<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0">
  <channel>
    <atom:link href="https://feeds.simplecast.com/rbyWPhvm" rel="self" title="MP3 Audio" type="application/atom+xml"/>
    <atom:link href="https://simplecast.superfeedr.com" rel="hub" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"/>
    <generator>https://simplecast.com</generator>
    <title>Not Another Politics Podcast</title>
    <description>With all the noise created by a 24/7 news cycle, it can be hard to really grasp what&apos;s going on in politics today. We provide a fresh perspective on the biggest political stories not through opinion and anecdotes, but rigorous scholarship, massive data sets and a deep knowledge of theory. Understand the political science beyond the headlines with Harris School of Public Policy Professors William Howell, Anthony Fowler and Wioletta Dziuda. Our show is part of the University of Chicago Podcast Network.</description>
    <copyright>2020 Harris School of Public Policy</copyright>
    <language>en</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 12:00:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    
    <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
    <itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type>
    <itunes:summary>With all the noise created by a 24/7 news cycle, it can be hard to really grasp what&apos;s going on in politics today. We provide a fresh perspective on the biggest political stories not through opinion and anecdotes, but rigorous scholarship, massive data sets and a deep knowledge of theory. Understand the political science beyond the headlines with Harris School of Public Policy Professors William Howell, Anthony Fowler and Wioletta Dziuda. Our show is part of the University of Chicago Podcast Network.</itunes:summary>
    <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
    <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/2e7c76ad-7ecc-479b-8749-f0cb2f4f2dc5/84cf9d31-9398-46f0-9724-26a8fa87d626/3000x3000/napp-artwork.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
    <itunes:new-feed-url>https://feeds.simplecast.com/rbyWPhvm</itunes:new-feed-url>
    <itunes:keywords>Chicago, Government, academic, americanpolitics, anthonyfowler, harrisschoolofpublicpolicy, notanotherpoliticspodcast, political, politicalpodcast, politicalprofessors, politicalscience, politics, politicspodcast, professors, ucpn, universityofchicago, universityofchicagopodcastnetwork, uspolitics, willhowell, wioletadziuda</itunes:keywords>
    <itunes:owner>
      <itunes:name>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:name>
      <itunes:email>hodappm@uchicago.edu</itunes:email>
    </itunes:owner>
    <itunes:category text="Government"/>
    <itunes:category text="Education">
      <itunes:category text="Courses"/>
    </itunes:category>
    <itunes:category text="News">
      <itunes:category text="Politics"/>
    </itunes:category>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">e4a302ab-64bc-43af-9da6-d504badcd370</guid>
      <title>Why Does America Pay More For Infrastructure?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>We're off this week for a much-needed spring break, but we wanted to re-share this episode that feels more relevant than ever. Infrastructure in the U.S. now costs dramatically more than in countries like Germany or Croatia—without clear signs of higher quality or better environmental outcomes. Why has infrastructure spending spiraled out of control? Could democracy itself—through litigation, regulations, and empowered citizen voices—be driving costs sky-high?</p>
<p>George Washington University Professor of Public Policy Leah Brooks investigates why the U.S. pays so much more per mile of highway compared to other nations in her paper “Infrastructure Costs”. Brooks reveals shocking findings: from the late 1960s onward, the cost to build highways in America surged dramatically, not because of higher wages or materials, but because of legal battles, environmental reviews, and citizen demands.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We're off this week for a much-needed spring break, but we wanted to re-share this episode that feels more relevant than ever. Infrastructure in the U.S. now costs dramatically more than in countries like Germany or Croatia—without clear signs of higher quality or better environmental outcomes. Why has infrastructure spending spiraled out of control? Could democracy itself—through litigation, regulations, and empowered citizen voices—be driving costs sky-high?</p>
<p>George Washington University Professor of Public Policy Leah Brooks investigates why the U.S. pays so much more per mile of highway compared to other nations in her paper “Infrastructure Costs”. Brooks reveals shocking findings: from the late 1960s onward, the cost to build highways in America surged dramatically, not because of higher wages or materials, but because of legal battles, environmental reviews, and citizen demands.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="48715989" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/11122bbe-fe6f-455e-a692-9d2100c19ce1/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=11122bbe-fe6f-455e-a692-9d2100c19ce1&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Why Does America Pay More For Infrastructure?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:50:42</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We&apos;re off this week for a much-needed spring break, but we wanted to re-share this episode that feels more relevant than ever. Infrastructure in the U.S. now costs dramatically more than in countries like Germany or Croatia—without clear signs of higher quality or better environmental outcomes. Why has infrastructure spending spiraled out of control? Could democracy itself—through litigation, regulations, and empowered citizen voices—be driving costs sky-high?

George Washington University Professor of Public Policy Leah Brooks investigates why the U.S. pays so much more per mile of highway compared to other nations in her paper “Infrastructure Costs”. Brooks reveals shocking findings: from the late 1960s onward, the cost to build highways in America surged dramatically, not because of higher wages or materials, but because of legal battles, environmental reviews, and citizen demands.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We&apos;re off this week for a much-needed spring break, but we wanted to re-share this episode that feels more relevant than ever. Infrastructure in the U.S. now costs dramatically more than in countries like Germany or Croatia—without clear signs of higher quality or better environmental outcomes. Why has infrastructure spending spiraled out of control? Could democracy itself—through litigation, regulations, and empowered citizen voices—be driving costs sky-high?

George Washington University Professor of Public Policy Leah Brooks investigates why the U.S. pays so much more per mile of highway compared to other nations in her paper “Infrastructure Costs”. Brooks reveals shocking findings: from the late 1960s onward, the cost to build highways in America surged dramatically, not because of higher wages or materials, but because of legal battles, environmental reviews, and citizen demands.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>157</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">c0ff577b-d505-4594-994a-36cba15ed6b0</guid>
      <title>What Binary Questions Get Wrong About Voters</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Are Americans really polarized along party lines? Today, we discuss a new paper from our co-host Anthony Fowler, about one of the most common tools researchers use to measure public opinion: simple yes-or-no survey questions.</p>
<p>Most political surveys ask people to choose between two options—support or oppose, yes or no. But Fowler’s research shows that these binary questions can hide important nuance in how people actually think about policy. When researchers analyze these responses, it can make voters appear more polarized—or more ideologically inconsistent—than they really are.</p>
<p> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2026 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are Americans really polarized along party lines? Today, we discuss a new paper from our co-host Anthony Fowler, about one of the most common tools researchers use to measure public opinion: simple yes-or-no survey questions.</p>
<p>Most political surveys ask people to choose between two options—support or oppose, yes or no. But Fowler’s research shows that these binary questions can hide important nuance in how people actually think about policy. When researchers analyze these responses, it can make voters appear more polarized—or more ideologically inconsistent—than they really are.</p>
<p> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="37285595" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/91e369fb-12c7-4cf7-b80f-a0ef6c9cb694/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=91e369fb-12c7-4cf7-b80f-a0ef6c9cb694&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>What Binary Questions Get Wrong About Voters</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:38:43</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Are Americans really polarized along party lines? Today, we discuss a new paper from our co-host Anthony Fowler, about one of the most common tools researchers use to measure public opinion: simple yes-or-no survey questions.

Most political surveys ask people to choose between two options—support or oppose, yes or no. But Fowler’s research shows that these binary questions can hide important nuance in how people actually think about policy. When researchers analyze these responses, it can make voters appear more polarized—or more ideologically inconsistent—than they really are.
</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Are Americans really polarized along party lines? Today, we discuss a new paper from our co-host Anthony Fowler, about one of the most common tools researchers use to measure public opinion: simple yes-or-no survey questions.

Most political surveys ask people to choose between two options—support or oppose, yes or no. But Fowler’s research shows that these binary questions can hide important nuance in how people actually think about policy. When researchers analyze these responses, it can make voters appear more polarized—or more ideologically inconsistent—than they really are.
</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>156</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">53e93935-63c6-4246-bad6-c4d14d881ce3</guid>
      <title>Do Dishonest People Self-Select Into Public Service?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Is academic dishonesty connected to political power in China? That question is explored in a new paper from Shaoda Wang, Assistant Professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Wang and his co-authors explore how plagiarism detection in graduate dissertations is connected to patterns of cheating in career paths and institutional behavior. What lessons might this hold for politics, meritocracy, and institutional performance elsewhere?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is academic dishonesty connected to political power in China? That question is explored in a new paper from Shaoda Wang, Assistant Professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Wang and his co-authors explore how plagiarism detection in graduate dissertations is connected to patterns of cheating in career paths and institutional behavior. What lessons might this hold for politics, meritocracy, and institutional performance elsewhere?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="50976285" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/d0761855-c7f7-4619-9afb-90179d0f3610/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=d0761855-c7f7-4619-9afb-90179d0f3610&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Dishonest People Self-Select Into Public Service?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:52:58</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Is academic dishonesty connected to political power in China? That question is explored in a new paper from Shaoda Wang, Assistant Professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Wang and his co-authors explore how plagiarism detection in graduate dissertations is connected to patterns of cheating in career paths and institutional behavior. What lessons might this hold for politics, meritocracy, and institutional performance elsewhere?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Is academic dishonesty connected to political power in China? That question is explored in a new paper from Shaoda Wang, Assistant Professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Wang and his co-authors explore how plagiarism detection in graduate dissertations is connected to patterns of cheating in career paths and institutional behavior. What lessons might this hold for politics, meritocracy, and institutional performance elsewhere?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>shaoda wang, dishonesty, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>155</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">79f29e7c-2c0b-4770-84c2-dadf6079733b</guid>
      <title>The Future of Empirical Research in the Age of AI</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>In this episode, we sit down with Stanford political scientist Andy Hall and PhD candidate Graham Straus to unpack their new paper, “How Accurately Did Claude Code Replicate and Extend a Published Political Science Paper?” — an empirical audit of what happens when an AI agent is asked to replicate and extend a real research project.</p><p>Last January, Andy asked Claude Code to generate an extension of an existing empirical political science paper in under an hour. The results were surprising: Claude correctly replicated the original estimates exactly and collected new data with very high accuracy. But did Claude make mistakes? Straus independently audited Claude’s work to see how accurate, reliable, and scientifically sound it really was.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 6 Feb 2026 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In this episode, we sit down with Stanford political scientist Andy Hall and PhD candidate Graham Straus to unpack their new paper, “How Accurately Did Claude Code Replicate and Extend a Published Political Science Paper?” — an empirical audit of what happens when an AI agent is asked to replicate and extend a real research project.</p><p>Last January, Andy asked Claude Code to generate an extension of an existing empirical political science paper in under an hour. The results were surprising: Claude correctly replicated the original estimates exactly and collected new data with very high accuracy. But did Claude make mistakes? Straus independently audited Claude’s work to see how accurate, reliable, and scientifically sound it really was.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45782327" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/4636c960-d121-4ac3-b358-b5d75d5ce913/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=4636c960-d121-4ac3-b358-b5d75d5ce913&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The Future of Empirical Research in the Age of AI</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:27</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, we sit down with Stanford political scientist Andy Hall and PhD candidate Graham Straus to unpack their new paper, “How Accurately Did Claude Code Replicate and Extend a Published Political Science Paper?” — an empirical audit of what happens when an AI agent is asked to replicate and extend a real research project.

