaking of their faith this way. I am a born Catholic, non-practicing, have dabbled in mediation in my 20s. I spent years, probably most of my adult life, constricted by depression and anxiety from early childhood trauma. (I find the overuse of the term “trauma” in our culture to be deeply offensive.) I found healing by working with psychedelics, especially MDMA. Most recently, though, I have connected to a beautiful Catholic sect, the Focolare. And though I am not sure whether Christ is my vessel, so to speak, the notion and practice of loving the other as God is profoundly inspiring to me, and seeing those who live by this practice is touching.

Next, a “non-practicing Catholic” who enjoyed “the very insightful conversation with Brierley”:

I grew up in an atheistic environment in Lithuania during the Soviet occupation. My atheistic and deterministic perspectives solidified during my studies and career as physicist. However, my convictions began to shift as I delved into the realms of cosmology, quantum physics, and ethics. I came to the conclusion that science has limits and we already reached them. (I recently posted some thoughts on my substack.) So it was through rational contemplation that I embraced a belief in God, not driven by emotion. But now I also feel the goodness of God emotionally.

That’s how it is sometimes. As Pascal wrote, “soumission et usage de la raison.”

A reader dissents over a different topic:

You continue to assert that immigration should be curtailed because immigrants are changing American culture too quickly: “a lowering of legal immigration rates [is needed] for the sake of national cohesion and integration.” Do you have an example of this? The one I easily recall is a gay British gentleman, well-educated, who thought he was going to die of AIDS so he wrote a book laying the intellectual foundations that led to Obergefell. In less than a generation, Americans decided same-sex marriage was okay. That’s a big cultural upheaval much accelerated by a legal immigrant. I am assuming you are okay with it? Could you please provide a counter-example of an immigrant, legal or illegal, who ruined American culture?

The jobs argument is the strongest argument I’ve read because it is connected to a specific harm. Even then, your proposed solution is to punish immigrants. Could we please also punish employers? If jobs weren’t available, immigrants seeking jobs might search elsewhere. If employers thought building their businesses on exploitable inexpensive labor could lead to them losing their savings, businesses, and homes, they might choose instead only to employ US citizens and legal immigrants. There’s also the question which sectors most employ undocumented labor. Will Americans accept the outcome if the cost of fresh produce or home renovations rises?

I agree with you on the need for immigration reform. The legal path should be easy to access and well-administered. Prospective immigrants should not exploit loopholes. Adjudication should be speedy. Those who have committed crimes or are otherwise not qualified to immigrate should be repatriated expeditiously. Where we differ is who should be allowed and how many? How do we know these answers?

Immigrants are the source of vitality and renewal in America. The pace and volume of it is nonetheless debatable. My own view is that when mass immigration is uncontrolled, when the foreign-born population is at a record high, and when an authoritarian cult-leader can use that to gain power, it’s time to think about moderating it. I agree with you that we should place more emphasis on employers, which is why I think a national E-Verify policy is vital to changing the incentives.

Another reader turns to the ongoing debate over Biden’s age:

Hanging on to power and influence is more than a Democrat problem; it’s a Boomer problem. The likely Republican nominee was the second oldest president in the history of the country. Meanwhile, Boomers in general are staying in their executive and professional jobs into their 70s, holding on to their five-bedroom houses well past their need, and in general creating roadblocks for all younger generations who should have their chance to advance, create wealth, and make their mark.

As a Boomer myself who recently retired at 65 from a well-paid and challenging executive position, I have witnessed many slightly older peers who hang onto their titles and roles. It’s a bit pathetic. They clearly are not as capable as in previous years, but they are good enough to hang on without fear of termination due to age discrimination laws. Many are in that vanishing group of those with lucrative pensions, not to mention wealth accumulated in real estate and 401(k)s.

Of course there are those who need to keep working to make ends meet, and I feel for them. But those who cling to their professional lives often have an exaggerated view of their own importance. They also fear the next stage in life. I, for one, believe that those of us fortunate enough to have reached a comfortable retirement age need to clear a path for those behind us. We also need to embrace the challenges of living as seniors, finding different ways to add value to people and achieve satisfaction.

You might want to check out the Dish column “The Boomers In The Twilight Zone,” accompanied by reader responses and stories. Another dissent:

Few would deny age is a concern with Biden. There’s little evidence, however, that Biden stepping down would make defeating Trump any more likely. Presumably Biden has advantages over Harris that offset the age issue, since his approval numbers are higher than hers. Drop Biden and Harris, and the most likely candidate is Gavin Newson. If there is a significant difference between him and Harris, I don’t see it. If you want to replace Biden and Harris, show me a plausible alternative that polls significantly better against Trump. If it’s there, I’d support it.

