Latest news with #NateSilver
Fox News
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
5 ways your political point of view may be damaging your mental health
Recent studies confirm what many clinicians, myself included, have quietly observed for years: Liberals — especially young liberals — are reporting worse mental health than their conservative peers. Statistician Nate Silver's Substack recently spotlighted this disparity, and while many factors are at play, one explanation remains oddly absent from the national conversation: the psychological cost of cutting people off over politics. In my work as a clinical psychologist, I've watched this pattern unfold in real time. Some clients describe rising anxiety, loneliness and a growing sense of disconnection — but they don't initially trace it back to politics. Only after reflection do they realize: they've quietly (or, in some cases quite loudly and proudly) distanced themselves from family, ended friendships, or withdrawn from romantic prospects — not because of mistreatment, but because of political disagreement. As I was researching for my upcoming book Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly, I noticed a striking pattern — what I now call "The Five Ds": defriending, declining to date, disinviting, decreasing contact and outright dropping someone over political views. These behaviors are often framed as moral stands. But when practiced habitually, they can degrade the very relationships we rely on for emotional well-being. Research backs this up — liberals are statistically more likely than conservatives to engage in the Five Ds over political differences. The cost is real. The U.S. surgeon general has declared loneliness a public health crisis, linking it to depression, anxiety and even physical health problems. Social support is a powerful protective factor — it helps regulate emotions, buffer stress and reinforce a person's sense of meaning and connection. As social creatures, humans rely on relationships to regulate stress. When those bonds are cut over politics — especially through the habitual use of the Five Ds — liberals may be isolating themselves in ways that make them more vulnerable to loneliness, anxiety and diminished emotional regulation. Some do this in the name of safety, seeing opposing views as threatening. But this is a dangerous shift. Conflating disagreement with danger undermines mental health and shrinks our capacity for dialogue. Even The New York Times recently published an essay titled "Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?" in which former Obama speechwriter David Litt wrestles with whether to stay in contact with his conservative brother-in-law. To his credit, Litt expresses openness to reconnecting. But his tone is hesitant, not declarative. The piece reads less like someone awakening to the dangers of ideological cutoffs and more like someone reluctantly conceding a grudge. That this question — whether to maintain ties with family — was posed at all in a national newspaper shows how far the goalposts have shifted. Ostracizing loved ones over votes once seemed extreme. Now it's mainstream content. This mindset of seeing opposing views as intolerable, or even threatening, isn't just common — it's increasingly celebrated, even when it harms us. The phrase "words are violence" may feel righteous, but taken literally, it breeds anxiety and isolation. When we view differing viewpoints as threats, we push people away — not because we must, but because we've convinced ourselves we should. The result? We're lonelier and more brittle than ever. None of this is to say that all relationships must be preserved. Boundaries are important. But ideological purging — done habitually and reflexively — is something different. It's corrosive. Ironically, conservatives — often caricatured as emotionally rigid — may be faring better precisely because they are less likely to sever ties over politics. Their emotional well-being may benefit from tolerating disagreement and maintaining bonds across divides. As a psychologist, I don't believe political ideology is destiny. But relational habits shape mental health. When we cut off those closest to us, even over serious disagreement, we deprive ourselves of a key buffer against emotional distress. What's worse, we often do so under the illusion that the cutoff is virtuous. The solution is not to avoid politics. It's to resist the reflex to cut and run. That begins with a simple mindset shift: disagreement isn't danger, and tension doesn't always mean toxicity. We can learn to talk through our differences — even when it's hard. Mental health and free speech are more connected than people realize. If we want to feel less anxious, less isolated and more connected, we need to rethink the social costs of ideological purity. The Five Ds may feel righteous in the moment — but the long-term cost to our mental health may be far too high.