Last January, Andy asked Claude Code to generate an extension of an existing empirical political science paper in under an hour. The results were surprising: Claude correctly replicated the original estimates exactly and collected new data with very high accuracy. But did Claude make mistakes? Straus independently audited Claude’s work to see how accurate, reliable, and scientifically sound it really was.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, we sit down with Stanford political scientist Andy Hall and PhD candidate Graham Straus to unpack their new paper, “How Accurately Did Claude Code Replicate and Extend a Published Political Science Paper?” — an empirical audit of what happens when an AI agent is asked to replicate and extend a real research project.

Last January, Andy asked Claude Code to generate an extension of an existing empirical political science paper in under an hour. The results were surprising: Claude correctly replicated the original estimates exactly and collected new data with very high accuracy. But did Claude make mistakes? Straus independently audited Claude’s work to see how accurate, reliable, and scientifically sound it really was.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>154</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">3b3a4965-bed4-4025-be15-dff0df7a5f1b</guid>
      <title>Are Primary Elections Responsible for Polarization in Congress?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Do members of Congress vote differently when they are worried about winning their party’s primary election? On today's episode, Ethan and Wioletta interview Anthony about his forthcoming paper, “<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fXTfSdJM8__E3lwdSPxcNtaiQ0hNakPf/view" target="_blank">Do Primary Elections Exacerbate Congressional Polarization?</a>,” which is forthcoming from the <i>Journal of Politics. </i></p><p>Using detailed voting data and the natural variation in primary election timing across states, Anthony and his co-author, Shu Fu, show that primaries play a surprisingly small role in pushing lawmakers to the ideological extremes—accounting for only about 1% of congressional polarization.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do members of Congress vote differently when they are worried about winning their party’s primary election? On today's episode, Ethan and Wioletta interview Anthony about his forthcoming paper, “<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fXTfSdJM8__E3lwdSPxcNtaiQ0hNakPf/view" target="_blank">Do Primary Elections Exacerbate Congressional Polarization?</a>,” which is forthcoming from the <i>Journal of Politics. </i></p><p>Using detailed voting data and the natural variation in primary election timing across states, Anthony and his co-author, Shu Fu, show that primaries play a surprisingly small role in pushing lawmakers to the ideological extremes—accounting for only about 1% of congressional polarization.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="36234659" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/75a19d9a-2018-482a-b601-71e2ca63e888/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=75a19d9a-2018-482a-b601-71e2ca63e888&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Are Primary Elections Responsible for Polarization in Congress?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:37:34</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Do members of Congress vote differently when they are worried about winning their party’s primary election? On today&apos;s episode, Ethan and Wioletta interview Anthony about his forthcoming paper, “Do Primary Elections Exacerbate Congressional Polarization?,” which is forthcoming from the Journal of Politics. 

Using detailed voting data and the natural variation in primary election timing across states, Anthony and his co-author, Shu Fu, show that primaries play a surprisingly small role in pushing lawmakers to the ideological extremes—accounting for only about 1% of congressional polarization.
</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Do members of Congress vote differently when they are worried about winning their party’s primary election? On today&apos;s episode, Ethan and Wioletta interview Anthony about his forthcoming paper, “Do Primary Elections Exacerbate Congressional Polarization?,” which is forthcoming from the Journal of Politics. 

Using detailed voting data and the natural variation in primary election timing across states, Anthony and his co-author, Shu Fu, show that primaries play a surprisingly small role in pushing lawmakers to the ideological extremes—accounting for only about 1% of congressional polarization.
</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>primary elections, congressional polarization, anthony fowler, polarization, congress</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>153</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">f39c3a5b-97f4-4e9f-9512-050004a4b379</guid>
      <title>What Do Politicians Think Motivates Voters?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Do politicians really understand what drives voters—or are they relying on flawed assumptions that could shape democracy in troubling ways?</p><p>As we take some time off for the holidays, we wanted to re-share our episode with University of Calgary political scientist Jack Lucas, whose paper “Politicians’ Theories of Voting Behavior,” reveals striking gaps between how politicians perceive voters and how voters see themselves. While politicians often hold a cynical, “democratic realist” view of voters, citizens are far more optimistic about their own behavior. But who’s right—and does it even matter?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 1 Jan 2026 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do politicians really understand what drives voters—or are they relying on flawed assumptions that could shape democracy in troubling ways?</p><p>As we take some time off for the holidays, we wanted to re-share our episode with University of Calgary political scientist Jack Lucas, whose paper “Politicians’ Theories of Voting Behavior,” reveals striking gaps between how politicians perceive voters and how voters see themselves. While politicians often hold a cynical, “democratic realist” view of voters, citizens are far more optimistic about their own behavior. But who’s right—and does it even matter?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="53170620" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/10c57097-2e72-4015-9fb6-b7caa671fed8/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=10c57097-2e72-4015-9fb6-b7caa671fed8&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>What Do Politicians Think Motivates Voters?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:55:20</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Do politicians really understand what drives voters—or are they relying on flawed assumptions that could shape democracy in troubling ways?

As we take some time off for the holidays, we wanted to re-share our episode with University of Calgary political scientist Jack Lucas, whose paper “Politicians’ Theories of Voting Behavior,” reveals striking gaps between how politicians perceive voters and how voters see themselves. While politicians often hold a cynical, “democratic realist” view of voters, citizens are far more optimistic about their own behavior. But who’s right—and does it even matter?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Do politicians really understand what drives voters—or are they relying on flawed assumptions that could shape democracy in troubling ways?

As we take some time off for the holidays, we wanted to re-share our episode with University of Calgary political scientist Jack Lucas, whose paper “Politicians’ Theories of Voting Behavior,” reveals striking gaps between how politicians perceive voters and how voters see themselves. While politicians often hold a cynical, “democratic realist” view of voters, citizens are far more optimistic about their own behavior. But who’s right—and does it even matter?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>152</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">23ac1207-6b2c-487d-96c3-5fbba4ae5d9d</guid>
      <title>Do Professors Self-Censor On Controversial Topics?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>In this episode, we speak with Cory Clark, behavioral scientist and Associate Professor of Psychology at New College of Florida. We discuss her paper, <i>“Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors," </i>which explores how controversial topics in science are perceived, debated, and sometimes suppressed, and the psychological dynamics of taboo beliefs and self-censorship in academia.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In this episode, we speak with Cory Clark, behavioral scientist and Associate Professor of Psychology at New College of Florida. We discuss her paper, <i>“Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors," </i>which explores how controversial topics in science are perceived, debated, and sometimes suppressed, and the psychological dynamics of taboo beliefs and self-censorship in academia.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="56859679" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/ad991073-9e2f-4cd2-a7f9-44862153f6ab/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=ad991073-9e2f-4cd2-a7f9-44862153f6ab&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Professors Self-Censor On Controversial Topics?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:58:59</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, we speak with Cory Clark, behavioral scientist and Associate Professor of Psychology at New College of Florida. We discuss her paper, “Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors,&quot; which explores how controversial topics in science are perceived, debated, and sometimes suppressed, and the psychological dynamics of taboo beliefs and self-censorship in academia.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, we speak with Cory Clark, behavioral scientist and Associate Professor of Psychology at New College of Florida. We discuss her paper, “Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors,&quot; which explores how controversial topics in science are perceived, debated, and sometimes suppressed, and the psychological dynamics of taboo beliefs and self-censorship in academia.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>professors, taboos, academia, cory clark, taboo, self censorship</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>151</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">0202c526-72c1-438f-bf57-a10c02c757e7</guid>
      <title>Is Partisan Gerrymandering As Bad As You Think?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>There is no political topic that can get people’s blood boiling quite like partisan gerrymandering. But what do we know about how effective it is and what the data shows about its outcomes?</p><p>This week, we're re-releasing our conversation with Princeton political scientist Kosuke Imai about his paper, "Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, But Reduces Electoral Competition.” He uses a novel methodological approach to try and document the effect of partisan gerrymandering. What he finds is surprising and may lead people who participate in it to re-think whether it’s worth the effort.</p><p>Link to paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no political topic that can get people’s blood boiling quite like partisan gerrymandering. But what do we know about how effective it is and what the data shows about its outcomes?</p><p>This week, we're re-releasing our conversation with Princeton political scientist Kosuke Imai about his paper, "Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, But Reduces Electoral Competition.” He uses a novel methodological approach to try and document the effect of partisan gerrymandering. What he finds is surprising and may lead people who participate in it to re-think whether it’s worth the effort.</p><p>Link to paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="53501830" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/e0d9334e-8c21-42dc-9056-0f062b243130/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=e0d9334e-8c21-42dc-9056-0f062b243130&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Is Partisan Gerrymandering As Bad As You Think?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:55:42</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There is no political topic that can get people’s blood boiling quite like partisan gerrymandering. But what do we know about how effective it is and what the data shows about its outcomes?

This week, we&apos;re re-releasing our conversation with Princeton political scientist Kosuke Imai about his paper, &quot;Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, But Reduces Electoral Competition.” He uses a novel methodological approach to try and document the effect of partisan gerrymandering. What he finds is surprising and may lead people who participate in it to re-think whether it’s worth the effort.

Link to paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There is no political topic that can get people’s blood boiling quite like partisan gerrymandering. But what do we know about how effective it is and what the data shows about its outcomes?

This week, we&apos;re re-releasing our conversation with Princeton political scientist Kosuke Imai about his paper, &quot;Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, But Reduces Electoral Competition.” He uses a novel methodological approach to try and document the effect of partisan gerrymandering. What he finds is surprising and may lead people who participate in it to re-think whether it’s worth the effort.

Link to paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>150</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">0f3e6b0c-daa8-4b65-8d10-d22a04948fac</guid>
      <title>Do Donors Punish Extremist Primary Nominees?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>What happens when a political party nominates a candidate in its primary who is ideologically extreme? Do donors, especially those outside the party’s base, react — and if so, how? That question is explored in a new paper by Andy Christopher Wayne Myers, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Stanford University. He uncovers how donors respond when a relative “moderate” is replaced by a more extreme nominee and if the force of donors is actually weaker than it once was.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 17:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What happens when a political party nominates a candidate in its primary who is ideologically extreme? Do donors, especially those outside the party’s base, react — and if so, how? That question is explored in a new paper by Andy Christopher Wayne Myers, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Stanford University. He uncovers how donors respond when a relative “moderate” is replaced by a more extreme nominee and if the force of donors is actually weaker than it once was.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="57127436" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/6b42b49b-6710-44c8-b561-488c6eea7d47/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=6b42b49b-6710-44c8-b561-488c6eea7d47&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Donors Punish Extremist Primary Nominees?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:59:29</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>What happens when a political party nominates a candidate in its primary who is ideologically extreme? Do donors, especially those outside the party’s base, react — and if so, how? That question is explored in a new paper by Andy Christopher Wayne Myers, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Stanford University. He uncovers how donors respond when a relative “moderate” is replaced by a more extreme nominee and if the force of donors is actually weaker than it once was.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>What happens when a political party nominates a candidate in its primary who is ideologically extreme? Do donors, especially those outside the party’s base, react — and if so, how? That question is explored in a new paper by Andy Christopher Wayne Myers, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Stanford University. He uncovers how donors respond when a relative “moderate” is replaced by a more extreme nominee and if the force of donors is actually weaker than it once was.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>donor, extremists, christopher wayne myers, extreme candidates, moderates, donors, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>149</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">c26cd638-72fd-428b-a71d-1861f50b8ee3</guid>
      <title>The Economic Cost of Populism</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>More than 25 percent of countries around the world are currently governed by populists, from Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, to Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, and Donald Trump in the United States. Based on these findings, populism is at an all-time high, and taking a significant economic toll, according to a recent <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20202045" target="_blank">paper</a> by Christoph Trebesch and his co-authors.</p><p>Trebesch is Professor of Economics at Kiel University. He and his co-authors find that populism leads to slower economic growth, undermines democratic institutions, and can leave the country more vulnerable to future populist governments.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More than 25 percent of countries around the world are currently governed by populists, from Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, to Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, and Donald Trump in the United States. Based on these findings, populism is at an all-time high, and taking a significant economic toll, according to a recent <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20202045" target="_blank">paper</a> by Christoph Trebesch and his co-authors.</p><p>Trebesch is Professor of Economics at Kiel University. He and his co-authors find that populism leads to slower economic growth, undermines democratic institutions, and can leave the country more vulnerable to future populist governments.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="73715786" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/ce10ef3e-9d29-49f4-95a9-e0c5d973b7af/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=ce10ef3e-9d29-49f4-95a9-e0c5d973b7af&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The Economic Cost of Populism</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>01:16:34</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>More than 25 percent of countries around the world are currently governed by populists, from Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, to Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, and Donald Trump in the United States. Based on these findings, populism is at an all-time high, and taking a significant economic toll, according to a recent paper by Christoph Trebesch and his co-authors.