There was a 2022 poll showing Newsom more likely than Harris to beat Trump, but a far more recent poll shows Trump beating both of them. From a November 2023 poll where Biden trails Trump by two points:

A generic Democrat is ahead of Trump by 6 points (46% to 40%) — leading by 22 points among women (when Biden’s actual lead over Trump is +13), by 16 points among seniors (when Biden’s lead is +12) and by 10 points among voters ages 18-34 (when it’s Trump +4 here).

If only there were a talented generic Democrat! I have to say I’m intrigued by the idea of a Manchin-Romney ticket. Another reader recommends a post:

Apropos of your latest column (amen), you should give yourself a treat and read this Substack post by Jeff Maurer aping Joe Biden: “Don’t Worry: I Got Advice About Preserving My Legacy from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” It’s so good.

Another writes, “Your RBG Syndrome piece was superb”:

I have frankly been stunned by so many Democrat officeholders rushing to get in front of a camera to declare that President Biden is mentally competent. The American people are a gullible lot, but my goodness, to lie to them by claiming a man possesses a level of cognitive ability that he clearly does not is nothing short of insulting. And no, the Special Counsel did not step out of line by drawing attention to Biden’s diminishing mental capacity, for it is precisely Biden’s cognitive ineptitude that gave rise to the decision not to file criminal charges.

In 2020, I voted for Joe Biden in the Democratic primary — the first time I voted in a Dem primary since 1976. I did so, first, because I believed it essential that Bernie Sanders not be the nominee; and second, because I believed Joe Biden when he said he would be a transitional president. For the sake of our country, the Dem establishment (assuming there still is one) must go to Biden and tell him to withdraw from the race. There is still time for competent candidates to step forward.

Agreed. Another reader invokes one of the Money Quotes from last week:

“Guess it’s not surprising, but didn’t realize how much of a partisan gap there was in perceptions of whether the US is a great country. There didn’t used to be much of one. And [Dem] numbers didn’t recover at all after Biden replaced Trump in office,” – Nate Silver pointing to Pew numbers.

“The Newsroom” premiered in June 2012 with the following soliloquy, and with the benefit of hindsight, it looks like Sorkin was tapping into the Dem sentiment:

Last Friday, Bill Maher and his team responded to all the smug Americans who trash their own country and threaten to leave:

Another reader:

In a response to another dissent from last week, you stated that you had never been misgendered. I am a cis gay man, yet I have been misgendered hundreds if not thousands of times. Although I am not trans, I don’t pass easily as male. It happens less now that I’m old, fat and bald, but I was misgendered just last week over the phone. (If I had a dime for every time I was referred to as “ma’am” on the phone … ). I’ve known women with similar experiences. In this, I relate to trans people who also struggle to pass, so I understand why trans people went to Trinidad to transition stealthily.

I am not in favor of trans females participating in women’s sports. I concur with Martina Navratilova. However, I detect that some of the angst is not purely about biology and fairness, but a deep discomfort with those whose sex is not easily identifiable outwardly. I once heard my cousin describe a group of butch lesbians as “men.” I too have been stopped in the men’s room because someone assumed I used the wrong restroom. A college professor misgendered me in front of class 30 years ago, and even when a classmate pointed out that I was in fact male, she denied it and said, “No! I am referring to the woman wearing the purple blouse.” No, that was me. (I have never done drag; that “blouse” was a men’s shirt purchased in the men’s section of the department store.) I often feel I need to provide pronouns just to avoid confusion.

I want to be part of a community of people who have had those types of experiences. Many of my straight-acting gay male friends do not relate to my experiences and want something different. Vive La Difference! Some want the LGBT label and others do not. Simple as that.

I do worry that if I had been a child today, perhaps I would be pressured to transition. But a community of straight-acting gay men who are uncomfortable around people who have trouble passing is not right either. I have encountered a lot of transphobia from gay men over the years because some are mainstream, look and act normal, and are uncomfortable around those types of people. I’ve seen gay men make fun of the appearance of Rachel Levine, for example. So fuck them. Trans people are not typically bothered by someone like me, and for that I am grateful.

That’s an important point. Some effeminate gay men experience misgendering the way some trans people do. But it’s surely much milder. Here’s another response to last week’s main dissent:

Your reader objects to what they consider your obsession with the dangers of medical intervention for trans kids: “Do you not think parents, doctors, and the kids themselves don’t consider that possibility VERY carefully?” As the parent of a non-binary teenager, the answer to this question is a forceful and unequivocal NO!