New York Times
17-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
‘Morally Offensive and Fiscally Reckless': 3 Writers on Trump's Big Gamble
Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with Nate Silver, the author of 'On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything' and the newsletter Silver Bulletin, and Lis Smith, a Democratic communications strategist and author of the memoir 'Any Given Tuesday: A Political Love Story,' to discuss the aftermath of the passage of President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill. Frank Bruni: Let's start with that megabill, the bigness of which made the consequences of its enactment hard to digest quickly. Now that we've had time to, er, chew it over, I'm wondering if you think Democrats are right to say — to hope — that it gives them a whole new traction in next year's midterms. I mean, the most significant Medicaid cuts kick in after that point. Could Trump and other Republicans avoid paying a price for them in 2026? Or did they get much too cute in constructing the legislation and building in that delay and create the possibility of disaster for themselves in both 2026 and 2028, when the bill's effect on Medicaid, as well as on other parts of the safety net, will have taken hold? Lis Smith: If history is any guide, Republicans will pay a price for these cuts in the midterms. In 2010, Democrats got destroyed for passing Obamacare, even though it would be years until it was fully implemented. In 2018, Republicans were punished just for trying to gut it. Voters don't like politicians messing with their health care. They have been pretty consistent in sending that message. I'd argue that Democrats have an even more potent message in 2026 — it's not just that Republicans are messing with health care, it's that they are cutting it to fund tax cuts for the richest Americans. Nate Silver: What I wonder about is Democrats' ability to sustain focus on any given issue. At the risk of overextrapolating from my home turf in New York, Zohran Mamdani just won a massive upset in the Democratic mayoral primary by focusing on affordability. And a message on the Big, Beautiful Bill could play into that. But the Democratic base is often more engaged by culture war issues, or by messages that are about Trump specifically — and Trump isn't on the ballot in 2026 — rather than Republicans broadly. The polls suggest that the Big, Beautiful Bill is extremely unpopular, but a lot of those negative views are 1) among people who are extremely politically engaged and already a core Democratic constituency, or 2) snap opinions among the disengaged that are subject to change. Democrats will need to ensure that voters are still thinking about the bill next November, and tying it to actual or potential changes that affect them directly and adversely. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is affecting his approval ratings: See recent polls
President Donald Trump's second term continues to spark emotions - most recently with the approval of his controversial "One, Big, Beautiful Bill" just ahead of America's Independence Day weekend. The massive tax and spending bill was signed into law on July 4 at a White House ceremony. The plan makes permanent the 2017 tax cuts from Trump's first term. It reduces some taxes, but raises others - including substantially cutting Medicaid and other safety net programs - and changes spending amounts. Here's a snapshot of the President's approval ratings across the U.S.: The Economist Trump approval rating, according to the latest from The Economist (July 7, 2025): Favorable: 42% Unfavorable: 54% Not sure: 5% The report shows that voters believe the top three most important issues Americans are facing are inflation/prices, jobs and the economy, followed by health care. This ranking has remained steady in the past few months. Silver Bulletin Trump approval rating according to Pollster Nate Silver's 'Silver Bulletin' newsletter (July 6, 2025): Favorable: 45% Unfavorable: 52% New York Times Trump approval rating, according to the latest New York Times poll (July 6, 2025): Favorable: 45% Unfavorable: 52% Rasmussen Trump approval rating, according to the latest Rasmussen poll (July 4, 2025): Favorable: 49% Unfavorable: 48% The latest figures include 36% of U.S. voters who "strongly approve" of the job Trump is doing as president as well as 41% of voters who "strongly disapprove," according to the report. Navigator Research Trump approval rating, specifically regarding the public's perception of President Trump, according to the latest Navigator Research poll (July 3, 2025): Favorable: 47% Unfavorable: 52% The economy continues to lead as the top overall issue, with 41% identifying either 'inflation and the cost of living' or 'jobs and the economy' as a priority, according to the report. Also noted, 61% of Americans polled said the economy is doing 'not so good' or 'poor," and 45% of those polled "believe the economy will be worse a year from now." Real Clear Politics Trump approval rating, according to the latest Real Clear Politics poll (July 2, 2025): Favorable: 47% Unfavorable: 50% Quantus Insights Trump approval rating, according to the latest from Quantus Insights poll (July 2, 2025): Favorable: 47% Unfavorable: 49% Not sure: 4% The report also asked