Trebesch is Professor of Economics at Kiel University. He and his co-authors find that populism leads to slower economic growth, undermines democratic institutions, and can leave the country more vulnerable to future populist governments.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>More than 25 percent of countries around the world are currently governed by populists, from Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, to Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, and Donald Trump in the United States. Based on these findings, populism is at an all-time high, and taking a significant economic toll, according to a recent paper by Christoph Trebesch and his co-authors.

Trebesch is Professor of Economics at Kiel University. He and his co-authors find that populism leads to slower economic growth, undermines democratic institutions, and can leave the country more vulnerable to future populist governments.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>christoph trebesch, populism, politics, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>148</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">0ea367a5-c4ba-4b86-b77c-a34380b512b8</guid>
      <title>Is Political Science Research Underpowered?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>What if most political science studies are too weak to find the effects they’re looking for? In this episode, we dig into a <a href="https://arelbundock.com/research/arel-bundock_briggs_doucouliagos_avina_stanley_2025_quantitative_political_science_research_is_greatly_underpowered.pdf" target="_blank">new paper</a> by Vincent Arel-Bundock and colleagues that reveals a striking truth: quantitative political science is <i>greatly underpowered</i>. With thousands of tests analyzed, the authors show that many studies have only a one-in-ten chance of detecting real effects — and that even experts vastly overestimate the field’s strength.</p><p>Arel-Bundock is Professor of Political Science at the Université de Montréal. In his new paper, he concludes that methodologists greatly overestimate the statistical power of political science research.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What if most political science studies are too weak to find the effects they’re looking for? In this episode, we dig into a <a href="https://arelbundock.com/research/arel-bundock_briggs_doucouliagos_avina_stanley_2025_quantitative_political_science_research_is_greatly_underpowered.pdf" target="_blank">new paper</a> by Vincent Arel-Bundock and colleagues that reveals a striking truth: quantitative political science is <i>greatly underpowered</i>. With thousands of tests analyzed, the authors show that many studies have only a one-in-ten chance of detecting real effects — and that even experts vastly overestimate the field’s strength.</p><p>Arel-Bundock is Professor of Political Science at the Université de Montréal. In his new paper, he concludes that methodologists greatly overestimate the statistical power of political science research.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="41251369" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/dfc2f585-6246-4dec-a50d-cc73ad810360/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=dfc2f585-6246-4dec-a50d-cc73ad810360&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Is Political Science Research Underpowered?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:42:49</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>What if most political science studies are too weak to find the effects they’re looking for? In this episode, we dig into a new paper by Vincent Arel-Bundock and colleagues that reveals a striking truth: quantitative political science is greatly underpowered. With thousands of tests analyzed, the authors show that many studies have only a one-in-ten chance of detecting real effects — and that even experts vastly overestimate the field’s strength.

Arel-Bundock is Professor of Political Science at the Université de Montréal. In his new paper, he concludes that methodologists greatly overestimate the statistical power of political science research.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>What if most political science studies are too weak to find the effects they’re looking for? In this episode, we dig into a new paper by Vincent Arel-Bundock and colleagues that reveals a striking truth: quantitative political science is greatly underpowered. With thousands of tests analyzed, the authors show that many studies have only a one-in-ten chance of detecting real effects — and that even experts vastly overestimate the field’s strength.

Arel-Bundock is Professor of Political Science at the Université de Montréal. In his new paper, he concludes that methodologists greatly overestimate the statistical power of political science research.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>147</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">f7c4acb6-e7df-486d-aa85-135ec25d90c3</guid>
      <title>Can Trade Be A Weapon Of Global Power?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>For decades, free trade was treated as an unquestioned good—an engine of prosperity and cooperation. But today, leaders from Washington to Beijing are rethinking trade as something very different: a tool of power.</p><p>In this episode, we dive into new research with Harvard’s David Yang that asks: how do trade relationships actually give countries leverage over one another? Why might exports matter more than imports when it comes to power? And how do tariffs, subsidies, and industrial policy reshape not just economies, but the global order itself?</p><p>We explore what this means for U.S.–China rivalry, Trump’s tariffs, Germany’s dependence on Russian oil, and why trade power may sometimes matter as much as military power.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 2 Oct 2025 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>For decades, free trade was treated as an unquestioned good—an engine of prosperity and cooperation. But today, leaders from Washington to Beijing are rethinking trade as something very different: a tool of power.</p><p>In this episode, we dive into new research with Harvard’s David Yang that asks: how do trade relationships actually give countries leverage over one another? Why might exports matter more than imports when it comes to power? And how do tariffs, subsidies, and industrial policy reshape not just economies, but the global order itself?</p><p>We explore what this means for U.S.–China rivalry, Trump’s tariffs, Germany’s dependence on Russian oil, and why trade power may sometimes matter as much as military power.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="67505738" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/c83fd36d-d2c5-4535-9b06-e28062454ecf/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=c83fd36d-d2c5-4535-9b06-e28062454ecf&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Can Trade Be A Weapon Of Global Power?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>01:10:17</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>For decades, free trade was treated as an unquestioned good—an engine of prosperity and cooperation. But today, leaders from Washington to Beijing are rethinking trade as something very different: a tool of power.

In this episode, we dive into new research with Harvard’s David Yang that asks: how do trade relationships actually give countries leverage over one another? Why might exports matter more than imports when it comes to power? And how do tariffs, subsidies, and industrial policy reshape not just economies, but the global order itself?

We explore what this means for U.S.–China rivalry, Trump’s tariffs, Germany’s dependence on Russian oil, and why trade power may sometimes matter as much as military power.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>For decades, free trade was treated as an unquestioned good—an engine of prosperity and cooperation. But today, leaders from Washington to Beijing are rethinking trade as something very different: a tool of power.

In this episode, we dive into new research with Harvard’s David Yang that asks: how do trade relationships actually give countries leverage over one another? Why might exports matter more than imports when it comes to power? And how do tariffs, subsidies, and industrial policy reshape not just economies, but the global order itself?

We explore what this means for U.S.–China rivalry, Trump’s tariffs, Germany’s dependence on Russian oil, and why trade power may sometimes matter as much as military power.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>146</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">0699924c-9ab8-4e43-8d07-de955e82d46c</guid>
      <title>Should Unelected Judges Be Deciding National Policy?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Every week, headlines tell us that a single federal judge has blocked a presidential order—sometimes halting major policies for years. But should that be possible? Is it democratic?</p><p>In this episode, we dig into the rise and fall of <i>universal injunctions</i>—a little-known legal tool that allowed one judge to freeze nationwide policy. With a recent Supreme Court decision, those injunctions are now off the table, but the ruling raises bigger questions: Has the Court consolidated power for itself? What does this mean for the balance between the executive branch, lower courts, and the justices in Washington?</p><p>We talk with <strong>Jack Goldsmith</strong>, former Assistant Attorney General and Harvard Law professor, to unpack the legal mechanics, political stakes, and the hidden negotiations between the Supreme Court and the presidency. The result is a story about law, politics, and power that goes far beyond the headlines.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 12:30:47 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Every week, headlines tell us that a single federal judge has blocked a presidential order—sometimes halting major policies for years. But should that be possible? Is it democratic?</p><p>In this episode, we dig into the rise and fall of <i>universal injunctions</i>—a little-known legal tool that allowed one judge to freeze nationwide policy. With a recent Supreme Court decision, those injunctions are now off the table, but the ruling raises bigger questions: Has the Court consolidated power for itself? What does this mean for the balance between the executive branch, lower courts, and the justices in Washington?</p><p>We talk with <strong>Jack Goldsmith</strong>, former Assistant Attorney General and Harvard Law professor, to unpack the legal mechanics, political stakes, and the hidden negotiations between the Supreme Court and the presidency. The result is a story about law, politics, and power that goes far beyond the headlines.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="67095322" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/4ca2ab11-6da0-4e4e-92ea-f7f80b3348d5/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=4ca2ab11-6da0-4e4e-92ea-f7f80b3348d5&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Should Unelected Judges Be Deciding National Policy?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>01:09:52</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Every week, headlines tell us that a single federal judge has blocked a presidential order—sometimes halting major policies for years. But should that be possible? Is it democratic?

In this episode, we dig into the rise and fall of universal injunctions—a little-known legal tool that allowed one judge to freeze nationwide policy. With a recent Supreme Court decision, those injunctions are now off the table, but the ruling raises bigger questions: Has the Court consolidated power for itself? What does this mean for the balance between the executive branch, lower courts, and the justices in Washington?

We talk with Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General and Harvard Law professor, to unpack the legal mechanics, political stakes, and the hidden negotiations between the Supreme Court and the presidency. The result is a story about law, politics, and power that goes far beyond the headlines.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Every week, headlines tell us that a single federal judge has blocked a presidential order—sometimes halting major policies for years. But should that be possible? Is it democratic?

In this episode, we dig into the rise and fall of universal injunctions—a little-known legal tool that allowed one judge to freeze nationwide policy. With a recent Supreme Court decision, those injunctions are now off the table, but the ruling raises bigger questions: Has the Court consolidated power for itself? What does this mean for the balance between the executive branch, lower courts, and the justices in Washington?

We talk with Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General and Harvard Law professor, to unpack the legal mechanics, political stakes, and the hidden negotiations between the Supreme Court and the presidency. The result is a story about law, politics, and power that goes far beyond the headlines.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>biden administration, executive branch, political economy, supreme court, trump administration, emergency docket, federal courts, harvard law school, balance of powers, birthright citizenship, shadow docket, court legitimacy, legal scholarship, universal injunctions, constitutional law, jack goldsmith, democracy in crisis, judicial politics, democracy, rule of law</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>145</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">9dff47db-65af-4e81-9e5d-c08b5854f825</guid>
      <title>Do Politicians Really Have A Conservative Bias?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Political scientists have long argued that legislators believe the public is more conservative than it really is—potentially shaping policies that don’t align with what voters actually want. But what if that story is incomplete?</p><p>In this episode, we talk with University of Chicago political scientist Adam Zelizer, who challenges the conventional wisdom. His new research suggests that politicians may not be systematically biased to the right, but rather exhibit something he calls “midpoint bias”.</p><p>We unpack why this matters: How do politicians perceive their constituents? Are surveys of public opinion misleading policymakers—or are policymakers just inattentive? And what does this all reveal about the messy relationship between democracy, representation, and what voters actually want?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Political scientists have long argued that legislators believe the public is more conservative than it really is—potentially shaping policies that don’t align with what voters actually want. But what if that story is incomplete?</p><p>In this episode, we talk with University of Chicago political scientist Adam Zelizer, who challenges the conventional wisdom. His new research suggests that politicians may not be systematically biased to the right, but rather exhibit something he calls “midpoint bias”.</p><p>We unpack why this matters: How do politicians perceive their constituents? Are surveys of public opinion misleading policymakers—or are policymakers just inattentive? And what does this all reveal about the messy relationship between democracy, representation, and what voters actually want?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="51587058" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/ee4bd136-2b6e-4917-a85e-a0155a5c4c6a/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=ee4bd136-2b6e-4917-a85e-a0155a5c4c6a&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Politicians Really Have A Conservative Bias?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:53:41</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Political scientists have long argued that legislators believe the public is more conservative than it really is—potentially shaping policies that don’t align with what voters actually want. But what if that story is incomplete?

