Show Notes
During the decade that Donald Trump has dominated American politics, no major part of the electorate has changed as dramatically as Latino voters. According to Pew’s validated voter data, Democrats’ advantage among Latinos fell from 38 percentage points in 2016 to just 3 points in 2024. Other sources show smaller swings, but the conclusion is the same: The rightward movement among Latino voters was larger than the shift within any other major group defined by age, race, gender or education. That transformation overturned much of the conventional wisdom formed during the Obama years. Latinos could no longer be treated as a reliably Democratic constituency, nor could immigration be assumed to determine their votes. On this episode, I spoke with Carlos Odio, co-founder of Equis Research and author of the new Substack The New Dynamic, about what changed and what both parties still misunderstand. Carlos argues that the shift was not simply a reaction to one campaign, candidate or message. Trump benefited from broader class and cultural divides reshaping electorates across Western democracies. Latino voters were subject to many of the same forces pulling other working-class voters to the right, but their long-standing Democratic allegiance delayed the movement. Immigration matters, but it’s not the most important issue. Carlos also distinguishes between attitudes toward immigrants already established in the country and attitudes toward people seeking to enter. Latino voters can support a pathway to citizenship for longtime residents while also favoring stricter control of the border. In 2024, the latter concern dominated. Democrats have since regained some ground, but Carlos cautions against overinterpreting low-turnout elections. Republicans probably now have a higher floor among Latinos than they did before Trump. At the same time, many Latino voters remain genuinely persuadable and traditional campaign models often fail to identify them. Neither party has a lock on Latino voters anymore. What happens next will depend, in part, on what each chooses to do about it.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe
More from GD POLITICS
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com
Heads up: our 2026 election season discount is currently live! It’s 20% off paid subscriptions for first-time subscribers at gdpolitics.com. Join us for the final stretch of the midterms, election night and the aftermath — then it’s on to 2028! You’ll get Thursday episodes, virtual happy hours, merch discounts and access to our subscriber chat to ask questions and suggest topics. Join us! Since President Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, there’s been an extra question hanging over American elections. Not just who will win, but whether the will of the voters will be respected. With roughly two weeks until Election Day, I wanted to sort through the concerns surrounding the midterms and distinguish the plausible threats from the more farfetched scenarios. So today, Votebeat managing editor and friend of the pod Nathaniel Rakich joins me to walk through what could go wrong before, during and after the election. First, a brief soapbox moment: Republican and Democratic GDers are equally welcome here. Disagreeing about how the country should be governed is why we have elections. But respecting the results once we’ve settled on the rules is a prerequisite for that disagreement to mean anything. And so this is an area of coverage where we don’t really mess around. That said, Nathaniel’s assessment is somewhat reassuring. In Votebeat’s informal survey of 31 election experts, respondents generally expected challenges to the election, but did not expect those challenges to overturn the results. That still leaves plenty of room for damage. We discuss bureaucratic errors, the strain on local election offices, the difference between routine poll monitoring and intimidation, and the possibility of federal interference in counting ballots. The biggest variable in Nathaniel’s outlook is also a familiar one: the margin. A decisive result leaves much less room for mischief. A razor-thin race that determines control of the Senate, with ballots still being counted days later, is a more concerning prospect. So how much anxiety is warranted, and where should we direct our attention? That’s the conversation today.
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com
If you thought there was a 20 percent chance that artificial intelligence could wipe out humanity, what would you do about it? That’s my guest’s estimate of the risk if we continue on our current trajectory with AI. And he’s trying to write the laws that could change it. Alex Bores is a Democratic New York State assemblyman and the sponsor of the RAISE Act, which requires major AI developers to publish safety plans and report certain critical incidents. He’s also the co-founder of Who Decides, an organization working to shape Democrats’ AI agenda ahead of 2028. On today’s podcast, we discuss what taking these risks seriously actually means. Should the government have to approve AI models before they’re released to the public? Should we pause the development of more powerful AI altogether? And what happens if slowing down rattles the economy or gives China a leg up? I also press him on why New York Governor Kathy Hochul moved to water down his AI legislation, and what that experience tells us about the obstacles to regulating AI more broadly. And we get into partisan politics. If Democratic and Republican voters share many concerns about AI, could making it a partisan issue be counterproductive? And either way, how might AI reshape the politics of 2028?
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com