how people felt about American pride, with 77% responding they are proud to be American and 23% said not proud. Those polled were also asked what American values they hold most dear; the top three responses were freedom of speech, equality under the law and democracy/voting rights. Morning Consult Trump approval rating, according to the latest Morning Consult poll (June 30, 2025): Favorable: 47% Unfavorable: 50% Quinnipiac University Trump approval rating, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll (June 26, 2025): Favorable: 41% Unfavorable: 54% Reuters/Ipsos Trump approval rating, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll (June 21-23, 2025): Favorable: 41% Unfavorable: 57% Gallup Trump approval rating, according to the latest Gallup poll (June 1-19, 2025): Favorable: 40% Unfavorable: 57% No opinion: 3% Cygnal Trump approval rating, which has "barely budged since May," according to the latest Cygnal poll (June 10, 2025): Favorable: 46% Unfavorable: 51% Note: Polls are constantly changing and different pollsters ask different varieties of the population. These numbers were reflected as of Monday, July 7, 2025, at 6:30 a.m. A president's approval rating reflects the percentage of Americans polled who approve of the president's performance. Anything can impact a president's rating, such as legislation passed, actions and elections. According to ABC News, an approval rating doesn't just represent how well the administration is faring for the general public but could factor into the outcome of an upcoming election or how much they accomplish while in office. Presidential approval ratings were first conducted by the founder of the American Institute of Public Opinion, George Gallup, around 1935 to gauge public support for the president of the United States during their term. While Gallup has tracked presidential approval for 70 years, other organizations also conduct and release their own polls. Among them, Ipsos and Morning Consult. A historical analysis by Gallup shows Trump's approval ratings in June of his first years in office − both as the 45th and 47th presidents − are lower than any other modern president at the same time in their administrations. The average is 52%, according to the report. In the poll - conducted from June 2-19 - 40% approved of Trump's job performance. Here is how that compares to other presidents in June of their first year of their term, according to Gallup: Joe Biden (June 2021) - 56% approve Donald Trump (June 2017) - 38% approve Barack Obama (June 2009) - 61% approve George W. Bush (June 2001) - 54% approve Bill Clinton (June 1993) - 41% approve George H.W. Bush (June 1989) - 70% approve Ronald Reagan (June 1981) - 59% approve Jimmy Carter (June 1977) - 63% approve Richard Nixon (June 1969) - 63% approve John F. Kennedy (June 1961) - 73% approve Contributing USA Today network This article originally appeared on Rockland/Westchester Journal News: Donald Trump approval ratings after controversial bill: See polls
Forbes
09-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
The President Wears No Suit: Polymarket's $160 Million Problem
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrives for a social dinner at the 'Huis ten Bosch' Royal ... More Palace during a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Heads of State and Government summit in The Hague, on June 24, 2025. NATO leaders hold a two-day summit on June 24 and 25 in The Hague. (Photo by JOHN THYS / AFP) (Photo by JOHN THYS/AFP via Getty Images) AFP via Getty Images Prediction markets have evolved over the past five years from academic thought experiments into a mainstream financial phenomenon. The sector has gained serious credibility, despite the outlandish bets people make on crypto platforms like the predictions market leader Polymarket, which boasts prominent analyst Nate Silver as an adviser. Users can wager on everything from presidential elections to papal successions. And yes, even whether Jesus Christ will return in 2025. Polymarket operates on Polygon, an Ethereum Layer 2 solution, using a hybrid-decentralized system and reportedly generated $2 billion in monthly volume during the 2024 U.S. election, maintaining over $1 billion monthly even post-election. Competitor Kalshi counts Donald Trump Jr, son of the U.S. president, as a strategic adviser. Kalshi board member Brian Quintenz is President Donald Trump's nominee to chair the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Prediction markets have gone mainstream. Beyond entertainment value, these platforms create liquid markets that often outperform expert predictions. Prediction sites allow users to stake money on anything from economic data to the weather. Because their products are structured as peer-to-peer trades, providers are regulated not as betting groups but as derivatives platforms, allowing them to bypass sports gambling bans in 11 states. However, an unlikely controversy involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's wardrobe choices has exposed potential vulnerabilities in the oracle systems that resolve these markets. THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS - JUNE 24: President Volodymyr Zelensky of Urkaine arrives at Huis ten Bosch ... More Palace for a dinner hosted by the King and Queen of The