In this episode, we talk with University of Chicago political scientist Adam Zelizer, who challenges the conventional wisdom. His new research suggests that politicians may not be systematically biased to the right, but rather exhibit something he calls “midpoint bias”.

We unpack why this matters: How do politicians perceive their constituents? Are surveys of public opinion misleading policymakers—or are policymakers just inattentive? And what does this all reveal about the messy relationship between democracy, representation, and what voters actually want?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Political scientists have long argued that legislators believe the public is more conservative than it really is—potentially shaping policies that don’t align with what voters actually want. But what if that story is incomplete?

In this episode, we talk with University of Chicago political scientist Adam Zelizer, who challenges the conventional wisdom. His new research suggests that politicians may not be systematically biased to the right, but rather exhibit something he calls “midpoint bias”.

We unpack why this matters: How do politicians perceive their constituents? Are surveys of public opinion misleading policymakers—or are policymakers just inattentive? And what does this all reveal about the messy relationship between democracy, representation, and what voters actually want?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>legislators, adam zelizer, public opinion, political polarization, survey research, democratic accountability, representative democracy, liberal bias, conservative bias, american political science review, politics, policymaking, not another politics podcast, voter preferences, minimum wage, university of chicago, u.s. democracy, midpoint bias, partisan bias, policy representation, campaign donors, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>144</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">94603367-643d-4c8b-b96e-b6f296de16fc</guid>
      <title>Do We Understand Members Of The Other Party?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Do Democrats and Republicans really misunderstand each other as much as we think?</p><p>This week, we dive into a surprising new experiment that puts that idea to the test — literally. Psychologist and researcher Adam Mastriani created a kind of “political Turing test,” asking people to write persuasive statements from the perspective of the opposite political party. Then, he tested whether others could tell the real from the fake. The results? Most people couldn’t.</p><p>We unpack what this means for our understanding of polarization, partisan animosity, and political identity. Is the problem really misunderstanding — or something deeper? Are partisans more empathetic than we give them credit for? Or are they just really good at writing what they think others want to hear?</p><p>We also explore the experiment’s implications for political science research, theory-building, and the broader sociology of science.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 7 Aug 2025 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do Democrats and Republicans really misunderstand each other as much as we think?</p><p>This week, we dive into a surprising new experiment that puts that idea to the test — literally. Psychologist and researcher Adam Mastriani created a kind of “political Turing test,” asking people to write persuasive statements from the perspective of the opposite political party. Then, he tested whether others could tell the real from the fake. The results? Most people couldn’t.</p><p>We unpack what this means for our understanding of polarization, partisan animosity, and political identity. Is the problem really misunderstanding — or something deeper? Are partisans more empathetic than we give them credit for? Or are they just really good at writing what they think others want to hear?</p><p>We also explore the experiment’s implications for political science research, theory-building, and the broader sociology of science.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="52114113" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/574a2747-0e23-42a5-a9ab-5e9d987b2644/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=574a2747-0e23-42a5-a9ab-5e9d987b2644&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do We Understand Members Of The Other Party?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:54:14</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Do Democrats and Republicans really misunderstand each other as much as we think?

This week, we dive into a surprising new experiment that puts that idea to the test — literally. Psychologist and researcher Adam Mastriani created a kind of “political Turing test,” asking people to write persuasive statements from the perspective of the opposite political party. Then, he tested whether others could tell the real from the fake. The results? Most people couldn’t.

We unpack what this means for our understanding of polarization, partisan animosity, and political identity. Is the problem really misunderstanding — or something deeper? Are partisans more empathetic than we give them credit for? Or are they just really good at writing what they think others want to hear?

We also explore the experiment’s implications for political science research, theory-building, and the broader sociology of science.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Do Democrats and Republicans really misunderstand each other as much as we think?

This week, we dive into a surprising new experiment that puts that idea to the test — literally. Psychologist and researcher Adam Mastriani created a kind of “political Turing test,” asking people to write persuasive statements from the perspective of the opposite political party. Then, he tested whether others could tell the real from the fake. The results? Most people couldn’t.

We unpack what this means for our understanding of polarization, partisan animosity, and political identity. Is the problem really misunderstanding — or something deeper? Are partisans more empathetic than we give them credit for? Or are they just really good at writing what they think others want to hear?

We also explore the experiment’s implications for political science research, theory-building, and the broader sociology of science.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>perception gap, open science, lie detection, political polarization, political psychology, anthony fowler, affective polarization, misperceptions, turing test politics, echo chambers, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, adam mastroianni, partisan animosity</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>143</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">0cc00c51-e7de-4987-ab61-94ac5003f7a2</guid>
      <title>MechaHitler and The Political Bias of AI Chatbots</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>When you ask ChatGPT or Gemini a question about politics, whose opinions are you really hearing?</p><p>In this episode, we dive into a provocative new study from political scientist Justin Grimmer and his colleagues, which finds that nearly every major large language model—from ChatGPT to Grok—is perceived by Americans as having a left-leaning bias. But why is that? Is it the training data? The guardrails? The Silicon Valley engineers? Or something deeper about the culture of the internet itself?</p><p>The hosts grapple with everything from “Mecha Hitler” incidents on Grok to the way terms like “unhoused” sneak into AI-generated text—and what that might mean for students, voters, and future regulation. Should the government step in to ensure “political neutrality”? Will AI reshape how people learn about history or policy? Or are we just projecting our own echo chambers onto machines?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2025 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When you ask ChatGPT or Gemini a question about politics, whose opinions are you really hearing?</p><p>In this episode, we dive into a provocative new study from political scientist Justin Grimmer and his colleagues, which finds that nearly every major large language model—from ChatGPT to Grok—is perceived by Americans as having a left-leaning bias. But why is that? Is it the training data? The guardrails? The Silicon Valley engineers? Or something deeper about the culture of the internet itself?</p><p>The hosts grapple with everything from “Mecha Hitler” incidents on Grok to the way terms like “unhoused” sneak into AI-generated text—and what that might mean for students, voters, and future regulation. Should the government step in to ensure “political neutrality”? Will AI reshape how people learn about history or policy? Or are we just projecting our own echo chambers onto machines?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="55200723" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/dfd1cb53-c0bc-4122-b581-e136effe1ec6/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=dfd1cb53-c0bc-4122-b581-e136effe1ec6&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>MechaHitler and The Political Bias of AI Chatbots</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:57:28</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When you ask ChatGPT or Gemini a question about politics, whose opinions are you really hearing?

In this episode, we dive into a provocative new study from political scientist Justin Grimmer and his colleagues, which finds that nearly every major large language model—from ChatGPT to Grok—is perceived by Americans as having a left-leaning bias. But why is that? Is it the training data? The guardrails? The Silicon Valley engineers? Or something deeper about the culture of the internet itself?

The hosts grapple with everything from “Mecha Hitler” incidents on Grok to the way terms like “unhoused” sneak into AI-generated text—and what that might mean for students, voters, and future regulation. Should the government step in to ensure “political neutrality”? Will AI reshape how people learn about history or policy? Or are we just projecting our own echo chambers onto machines?
</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When you ask ChatGPT or Gemini a question about politics, whose opinions are you really hearing?

In this episode, we dive into a provocative new study from political scientist Justin Grimmer and his colleagues, which finds that nearly every major large language model—from ChatGPT to Grok—is perceived by Americans as having a left-leaning bias. But why is that? Is it the training data? The guardrails? The Silicon Valley engineers? Or something deeper about the culture of the internet itself?

The hosts grapple with everything from “Mecha Hitler” incidents on Grok to the way terms like “unhoused” sneak into AI-generated text—and what that might mean for students, voters, and future regulation. Should the government step in to ensure “political neutrality”? Will AI reshape how people learn about history or policy? Or are we just projecting our own echo chambers onto machines?
</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>free speech and ai, tech regulation, machine learning, anthropic, political bias, left vs right, digital ethics, government regulation of ai, stanford university, public opinion, political polarization, chatgpt, llm training data, social media, partisan media, algorithmic transparency, ai bias, artificial intelligence, tech accountability, echo chambers, openai, misinformation, ai safety, conservative media, disinformation, fox news, grok, algorithmic fairness, liberal bias, large language models, education and ai, content moderation, reinforcement learning, digital cul, media trust, justin grimmer, gemini, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>142</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">338c03bd-1cf6-4851-a689-2ee3e12ff2d6</guid>
      <title>Does The Supreme Court Need Term Limits?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>We're taking some time off to regroup over the summer, but we’re not just dusting off this older episode for no reason. When we first released it, we were grappling with what Supreme Court reform might look like—specifically, whether we should rethink lifetime appointments and move toward term limits.</p><p>Now? The stakes feel even higher. In just the last few weeks, we’ve seen the Court issue decisions that fundamentally reshape presidential power—often in ways that don’t reflect where the broader public seems to be. Once again, the question has come roaring back: should nine unelected justices hold this much sway for life?</p><p>In this episode, we dive into a proposal that’s gaining more traction: fixed 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices. It’s a reform that President Biden’s commission studied—and one that could change the balance of power in U.S. politics for decades. Whether you’re a reform skeptic or a true believer, this conversation is more relevant than ever. Let’s get into it and we’ll be back in two weeks with brand new episodes.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We're taking some time off to regroup over the summer, but we’re not just dusting off this older episode for no reason. When we first released it, we were grappling with what Supreme Court reform might look like—specifically, whether we should rethink lifetime appointments and move toward term limits.</p><p>Now? The stakes feel even higher. In just the last few weeks, we’ve seen the Court issue decisions that fundamentally reshape presidential power—often in ways that don’t reflect where the broader public seems to be. Once again, the question has come roaring back: should nine unelected justices hold this much sway for life?</p><p>In this episode, we dive into a proposal that’s gaining more traction: fixed 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices. It’s a reform that President Biden’s commission studied—and one that could change the balance of power in U.S. politics for decades. Whether you’re a reform skeptic or a true believer, this conversation is more relevant than ever. Let’s get into it and we’ll be back in two weeks with brand new episodes.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="40436131" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/8e37b801-db7c-49d1-a0b1-88955fe4ea92/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=8e37b801-db7c-49d1-a0b1-88955fe4ea92&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Does The Supreme Court Need Term Limits?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:42:06</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We&apos;re taking some time off to regroup over the summer, but we’re not just dusting off this older episode for no reason. When we first released it, we were grappling with what Supreme Court reform might look like—specifically, whether we should rethink lifetime appointments and move toward term limits.

Now? The stakes feel even higher. In just the last few weeks, we’ve seen the Court issue decisions that fundamentally reshape presidential power—often in ways that don’t reflect where the broader public seems to be. Once again, the question has come roaring back: should nine unelected justices hold this much sway for life?