I think this is something the public doesn’t really understand and probably couldn’t understand unless they’d gone through it. I had to fight tooth-and-nail against my ex-spouse, my teenager’s therapist, and an entire team of medical professionals and counselors — all having the best of intentions — in order to prevent my child from begin given puberty blockers, pretty much on demand without any kind of deliberative process. My teenager was angry that I was the only one who said no, and they swore that they would go on testosterone as soon as they were 16.

Two years later, they still identify as non-binary but are much happier due to other changes in their life. There’s been no mention of testosterone or surgery.

Here’s a dissenter over my views on the Progress Flag:

Your reaction to the flag was so completely over the top. You’re sounding more like Christopher Rufo every week.

Look, I’m a gay man who’s even older than you, and I don’t feel much affinity for the way people younger than us are experiencing and expressing sexuality, but that’s just the way culture works. I didn’t feel much affinity for gay culture as it existed before the invention of bears, but culture evolves — just more quickly now than it used to. Even the bear subculture is quite different now than it was in the ‘90s, but it’s not my place to tell younger people how to live their lives or how they should see the world.

I guess you think the people who fly the Progress Flag are trying to impose their worldview on you, but that’s no reason to think you can or should impose your worldview on them. And saying “It’s a left-authoritarian flex, and I despise it, and anyone who flies it” makes you look ridiculous. As with your broader obsession with wokeness, you’re ascribing more power to it than it actually has.

I’m not convinced that the younger generation experiences being gay in a radically different way than humans have experienced being gay for millennia. The difference today is that they are taught from the earliest age to view themselves in the context of critical queer and gender theory, and many know no way to even think about same-sex attraction outside these crude and dishonest constructs.

The flag is designed to institutionalize this shift, to abandon the idea of same-sex attraction and to replace it with various responses to patriarchal, heterosexist, white supremacist oppression. There’s nothing ridiculous in objecting to it for these reasons. What’s pathetic is sitting there and accepting it. Gay men and lesbians are not trans, and there is no intrinsic connection between gayness and transness at all. We have no intrinsic connection to race either, unless you subscribe to critical race and queer theory. The old rainbow flag was largely apolitical, completely inclusive and not ugly. Why, one wonders, were so many activists intent on replacing it since 2020?

Another reader flags a controversy in Utah:

This is sort of a dissent, but I wanted to inform you about an uproar currently blown up on Twitter (X) about trans events in Utah. The state recently enacted a so-called trans bathroom bill that also prohibits trans female students from participating in inter scholastic sports based on their gender identity, and instead participation must be based on biological sex. The bill (HB 257) does require state entities to devise a privacy policy, and allows an individual subject to such an allegation to prove innocence by providing a copy of an unamended birth certificate or other forms of proof regarding biological sex.

Less than a week after the bill’s passage, a member of the state board of education, Natalie Cline, questioned on Facebook whether a particular student was trans. It turns out she isn’t. In the meantime, the student has been subject to intense bullying, and even the Republican governor, Spencer Cox, has denounced Cline’s behavior. Cline has since deleted the post and apologized.

However, the new law does not specify exactly how or what one does with such suspicions. Who enforces the law? How is it operationalized? Is it self-executing?  I feel that those who oppose trans females participating in female sports such as yourself and Martina Navratilova need to speak out against this abuse of kids. According to Equality Utah, this is the third time this has happened in Utah. What is the solution to gender non-conforming kids having a target on their back?

People opposed to trans female participation in sports don’t appear to have predicted these unintended consequences and are now ducking for cover. Perhaps coming up with such a solution should have preceded the law. In my opinion, there’s more interest in preventing trans females from participation in sports than prohibiting bullying.

There’s no contradiction between keeping school sports fair through sex segregation and preventing bullying of trans students. I favor both.

Lastly, a plug for a new substack:

I just wanted to say a quick thank you or inspiring me to take a recent leap. I’ve been a reader for about ten years, and during that decade of Dishness, I sometimes flirted with the idea of trying to be an independent writer, but never did anything about it — until last month! I finally launched a substack. It’s dedicated to a central passion of mine: blues music. My plan is to publish essays and original blues lyrics, and hopefully launch a podcast someday. Here’s my first post/mission statement. I probably wouldn’t have done this without your example of what writing online can be.

That makes me very happy. Check it out! And thanks as always for the dissents and other emails, and you can always send yours to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Weekly Dish, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

© 2024 Andrew Sullivan
You can email The Weekly Dish at dish@andrewsullivan.com
Unsubscribe