Netherlands during the NATO Summit 2025 on June 24, 2025 in The Hague, Netherlands. (Photo by Patrick) Getty Images A Polymarket betting question asked whether Zelenskyy would wear a suit before July 2025. When the Ukrainian president appeared at a June NATO summit in what appeared to be formal attire, chaos ensued. "Yes" holders argued the garment clearly constituted a suit, citing endorsements from prominent menswear expert Derek Guy and even the designer who created the outfit. Initially, one of Polymarket's associated Twitter accounts agreed, posting that Zelenskyy had indeed worn a suit. By July 7, the bets related to this controversy attracted $160 million worth of cryptocurrency. But "No" holders disagreed, and the dispute moved to Univeral Market Access's Optimistic Oracle, which acts as a generalized escalation game between contracts that initiate a price request and UMA's dispute resolution system known as the Data Verification Mechanism . This system allows UMA token holders to stake tokens and vote on disputed outcomes. Despite seemingly clear evidence, including confirmation from fashion experts and the garment's designer, the UMA oracle system appears poised to rule that Zelenskyy did not wear a suit, sparking outrage among "Yes" holders who stand to lose their wagers. Is Polymarket's Oracle Unsuitable? THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS - JUNE 24: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrives as NATO leaders and ... More spouses arrive for a dinner hosted by the King and Queen of the Netherlands during the 2025 NATO Summit on June 24, 2025 at Huis ten Bosch Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. This year's NATO summit, which brings together heads of state and government from across the military alliance, is being held in the Netherlands for the first time. Among other matters, members are to approve a new defense investment plan that raises the target for defense spending to 5% of GDP. (Photo by) Getty Images The controversy highlights a fundamental vulnerability in decentralized prediction markets. UMA's oracle system is constructed with economic guarantees around the cost of corrupting the DVM to ensure it will cost more to corrupt the oracle (i.e., obtain 51% or more UMA tokens) than the amount someone could profit from corrupting the oracle. However, UMA's relatively small market capitalization compared to Polymarket's trading volumes may create opportunities for economic attacks. Large UMA token holders, or "whales," could potentially manipulate dispute outcomes when the financial incentives align. The situation has sparked intense debate across social media, with some alleging coordinated efforts to influence the outcome, even rumors accusing competitors like Kalshi of foul play. Kalshi released a statement denying its representatives were in any way involved with trading on Polymarket, suggesting comments to the contrary are a prank unaffiliated with the company. Are The Suits Coming For Prediction Markets? The timing couldn't be worse for Polymarket, which already faces scrutiny from multiple fronts. Seven states have sent cease and desist letters to Kalshi, which state regulators say did not comply with their laws. Kalshi has responded with lawsuits against the gaming regulators of Nevada, New Jersey and Maryland. While this refers to Kalshi, similar regulatory pressures affect the entire prediction market sector, including platforms like Polymarket. Meanwhile, traditional gambling operators are taking notice. DraftKings and Flutter, which account for more than 80% of the U.S. sports betting market according to Barclays, are now ramping up their efforts to sway crypto-savvy gamblers, finally viewing prediction markets as a genuine competitive threat. The sudden arrival of a new type of competitor may disrupt an industry that has grown rapidly since the Supreme Court overturned a near-nationwide ban on sports gambling in 2018. ESPN reported that traditional sports betting generated $13.7 billion in U.S. revenues last year. When Smart Contracts Do Not Suit The Occasion The Zelenskyy suit controversy illustrates broader challenges facing decentralized prediction markets. UMA has successfully verified over 26,000 data assertions onchain, most of which come from prediction market platforms like Polymarket. Less than 2% of data assertions sent to UMA are disputed, according to blockchain data, yet high-stakes disputes can expose systemic vulnerabilities. The question goes beyond whether Zelenskyy wore a suit. Can current oracle systems handle subjective determinations fairly and consistently as prediction markets scale? When millions of dollars ride on seemingly simple questions, even minor disputes can have outsized consequences. For Polymarket and its competitors, the resolution of this particular market may be less important than the broader lesson: as prediction markets mature, their dispute resolution mechanisms must evolve beyond purely crypto-native solutions toward more robust systems that can handle both objective and subjective determinations at scale. The Ukrainian president may or may not have worn a suit. Either way, prediction market users and operators are learning that profits come with growing pains, and not all of them can be solved with smart contracts alone.