In this episode, we dive into a proposal that’s gaining more traction: fixed 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices. It’s a reform that President Biden’s commission studied—and one that could change the balance of power in U.S. politics for decades. Whether you’re a reform skeptic or a true believer, this conversation is more relevant than ever. Let’s get into it and we’ll be back in two weeks with brand new episodes.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We&apos;re taking some time off to regroup over the summer, but we’re not just dusting off this older episode for no reason. When we first released it, we were grappling with what Supreme Court reform might look like—specifically, whether we should rethink lifetime appointments and move toward term limits.

Now? The stakes feel even higher. In just the last few weeks, we’ve seen the Court issue decisions that fundamentally reshape presidential power—often in ways that don’t reflect where the broader public seems to be. Once again, the question has come roaring back: should nine unelected justices hold this much sway for life?

In this episode, we dive into a proposal that’s gaining more traction: fixed 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices. It’s a reform that President Biden’s commission studied—and one that could change the balance of power in U.S. politics for decades. Whether you’re a reform skeptic or a true believer, this conversation is more relevant than ever. Let’s get into it and we’ll be back in two weeks with brand new episodes.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>141</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">3b18ca95-dedf-459b-adda-d386c03f8d57</guid>
      <title>Are We Really Hopelessly Divided?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Before we get into today’s episode, we wanted to let you know this is a re-release as we take some time to regroup over the summer. But we’re not just dusting it off for no reason. If anything, this episode feels even more relevant now than when we first aired it.<br /><br />It raises a big question: Are voters really thinking for themselves? Or are they just reflexively rejecting anything the other side says?</p><p>In this episode, we dig into that question with new experimental research that challenges the conventional wisdom. Are Americans hopelessly divided? Or are they actually more open-minded than we give them credit for—if we present information in the right way?</p><p>We’re re-releasing this one because it gives us a more hopeful, evidence-based look at polarization—and how the way we talk about politics might be part of the problem. And if you’re exhausted by the headlines, this episode just might change how you see American voters.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Before we get into today’s episode, we wanted to let you know this is a re-release as we take some time to regroup over the summer. But we’re not just dusting it off for no reason. If anything, this episode feels even more relevant now than when we first aired it.<br /><br />It raises a big question: Are voters really thinking for themselves? Or are they just reflexively rejecting anything the other side says?</p><p>In this episode, we dig into that question with new experimental research that challenges the conventional wisdom. Are Americans hopelessly divided? Or are they actually more open-minded than we give them credit for—if we present information in the right way?</p><p>We’re re-releasing this one because it gives us a more hopeful, evidence-based look at polarization—and how the way we talk about politics might be part of the problem. And if you’re exhausted by the headlines, this episode just might change how you see American voters.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45913865" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/84f94862-a849-41a4-adb7-0aa2b181202e/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=84f94862-a849-41a4-adb7-0aa2b181202e&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Are We Really Hopelessly Divided?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:48</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Before we get into today’s episode, we wanted to let you know this is a re-release as we take some time to regroup over the summer. But we’re not just dusting it off for no reason. If anything, this episode feels even more relevant now than when we first aired it.It raises a big question: Are voters really thinking for themselves? Or are they just reflexively rejecting anything the other side says?

In this episode, we dig into that question with new experimental research that challenges the conventional wisdom. Are Americans hopelessly divided? Or are they actually more open-minded than we give them credit for—if we present information in the right way?

We’re re-releasing this one because it gives us a more hopeful, evidence-based look at polarization—and how the way we talk about politics might be part of the problem. And if you’re exhausted by the headlines, this episode just might change how you see American voters.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Before we get into today’s episode, we wanted to let you know this is a re-release as we take some time to regroup over the summer. But we’re not just dusting it off for no reason. If anything, this episode feels even more relevant now than when we first aired it.It raises a big question: Are voters really thinking for themselves? Or are they just reflexively rejecting anything the other side says?

In this episode, we dig into that question with new experimental research that challenges the conventional wisdom. Are Americans hopelessly divided? Or are they actually more open-minded than we give them credit for—if we present information in the right way?

We’re re-releasing this one because it gives us a more hopeful, evidence-based look at polarization—and how the way we talk about politics might be part of the problem. And if you’re exhausted by the headlines, this episode just might change how you see American voters.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>140</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">054ada05-d960-4589-933e-a125b12a5f80</guid>
      <title>The Surprising Political Consequences Of Emigration?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Migration policies shape not only the economies of countries but also their politics. In this episode, we dive deep into how letting people leave—or restricting their exit—can have surprising ripple effects on collective action and political reform in their home countries. Yale political scientist Emily Sellars reveals why migration might weaken the power of ordinary people to organize and push for change—and why even those who leave might ultimately lose out. Could closing borders paradoxically strengthen democracy abroad? We unpack a provocative new model that challenges our assumptions about emigration and its role in global politics.</p><p> </p><p>Papers discussed:</p><p>“Emigration And Collective Action”: <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/704697?journalCode=jop">https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/704697?journalCode=jop</a></p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 12:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Migration policies shape not only the economies of countries but also their politics. In this episode, we dive deep into how letting people leave—or restricting their exit—can have surprising ripple effects on collective action and political reform in their home countries. Yale political scientist Emily Sellars reveals why migration might weaken the power of ordinary people to organize and push for change—and why even those who leave might ultimately lose out. Could closing borders paradoxically strengthen democracy abroad? We unpack a provocative new model that challenges our assumptions about emigration and its role in global politics.</p><p> </p><p>Papers discussed:</p><p>“Emigration And Collective Action”: <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/704697?journalCode=jop">https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/704697?journalCode=jop</a></p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="52576997" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/86a8c233-77ba-4af5-b090-9f8add553516/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=86a8c233-77ba-4af5-b090-9f8add553516&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The Surprising Political Consequences Of Emigration?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:54:44</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Migration policies shape not only the economies of countries but also their politics. In this episode, we dive deep into how letting people leave—or restricting their exit—can have surprising ripple effects on collective action and political reform in their home countries. Yale political scientist Emily Sellars reveals why migration might weaken the power of ordinary people to organize and push for change—and why even those who leave might ultimately lose out. Could closing borders paradoxically strengthen democracy abroad? We unpack a provocative new model that challenges our assumptions about emigration and its role in global politics.
 
Papers discussed:
“Emigration And Collective Action”: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/704697?journalCode=jop</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Migration policies shape not only the economies of countries but also their politics. In this episode, we dive deep into how letting people leave—or restricting their exit—can have surprising ripple effects on collective action and political reform in their home countries. Yale political scientist Emily Sellars reveals why migration might weaken the power of ordinary people to organize and push for change—and why even those who leave might ultimately lose out. Could closing borders paradoxically strengthen democracy abroad? We unpack a provocative new model that challenges our assumptions about emigration and its role in global politics.
 
Papers discussed:
“Emigration And Collective Action”: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/704697?journalCode=jop</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>border politics, exit-option theory, cass sunstein secession, migration-induced mobilization, organized labor &amp; right-to-work, emigration politics, political economy, brain drain, bracero program, migration debate, migration &amp; collective bargaining, migrant remittances, democracy &amp; development, el salvador politics, policy research podcast, collective action, labor migration, mexico land reform, protest mobilization, political science research podcast, political podcast, trump era immigration, civic protests, exit vs voice, mexican revolution land reform, diaspora power, immigration policy, trump border rules, emigration and collective action, diaspora lobbying, not another politics podcast, strategic complements, university of chicago, emily sellars, diaspora externalities</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>139</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">910077ef-92b3-4c6c-a009-41dff24229a4</guid>
      <title>Is Trump Copying Obama’s Playbook on Universities?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>What if the recent crackdown on elite universities didn’t start with Trump—but with Obama? In this episode, we trace a surprising through-line connecting Obama’s Title IX enforcement to Trump’s Title VI threats. Harvard Law Professor Jacob Gersen joins us to reveal how both presidents used informal bureaucratic tools to reshape higher education—often without Congress. What does this say about presidential power and academic freedom in America?</p><p>Papers discussed:</p><p>“The Sex Bureaucracy”: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143" target="_blank">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143</a></p><p>“The Six Bureaucracy”: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199652" target="_blank">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199652</a></p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>What if the recent crackdown on elite universities didn’t start with Trump—but with Obama? In this episode, we trace a surprising through-line connecting Obama’s Title IX enforcement to Trump’s Title VI threats. Harvard Law Professor Jacob Gersen joins us to reveal how both presidents used informal bureaucratic tools to reshape higher education—often without Congress. What does this say about presidential power and academic freedom in America?</p><p>Papers discussed:</p><p>“The Sex Bureaucracy”: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143" target="_blank">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143</a></p><p>“The Six Bureaucracy”: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199652" target="_blank">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199652</a></p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="55493810" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/91f42de9-47a1-43d9-9059-04fdcb9f6e07/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=91f42de9-47a1-43d9-9059-04fdcb9f6e07&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Is Trump Copying Obama’s Playbook on Universities?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:57:46</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>What if the recent crackdown on elite universities didn’t start with Trump—but with Obama? In this episode, we trace a surprising through-line connecting Obama’s Title IX enforcement to Trump’s Title VI threats. Harvard Law Professor Jacob Gersen joins us to reveal how both presidents used informal bureaucratic tools to reshape higher education—often without Congress. What does this say about presidential power and academic freedom in America?

Papers discussed:
“The Sex Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143
“The Six Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199652</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>What if the recent crackdown on elite universities didn’t start with Trump—but with Obama? In this episode, we trace a surprising through-line connecting Obama’s Title IX enforcement to Trump’s Title VI threats. Harvard Law Professor Jacob Gersen joins us to reveal how both presidents used informal bureaucratic tools to reshape higher education—often without Congress. What does this say about presidential power and academic freedom in America?

Papers discussed:
“The Sex Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143
“The Six Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199652</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>imperial presidency, title ix, law and policy, chris rufo, department of education, free speech on campus, higher ed culture wars, sex bureaucracy, administrative law, obama policies, harvard visa controversy, civil liberties, bureaucratic overreach, campus speech battles, election 2024 education policy, administrative state, policy enforcement, academic freedom, university regulation, federal education funding, campus politics, political use of bureaucracy, trump vs harvard, columbia protests, dei under fire, trump and higher ed, civil rights law, anti-dei movement, regulatory capture, constitutional law, judicial review, title vi, government overreach, separation of powers, universities and politics</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>138</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">603aa678-4197-44a9-9723-e05469a1f678</guid>
      <title>Is This the Most Unexpected Voter Turnout Strategy Ever?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>What if one of the most powerful tools to boost voter turnout isn’t a flashy campaign or a new voting law—but being randomly forced to work the polls?</p><p>In this episode, we explore a surprising study of women in 1930s Spain who were randomly assigned to serve as poll workers—just after they gained the right to vote. The results? A massive, 30-point increase in future voting behavior. Is this just a historical curiosity—or a window into how habit, exposure, and civic experience shape democracy?</p><p>We speak with researcher Toni Rodon about his paper <i>Working for Democracy: Poll Officers and the Turnout Gender Gap</i>, and unpack what this unexpected experiment teaches us about gender, political culture, and the power of participation.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 8 May 2025 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What if one of the most powerful tools to boost voter turnout isn’t a flashy campaign or a new voting law—but being randomly forced to work the polls?</p><p>In this episode, we explore a surprising study of women in 1930s Spain who were randomly assigned to serve as poll workers—just after they gained the right to vote. The results? A massive, 30-point increase in future voting behavior. Is this just a historical curiosity—or a window into how habit, exposure, and civic experience shape democracy?</p><p>We speak with researcher Toni Rodon about his paper <i>Working for Democracy: Poll Officers and the Turnout Gender Gap</i>, and unpack what this unexpected experiment teaches us about gender, political culture, and the power of participation.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="39531080" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/cd1dffd7-3d04-4abe-b46d-f6801c4d8e5d/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=cd1dffd7-3d04-4abe-b46d-f6801c4d8e5d&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Is This the Most Unexpected Voter Turnout Strategy Ever?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:41:09</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>What if one of the most powerful tools to boost voter turnout isn’t a flashy campaign or a new voting law—but being randomly forced to work the polls?