Forbes
07-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
The President Wears No Suit: Polymarket's $3.7M Problem
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrives for a social dinner at the 'Huis ten Bosch' Royal ... More Palace during a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Heads of State and Government summit in The Hague, on June 24, 2025. NATO leaders hold a two-day summit on June 24 and 25 in The Hague. (Photo by JOHN THYS / AFP) (Photo by JOHN THYS/AFP via Getty Images) Prediction markets have evolved from academic thought experiments into a mainstream financial phenomenon. Users can wager on everything from presidential elections to papal successions. And yes, even whether Jesus Christ will return in 2025. The sector has gained serious credibility. Market leader Polymarket boasts prominent analyst Nate Silver as an adviser. Polymarket operates on Polygon, an Ethereum Layer 2 solution, using a hybrid-decentralized system and generated $2 billion in monthly volume during the 2024 US election, maintaining over $1 billion monthly even post-election. Competitor Kalshi counts Donald Trump Jr, son of the US president, as a strategic adviser. Board member Brian Quintenz is President Donald Trump's nominee to chair the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Beyond entertainment value, these platforms create liquid markets that often outperform expert predictions. Prediction sites allow users to stake money on anything from economic data to the weather. Because their products are structured as peer-to-peer trades, providers are regulated not as betting groups but derivatives platforms, allowing them to bypass sports gambling bans in 11 states. However, an unlikely controversy involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's wardrobe choices has exposed potential vulnerabilities in the oracle systems that resolve these markets. The Suit Heard 'Round The World THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS - JUNE 24: President Volodymyr Zelensky of Urkaine arrives at Huis ten Bosch ... More Palace for a dinner hosted by the King and Queen of The Netherlands during the NATO Summit 2025 on June 24, 2025 in The Hague, Netherlands. (Photo by Patrick) A Polymarket question asked whether Zelenskyy would wear a suit before July 2024. When the Ukrainian president appeared at a June NATO summit in what appeared to be formal attire, chaos ensued. "Yes" holders argued the garment clearly constituted a suit, citing endorsements from prominent menswear expert Derek Guy and even the designer who created the outfit. Initially, one of Polymarket's associated Twitter accounts agreed, posting that Zelenskyy had indeed worn a suit. But "No" holders disagreed, and the dispute moved to UMA's Optimistic Oracle, which acts as a generalized escalation game between contracts that initiate a price request and UMA's dispute resolution system known as the Data Verification Mechanism (DVM). This system allows UMA token holders to stake tokens and vote on disputed outcomes. Despite seemingly clear evidence, including confirmation from fashion experts and the garment's designer, the UMA oracle system appears poised to rule that Zelenskyy did not wear a suit, sparking outrage among "Yes" holders who stand to lose their wagers. Is Polymarket's Oracle Unsuitable? THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS - JUNE 24: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrives as NATO leaders and ... More spouses arrive for a dinner hosted by the King and Queen of the Netherlands during the 2025 NATO Summit on June 24, 2025 at Huis ten Bosch Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. This year's NATO summit, which brings together heads of state and government from across the military alliance, is being held in the Netherlands for the first time. Among other matters, members are to approve a new defense investment plan that raises the target for defense spending to 5% of GDP. (Photo by) The controversy highlights a fundamental vulnerability in decentralized prediction markets. UMA's oracle system is constructed with economic guarantees around the cost of corrupting the DVM to ensure it will cost more to corrupt the oracle (i.e., obtain 51% or more UMA tokens) than the amount someone could profit from corrupting the oracle. However, critics argue that UMA's relatively small market capitalization compared to Polymarket's trading volumes creates opportunities for economic attacks. Large UMA token holders, or "whales," could potentially manipulate dispute outcomes when the financial incentives align favorably. The situation has sparked intense debate across social media, with some alleging coordinated efforts to influence the outcome. Rumors have circulated that competitors like Kalshi might be purchasing "Yes" tokens specifically to challenge Polymarket in court, though this remains unverified. Are The Suits Coming For Prediction Markets? The timing couldn't be worse for Polymarket, which already faces scrutiny from multiple fronts. Seven states have sent cease and desist letters to Kalshi, which they say did not comply with their laws. The company has responded with lawsuits against the gaming regulators of Nevada, New Jersey and Maryland. While this refers to Kalshi, similar regulatory pressures affect the entire prediction market sector. The sudden arrival of a new type of competitor threatens to disrupt an industry that has grown rapidly since the Supreme Court overturned a near-nationwide ban on sports gambling in 2018. Traditional sports betting generated $14bn in US revenues last year. Traditional gambling operators are taking notice. DraftKings and Flutter, which account for more than 80 per cent of the US sports betting market according to Barclays, are now considering how to fight back, viewing prediction markets as a genuine competitive threat. When Smart Contracts Do Not Suit The Occasion The Zelenskyy suit controversy illustrates broader challenges facing decentralized prediction markets. UMA has successfully verified over 26,000 data assertions onchain, most of which come from prediction market platforms including Polymarket. Less than two percent of data assertions sent to UMA are disputed, high-stakes disputes can expose systemic vulnerabilities. The question goes beyond whether Zelenskyy wore a suit. Can current oracle systems can handle subjective determinations fairly and consistently as prediction markets scale? When millions of dollars ride on seemingly simple questions, even minor disputes can have outsized consequences. For Polymarket and its competitors, the resolution of this particular market may be less important than the broader lesson: as prediction markets mature, their dispute resolution mechanisms must evolve beyond purely crypto-native solutions toward more robust systems that can handle both objective and subjective determinations at scale. The president may or may not have worn a suit, but one thing is certain: prediction markets are learning that growth comes with growing pains, and not all of them can be solved with smart contracts alone.