In this episode, we explore a surprising study of women in 1930s Spain who were randomly assigned to serve as poll workers—just after they gained the right to vote. The results? A massive, 30-point increase in future voting behavior. Is this just a historical curiosity—or a window into how habit, exposure, and civic experience shape democracy?

We speak with researcher Toni Rodon about his paper Working for Democracy: Poll Officers and the Turnout Gender Gap, and unpack what this unexpected experiment teaches us about gender, political culture, and the power of participation.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>What if one of the most powerful tools to boost voter turnout isn’t a flashy campaign or a new voting law—but being randomly forced to work the polls?

In this episode, we explore a surprising study of women in 1930s Spain who were randomly assigned to serve as poll workers—just after they gained the right to vote. The results? A massive, 30-point increase in future voting behavior. Is this just a historical curiosity—or a window into how habit, exposure, and civic experience shape democracy?

We speak with researcher Toni Rodon about his paper Working for Democracy: Poll Officers and the Turnout Gender Gap, and unpack what this unexpected experiment teaches us about gender, political culture, and the power of participation.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>behavioral political science, representation and equity, political participation, institutional reforms, civic engagement, poll workers, habit formation, political, anthony fowler, women in politics, university of chicago politics, voter turnout, political podcast, spanish second republic, politics podcast, compulsory voting, gender and democracy, politics, get out the vote, not another politics podcast, ethan bueno de mesquita, historical political science, randomized experiments</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>137</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">49630ad8-2ac8-4e42-8020-7c69121e95f7</guid>
      <title>Should Judges Be Elected Like Politicians?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Hello listeners, we're taking a much-needed spring break here at the podcast, but we want to re-share one of our episodes that has become increasingly salient. One of the defining features of the Trump administration so far is its entanglement with the courts. The legality or illegality of many of its actions are currently being decided by federal judges. Which means that judges suddenly have a lot of say over our politics. Is that good?</p><p>There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics and elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2025 11:35:48 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Hello listeners, we're taking a much-needed spring break here at the podcast, but we want to re-share one of our episodes that has become increasingly salient. One of the defining features of the Trump administration so far is its entanglement with the courts. The legality or illegality of many of its actions are currently being decided by federal judges. Which means that judges suddenly have a lot of say over our politics. Is that good?</p><p>There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics and elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="49221824" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/64ba2915-8879-4ec1-8b22-da58b4e8cc84/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=64ba2915-8879-4ec1-8b22-da58b4e8cc84&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Should Judges Be Elected Like Politicians?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:51:01</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Hello listeners, we&apos;re taking a much-needed spring break here at the podcast, but we want to re-share one of our episodes that has become increasingly salient. One of the defining features of the Trump administration so far is its entanglement with the courts. The legality or illegality of many of its actions are currently being decided by federal judges. Which means that judges suddenly have a lot of say over our politics. Is that good?

There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics and elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Hello listeners, we&apos;re taking a much-needed spring break here at the podcast, but we want to re-share one of our episodes that has become increasingly salient. One of the defining features of the Trump administration so far is its entanglement with the courts. The legality or illegality of many of its actions are currently being decided by federal judges. Which means that judges suddenly have a lot of say over our politics. Is that good?

There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics and elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>136</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">a0f76415-6830-4f1f-b430-69b49be2a526</guid>
      <title>Can Meritocratic Hiring Fix the Bureaucracy?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Led by the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s DOGE, Americans are debating once again how our government should hire civil servants, but are we asking the right questions? In this episode, we dive into a compelling new study on the Pendleton Act, one of the most significant bureaucratic reforms in U.S. history, which introduced merit-based civil service exams to combat corruption and incompetence. But did it work?</p><p>We speak with economist Santiago Perez about his paper “Civil Service Exams and Organizational Performance: Evidence From The Pendleton Act” and his surprising findings that while the reform did help hire more qualified and stable employees, it didn’t clearly improve government efficiency. Also, what unintended consequences may have emerged, such as manipulation of salary thresholds and persistent power dynamics among political appointees.</p><p>So, what can the Pendleton Act teach us about modern bureaucracy, accountability, and fairness? And could reintroducing merit-based exams actually fix today’s polarized and politicized civil service—or make it even worse?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2025 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Led by the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s DOGE, Americans are debating once again how our government should hire civil servants, but are we asking the right questions? In this episode, we dive into a compelling new study on the Pendleton Act, one of the most significant bureaucratic reforms in U.S. history, which introduced merit-based civil service exams to combat corruption and incompetence. But did it work?</p><p>We speak with economist Santiago Perez about his paper “Civil Service Exams and Organizational Performance: Evidence From The Pendleton Act” and his surprising findings that while the reform did help hire more qualified and stable employees, it didn’t clearly improve government efficiency. Also, what unintended consequences may have emerged, such as manipulation of salary thresholds and persistent power dynamics among political appointees.</p><p>So, what can the Pendleton Act teach us about modern bureaucracy, accountability, and fairness? And could reintroducing merit-based exams actually fix today’s polarized and politicized civil service—or make it even worse?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="53521723" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/03784059-948b-4235-a191-ae91f8532028/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=03784059-948b-4235-a191-ae91f8532028&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Can Meritocratic Hiring Fix the Bureaucracy?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:55:42</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Led by the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s DOGE, Americans are debating once again how our government should hire civil servants, but are we asking the right questions? In this episode, we dive into a compelling new study on the Pendleton Act, one of the most significant bureaucratic reforms in U.S. history, which introduced merit-based civil service exams to combat corruption and incompetence. But did it work?

We speak with economist Santiago Perez about his paper “Civil Service Exams and Organizational Performance: Evidence From The Pendleton Act” and his surprising findings that while the reform did help hire more qualified and stable employees, it didn’t clearly improve government efficiency. Also, what unintended consequences may have emerged, such as manipulation of salary thresholds and persistent power dynamics among political appointees.

So, what can the Pendleton Act teach us about modern bureaucracy, accountability, and fairness? And could reintroducing merit-based exams actually fix today’s polarized and politicized civil service—or make it even worse?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Led by the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s DOGE, Americans are debating once again how our government should hire civil servants, but are we asking the right questions? In this episode, we dive into a compelling new study on the Pendleton Act, one of the most significant bureaucratic reforms in U.S. history, which introduced merit-based civil service exams to combat corruption and incompetence. But did it work?

We speak with economist Santiago Perez about his paper “Civil Service Exams and Organizational Performance: Evidence From The Pendleton Act” and his surprising findings that while the reform did help hire more qualified and stable employees, it didn’t clearly improve government efficiency. Also, what unintended consequences may have emerged, such as manipulation of salary thresholds and persistent power dynamics among political appointees.

So, what can the Pendleton Act teach us about modern bureaucracy, accountability, and fairness? And could reintroducing merit-based exams actually fix today’s polarized and politicized civil service—or make it even worse?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>meritocracy, uc davis research, santiago perez, executive branch, government corruption, politicization of bureaucracy, political patronage, civil servants, trump administration, government efficiency, public sector reform, deep state, public administration, history of us government, federal bureaucracy, government hiring, policy reform, administrative state, civil service reform, executive power, public sector jobs, spoils system, job exams, federal hiring, bureaucracy, government accountability, not another politics podcast, pendleton act, customs service</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>135</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">32756d8d-d133-4a7d-b71a-e0ffdc34d67b</guid>
      <title>Why Does America Pay More For Infrastructure?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Infrastructure in the U.S. now costs dramatically more than in countries like Germany or Croatia—without clear signs of higher quality or better environmental outcomes. Why has infrastructure spending spiraled out of control? Could democracy itself—through litigation, regulations, and empowered citizen voices—be driving costs sky-high?</p><p>George Washington University Professor of Public Policy Leah Brooks investigates why the U.S. pays so much more per mile of highway compared to other nations in her paper “Infrastructure Costs”. Brooks reveals shocking findings: from the late 1960s onward, the cost to build highways in America surged dramatically, not because of higher wages or materials, but because of legal battles, environmental reviews, and citizen demands.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Infrastructure in the U.S. now costs dramatically more than in countries like Germany or Croatia—without clear signs of higher quality or better environmental outcomes. Why has infrastructure spending spiraled out of control? Could democracy itself—through litigation, regulations, and empowered citizen voices—be driving costs sky-high?</p><p>George Washington University Professor of Public Policy Leah Brooks investigates why the U.S. pays so much more per mile of highway compared to other nations in her paper “Infrastructure Costs”. Brooks reveals shocking findings: from the late 1960s onward, the cost to build highways in America surged dramatically, not because of higher wages or materials, but because of legal battles, environmental reviews, and citizen demands.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="48715989" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/4dd06ddf-870c-474c-9cfb-6f336dd2f3d8/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=4dd06ddf-870c-474c-9cfb-6f336dd2f3d8&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Why Does America Pay More For Infrastructure?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:50:42</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Infrastructure in the U.S. now costs dramatically more than in countries like Germany or Croatia—without clear signs of higher quality or better environmental outcomes. Why has infrastructure spending spiraled out of control? Could democracy itself—through litigation, regulations, and empowered citizen voices—be driving costs sky-high?

George Washington University Professor of Public Policy Leah Brooks investigates why the U.S. pays so much more per mile of highway compared to other nations in her paper “Infrastructure Costs”. Brooks reveals shocking findings: from the late 1960s onward, the cost to build highways in America surged dramatically, not because of higher wages or materials, but because of legal battles, environmental reviews, and citizen demands.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Infrastructure in the U.S. now costs dramatically more than in countries like Germany or Croatia—without clear signs of higher quality or better environmental outcomes. Why has infrastructure spending spiraled out of control? Could democracy itself—through litigation, regulations, and empowered citizen voices—be driving costs sky-high?

George Washington University Professor of Public Policy Leah Brooks investigates why the U.S. pays so much more per mile of highway compared to other nations in her paper “Infrastructure Costs”. Brooks reveals shocking findings: from the late 1960s onward, the cost to build highways in America surged dramatically, not because of higher wages or materials, but because of legal battles, environmental reviews, and citizen demands.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>judicial influence, public accountability, environmental policy, public vs. private sector, urban planning, transparency in government, political economy, environmental impact, bureaucratic efficiency, transportation policy, cost overruns, national debt, policy reform, civil society, citizen engagement, legislative process, state vs. federal government, government spending, taxpayer money, community impact, political institutions, american politics, economic efficiency, policy solutions, cost of living, federal budget, public goods, infrastructure crisis, infrastructure, highway construction</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>134</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">83f8d083-422e-4b67-8907-3213cc151411</guid>
      <title>Do Voters Sometimes Support Parties They Actually Disagree With?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>In elections across democracies, we assume voters cast ballots for candidates whose policies align with their interests. But what happens when that's not the case? This week, we unpack a political puzzle from Japan: the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) keeps winning elections despite voters consistently rejecting their policies.</p><p>Through groundbreaking research from Yale political scientist Shiro Kuriwaki, “Winning Elections with Unpopular Policies: Valence Advantage and Single-Party Dominance in Japan” we delve into why voters might choose candidates whose platforms they fundamentally disagree with. Is it trust, competence, or something more complicated?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2025 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In elections across democracies, we assume voters cast ballots for candidates whose policies align with their interests. But what happens when that's not the case? This week, we unpack a political puzzle from Japan: the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) keeps winning elections despite voters consistently rejecting their policies.</p><p>Through groundbreaking research from Yale political scientist Shiro Kuriwaki, “Winning Elections with Unpopular Policies: Valence Advantage and Single-Party Dominance in Japan” we delve into why voters might choose candidates whose platforms they fundamentally disagree with. Is it trust, competence, or something more complicated?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="40582052" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/83e70843-cdd0-4a68-96f1-326ed342d27a/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=83e70843-cdd0-4a68-96f1-326ed342d27a&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Voters Sometimes Support Parties They Actually Disagree With?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:42:13</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In elections across democracies, we assume voters cast ballots for candidates whose policies align with their interests. But what happens when that&apos;s not the case? This week, we unpack a political puzzle from Japan: the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) keeps winning elections despite voters consistently rejecting their policies.

Through groundbreaking research from Yale political scientist Shiro Kuriwaki, “Winning Elections with Unpopular Policies: Valence Advantage and Single-Party Dominance in Japan” we delve into why voters might choose candidates whose platforms they fundamentally disagree with. Is it trust, competence, or something more complicated?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In elections across democracies, we assume voters cast ballots for candidates whose policies align with their interests. But what happens when that&apos;s not the case? This week, we unpack a political puzzle from Japan: the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) keeps winning elections despite voters consistently rejecting their policies.

Through groundbreaking research from Yale political scientist Shiro Kuriwaki, “Winning Elections with Unpopular Policies: Valence Advantage and Single-Party Dominance in Japan” we delve into why voters might choose candidates whose platforms they fundamentally disagree with. Is it trust, competence, or something more complicated?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>valence politics, insider-outsider politics, hidden factors in elections, electoral behavior, conjoint analysis, voter psychology, political trust, political incumbency, strategic voting, political experiments, trump voters, political polarization, why voters choose unpopular policies, policy preferences, corruption scandals, japanese politics, party labels, election 2024, political competence, voter behavior, is policy overrated?, populism, trust in politics, 2024 election analysis, immigration policy, immigration and voting, how trust shapes elections, the secrets of political dominance, strategic voting explained, surprising truths about voter behavior, trump voter motivations, what voters really want, why unpopular parties win</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>133</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">0c50b212-a508-4bca-84b7-8890131bb23a</guid>
      <title>How Do Political Outsiders Build Loyalty With New Administrations?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>What happens when a political outsider takes power and shakes up the system? In this episode, we look at a fascinating case study that reveals how leaders outside the establishment build loyalty, push their agendas, and change the political landscape.</p><p>Political scientist Renard Sexton discusses his paper “Deadly Populism: How Local Political Outsiders Drive Duterte’s War on Drugs In The Philippines”. It covers how local mayors chose to enforce (or resist) his policies, what they gained in return, and what this means for populism. Could Trump’s second term follow a similar path? And do populist leaders deliberately push extreme policies to ensure loyalty?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What happens when a political outsider takes power and shakes up the system? In this episode, we look at a fascinating case study that reveals how leaders outside the establishment build loyalty, push their agendas, and change the political landscape.</p><p>Political scientist Renard Sexton discusses his paper “Deadly Populism: How Local Political Outsiders Drive Duterte’s War on Drugs In The Philippines”. It covers how local mayors chose to enforce (or resist) his policies, what they gained in return, and what this means for populism. Could Trump’s second term follow a similar path? And do populist leaders deliberately push extreme policies to ensure loyalty?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="47829489" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/9e3b5c85-9db0-42ff-baf0-7d965fe291a5/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=9e3b5c85-9db0-42ff-baf0-7d965fe291a5&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>How Do Political Outsiders Build Loyalty With New Administrations?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:35</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>What happens when a political outsider takes power and shakes up the system? In this episode, we look at a fascinating case study that reveals how leaders outside the establishment build loyalty, push their agendas, and change the political landscape.

Political scientist Renard Sexton discusses his paper “Deadly Populism: How Local Political Outsiders Drive Duterte’s War on Drugs In The Philippines”. It covers how local mayors chose to enforce (or resist) his policies, what they gained in return, and what this means for populism. Could Trump’s second term follow a similar path? And do populist leaders deliberately push extreme policies to ensure loyalty?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>What happens when a political outsider takes power and shakes up the system? In this episode, we look at a fascinating case study that reveals how leaders outside the establishment build loyalty, push their agendas, and change the political landscape.

Political scientist Renard Sexton discusses his paper “Deadly Populism: How Local Political Outsiders Drive Duterte’s War on Drugs In The Philippines”. It covers how local mayors chose to enforce (or resist) his policies, what they gained in return, and what this means for populism. Could Trump’s second term follow a similar path? And do populist leaders deliberately push extreme policies to ensure loyalty?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>political establishment, duterte&apos;s drug war, patronage networks, american democracy, trump 2024, who controls the government?, democracy vs. populism, populist leaders, political strategy, political loyalty &amp; risk, deep state, power &amp; influence, executive power, political institutions, populism, political game theory, political loyalty, outsider politicians, politics, elections 2024, the deep state debate, donald trump administration, u.s. politics, philippine politics, renard sexton, government &amp; power, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>132</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">2020a0a1-3812-4564-a425-2957177ba036</guid>
      <title>What Can Political Science Learn from Crypto Governance?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>There’s a real-world experiment in governance happening that you’ve probably not heard about. It involves<strong> </strong>decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). These online collectives are trying to run billion-dollar enterprises using direct democracy and a controversial mechanism known as “liquid democracy”—where you can delegate your vote to anyone, at any time. Are these DAOs and blockchain experiments revolutionizing democracy—or just reinventing the wheel?</p><p>Political scientist Andrew Hall (Stanford GSB), has been studying these systems to understand if delegated voting increases participation, improves decision-making, or simply creates new forms of power concentration. What happens when participation is low, and decisions are made by a few super-delegates? </p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>There’s a real-world experiment in governance happening that you’ve probably not heard about. It involves<strong> </strong>decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). These online collectives are trying to run billion-dollar enterprises using direct democracy and a controversial mechanism known as “liquid democracy”—where you can delegate your vote to anyone, at any time. Are these DAOs and blockchain experiments revolutionizing democracy—or just reinventing the wheel?</p><p>Political scientist Andrew Hall (Stanford GSB), has been studying these systems to understand if delegated voting increases participation, improves decision-making, or simply creates new forms of power concentration. What happens when participation is low, and decisions are made by a few super-delegates? </p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45328688" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/870ec3b7-2544-4eb9-9ccb-30d31864d115/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=870ec3b7-2544-4eb9-9ccb-30d31864d115&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>What Can Political Science Learn from Crypto Governance?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:10</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There’s a real-world experiment in governance happening that you’ve probably not heard about. It involves decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). These online collectives are trying to run billion-dollar enterprises using direct democracy and a controversial mechanism known as “liquid democracy”—where you can delegate your vote to anyone, at any time. Are these DAOs and blockchain experiments revolutionizing democracy—or just reinventing the wheel?

Political scientist Andrew Hall (Stanford GSB), has been studying these systems to understand if delegated voting increases participation, improves decision-making, or simply creates new forms of power concentration. What happens when participation is low, and decisions are made by a few super-delegates? </itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There’s a real-world experiment in governance happening that you’ve probably not heard about. It involves decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). These online collectives are trying to run billion-dollar enterprises using direct democracy and a controversial mechanism known as “liquid democracy”—where you can delegate your vote to anyone, at any time. Are these DAOs and blockchain experiments revolutionizing democracy—or just reinventing the wheel?

Political scientist Andrew Hall (Stanford GSB), has been studying these systems to understand if delegated voting increases participation, improves decision-making, or simply creates new forms of power concentration. What happens when participation is low, and decisions are made by a few super-delegates? </itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>crypto politics, harris school public policy, delegated voting, public policy, civic engagement, political economy, the problem with direct democracy, voting in the digital age, anthony fowler, how crypto is changing governance, can blockchain fix politics?, blockchain voting, elections, decentralized governance, token-based voting, chicago harris podcast, dao governance, academia podcasts, economists, web3 politics, wioletta dziuda, stanford gsb research, social scientists, political analysts, crypto community, university of chicago podcast, governance, will daos replace governments?, is direct democracy doomed?, digital democracy, politics, blockchain experts, government reform, smart contracts, tech vs. democracy, think tank discussions, political scientists, andrew hall stanford, tech enthusiasts, ethan bueno de mesquita, democracy, public policy experts, liquid democracy, voting systems, political science, future of democracy</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>131</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">79607f06-344a-4551-97c3-11527bbb966f</guid>
      <title>Is The &quot;Strong Economy Equals Incumbent Victory&quot; Theory Wrong?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Conventional wisdom says that a strong economy helps incumbents, while a weak economy hurts them. But new research from University of Chicago economist Lubos Pastor titled “Political Cycles and Stock Returns” challenges this idea, suggesting that economic downturns actually push voters toward Democrats, while economic booms favor Republicans.</p><p>If true, this theory could explain decades of presidential elections—and even the stock market’s historic tendency to perform better under Democratic administrations. But does the data back it up?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Conventional wisdom says that a strong economy helps incumbents, while a weak economy hurts them. But new research from University of Chicago economist Lubos Pastor titled “Political Cycles and Stock Returns” challenges this idea, suggesting that economic downturns actually push voters toward Democrats, while economic booms favor Republicans.</p><p>If true, this theory could explain decades of presidential elections—and even the stock market’s historic tendency to perform better under Democratic administrations. But does the data back it up?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="43631553" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/6df77aff-6160-440d-a5e0-12e2fc12dc57/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=6df77aff-6160-440d-a5e0-12e2fc12dc57&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Is The &quot;Strong Economy Equals Incumbent Victory&quot; Theory Wrong?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:45:24</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Conventional wisdom says that a strong economy helps incumbents, while a weak economy hurts them. But new research from University of Chicago economist Lubos Pastor titled “Political Cycles and Stock Returns” challenges this idea, suggesting that economic downturns actually push voters toward Democrats, while economic booms favor Republicans.

If true, this theory could explain decades of presidential elections—and even the stock market’s historic tendency to perform better under Democratic administrations. But does the data back it up?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Conventional wisdom says that a strong economy helps incumbents, while a weak economy hurts them. But new research from University of Chicago economist Lubos Pastor titled “Political Cycles and Stock Returns” challenges this idea, suggesting that economic downturns actually push voters toward Democrats, while economic booms favor Republicans.

If true, this theory could explain decades of presidential elections—and even the stock market’s historic tendency to perform better under Democratic administrations. But does the data back it up?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>bidenomics vs. trump, political risk &amp; markets, finance &amp; politics, public policy, redistribution &amp; voting, political theory, investors &amp; economics, social science podcast, business &amp; government, public opinion, post-election insights, u.s. economy 2024, economic policy, democrats vs. republicans, social science, elections, trump &amp; biden economy, risk aversion in politics, government, political podcast, policy wonks, voter behavior, u.s. elections, partisan politics, academic podcast, political research, 2024 election analysis, market trends &amp; elections, empirical political science, politics, university of chicago, economic models &amp; elections, presidential elections, election economics, partisanship and the economy, economic voting theory, stock market returns &amp; presidents, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>130</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">1697d7dc-f194-4c67-8e52-50b05b90519c</guid>
      <title>What Are The Forces Shaping Polarization in Congress?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Why does Congress feel more divided than ever? Are politicians genuinely becoming more extreme, or is something else at play? In this episode, we take on the polarization debate with a twist. Anthony Fowler sits down with University of Chicago political scientist Daniel Moskowitz to uncover new data that challenges conventional wisdom in his paper “Parsing Party Polarization In Congress”. </p><p>Forget the usual finger-pointing at voters or roll-call votes—this research digs into a little-known survey that reveals the hidden dynamics driving Congress apart.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2025 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Why does Congress feel more divided than ever? Are politicians genuinely becoming more extreme, or is something else at play? In this episode, we take on the polarization debate with a twist. Anthony Fowler sits down with University of Chicago political scientist Daniel Moskowitz to uncover new data that challenges conventional wisdom in his paper “Parsing Party Polarization In Congress”. </p><p>Forget the usual finger-pointing at voters or roll-call votes—this research digs into a little-known survey that reveals the hidden dynamics driving Congress apart.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45754740" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/1e8ea739-3d0f-4624-8b02-64b39695a0d5/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=1e8ea739-3d0f-4624-8b02-64b39695a0d5&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>What Are The Forces Shaping Polarization in Congress?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:37</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Why does Congress feel more divided than ever? Are politicians genuinely becoming more extreme, or is something else at play? In this episode, we take on the polarization debate with a twist. Anthony Fowler sits down with University of Chicago political scientist Daniel Moskowitz to uncover new data that challenges conventional wisdom in his paper “Parsing Party Polarization In Congress”. 

Forget the usual finger-pointing at voters or roll-call votes—this research digs into a little-known survey that reveals the hidden dynamics driving Congress apart.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Why does Congress feel more divided than ever? Are politicians genuinely becoming more extreme, or is something else at play? In this episode, we take on the polarization debate with a twist. Anthony Fowler sits down with University of Chicago political scientist Daniel Moskowitz to uncover new data that challenges conventional wisdom in his paper “Parsing Party Polarization In Congress”. 

Forget the usual finger-pointing at voters or roll-call votes—this research digs into a little-known survey that reveals the hidden dynamics driving Congress apart.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>social and cultural polarization, republican vs. democrat extremes, the role of surveys in political science, congressional polarization, congressional gridlock, elite polarization, polarization among politicians, political extremism, national political awareness test, partisan politics, impact of political replacement, why is congress so divided?, u.s. congress, breaking down partisan tactics, daniel moskowitz research, congressional voting trends, measuring political ideology, how political parties influence votes, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>129</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">9edb2917-b9a4-4248-8edf-46cd272d20a5</guid>
      <title>Do Voters Elect Politicians Just Based On Looks?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>On our last episode we had a discussion about what voters care about when electing politicians…and we mentioned a prior episode where we discussed if something as seemingly arbitrary as looks factor into voter choice. Do more attractive politicians do better?</p><p>We all know you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but if we’re being honest we all do it on occasion anyway. Could it be that we also elect our politicians just based on how they look? Of course, there’s the old idea of looking “presidential”, but how much power does that really have to sway an election?</p><p>As we take some time off for the holidays, we thought it would be great to re-release that episode. We’ll be back in a few weeks with brand new episodes! Thanks for listening!</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On our last episode we had a discussion about what voters care about when electing politicians…and we mentioned a prior episode where we discussed if something as seemingly arbitrary as looks factor into voter choice. Do more attractive politicians do better?</p><p>We all know you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but if we’re being honest we all do it on occasion anyway. Could it be that we also elect our politicians just based on how they look? Of course, there’s the old idea of looking “presidential”, but how much power does that really have to sway an election?</p><p>As we take some time off for the holidays, we thought it would be great to re-release that episode. We’ll be back in a few weeks with brand new episodes! Thanks for listening!</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="42550609" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/34f7ac33-e713-4881-80e2-dc9bd46c8104/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=34f7ac33-e713-4881-80e2-dc9bd46c8104&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Voters Elect Politicians Just Based On Looks?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:44:19</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>On our last episode we had a discussion about what voters care about when electing politicians…and we mentioned a prior episode where we discussed if something as seemingly arbitrary as looks factor into voter choice. Do more attractive politicians do better?

We all know you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but if we’re being honest we all do it on occasion anyway. Could it be that we also elect our politicians just based on how they look? Of course, there’s the old idea of looking “presidential”, but how much power does that really have to sway an election?

As we take some time off for the holidays, we thought it would be great to re-release that episode. We’ll be back in a few weeks with brand new episodes! Thanks for listening!</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>On our last episode we had a discussion about what voters care about when electing politicians…and we mentioned a prior episode where we discussed if something as seemingly arbitrary as looks factor into voter choice. Do more attractive politicians do better?

We all know you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but if we’re being honest we all do it on occasion anyway. Could it be that we also elect our politicians just based on how they look? Of course, there’s the old idea of looking “presidential”, but how much power does that really have to sway an election?

As we take some time off for the holidays, we thought it would be great to re-release that episode. We’ll be back in a few weeks with brand new episodes! Thanks for listening!</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>uchicago, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political, policy, behavioral scientist, politicians, political podcast, policy podcast, alexander todorov, politics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>128</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">835c4f77-875b-46c0-a1a6-22a1ad293527</guid>
      <title>What Do Politicians Think Motivates Voters?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Do politicians really understand what drives voters—or are they relying on flawed assumptions that could shape democracy in troubling ways?</p><p>A groundbreaking new study by University of Calgary political scientist Jack Lucas, “Politicians’ Theories of Voting Behavior,” reveals striking gaps between how politicians perceive voters and how voters see themselves. While politicians often hold a cynical, “democratic realist” view of voters, citizens are far more optimistic about their own behavior. But who’s right—and does it even matter?</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Do politicians really understand what drives voters—or are they relying on flawed assumptions that could shape democracy in troubling ways?</p><p>A groundbreaking new study by University of Calgary political scientist Jack Lucas, “Politicians’ Theories of Voting Behavior,” reveals striking gaps between how politicians perceive voters and how voters see themselves. While politicians often hold a cynical, “democratic realist” view of voters, citizens are far more optimistic about their own behavior. But who’s right—and does it even matter?</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="53170620" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/a18eff17-f175-4b76-b258-330743db592c/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=a18eff17-f175-4b76-b258-330743db592c&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>What Do Politicians Think Motivates Voters?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:55:20</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Do politicians really understand what drives voters—or are they relying on flawed assumptions that could shape democracy in troubling ways?

A groundbreaking new study by University of Calgary political scientist Jack Lucas, “Politicians’ Theories of Voting Behavior,” reveals striking gaps between how politicians perceive voters and how voters see themselves. While politicians often hold a cynical, “democratic realist” view of voters, citizens are far more optimistic about their own behavior. But who’s right—and does it even matter?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Do politicians really understand what drives voters—or are they relying on flawed assumptions that could shape democracy in troubling ways?

A groundbreaking new study by University of Calgary political scientist Jack Lucas, “Politicians’ Theories of Voting Behavior,” reveals striking gaps between how politicians perceive voters and how voters see themselves. While politicians often hold a cynical, “democratic realist” view of voters, citizens are far more optimistic about their own behavior. But who’s right—and does it even matter?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>political campaign strategies, election strategies, jack lucas research, democracy and voters, voter psychology, democratic realism vs optimism, ucpn, voting behavior research, political, voter decision-making, swing voters, public opinion and elections, political podcast, political science insights, politics podcast, global voting studies, political science debates, politics, not another politics podcast, comparative politics, university of chicago, politician and voter disconnect</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>127</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">78ffd5e6-d16f-4ec6-a50b-d439cdb72ce2</guid>
      <title>Are Politicians or The Public More Committed to Democracy?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>When it comes to defending democracy, are politicians or the public more committed to its principles—or are both equally willing to bend the rules for political gain?</p><p>In his forthcoming book, <i>Elitism vs. Populism</i>, University of Texas at Dallas Political Scientist Curtis Bram challenges the idea that elites are the ultimate defenders of democracy. Through innovative experiments comparing everyday citizens with elected officials, Bram uncovers an uncomfortable truth: both groups are surprisingly similar when it comes to supporting anti-democratic policies—if it benefits their side. But what does this mean for the future of democracy? And can we trust anyone to uphold it?</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>When it comes to defending democracy, are politicians or the public more committed to its principles—or are both equally willing to bend the rules for political gain?</p><p>In his forthcoming book, <i>Elitism vs. Populism</i>, University of Texas at Dallas Political Scientist Curtis Bram challenges the idea that elites are the ultimate defenders of democracy. Through innovative experiments comparing everyday citizens with elected officials, Bram uncovers an uncomfortable truth: both groups are surprisingly similar when it comes to supporting anti-democratic policies—if it benefits their side. But what does this mean for the future of democracy? And can we trust anyone to uphold it?</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="49841062" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/153e04e6-48e5-466e-b0d4-dfde0e004168/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=153e04e6-48e5-466e-b0d4-dfde0e004168&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Are Politicians or The Public More Committed to Democracy?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:51:54</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When it comes to defending democracy, are politicians or the public more committed to its principles—or are both equally willing to bend the rules for political gain?

In his forthcoming book, Elitism vs. Populism, University of Texas at Dallas Political Scientist Curtis Bram challenges the idea that elites are the ultimate defenders of democracy. Through innovative experiments comparing everyday citizens with elected officials, Bram uncovers an uncomfortable truth: both groups are surprisingly similar when it comes to supporting anti-democratic policies—if it benefits their side. But what does this mean for the future of democracy? And can we trust anyone to uphold it?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When it comes to defending democracy, are politicians or the public more committed to its principles—or are both equally willing to bend the rules for political gain?

In his forthcoming book, Elitism vs. Populism, University of Texas at Dallas Political Scientist Curtis Bram challenges the idea that elites are the ultimate defenders of democracy. Through innovative experiments comparing everyday citizens with elected officials, Bram uncovers an uncomfortable truth: both groups are surprisingly similar when it comes to supporting anti-democratic policies—if it benefits their side. But what does this mean for the future of democracy? And can we trust anyone to uphold it?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>populismvselitism, democracyatrisk, votertrust, political, government podcast, government, political podcast, threatstodemocracy, politics podcast, curtis bram, polarization, politics, not another politics podcast, politicalinstitutions, democracy</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>126</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">076cf536-1067-468c-937d-ccd51bc95781</guid>
      <title>Is Bad Government Driving The Rise of Populism?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Hello Not Another Politics Podcast Listeners. We took some time off in preparation for the Thanksgiving Holiday but given the incredible political events of the month we wanted to re-share an episode that we think is even more relevant today than when we recorded it. </p><p>Why is populism on the rise across the globe? One story says this movement is driven by anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment, that they just want to throw the bums out. Another says it’s driven by identity politics, an anti-immigrant pro-nativist ideology. Both stories don’t leave room for much hope. But what if there was another story that not only gives us some hope but supplies a clear solution.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 2024 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Not Another Politics Podcast Listeners. We took some time off in preparation for the Thanksgiving Holiday but given the incredible political events of the month we wanted to re-share an episode that we think is even more relevant today than when we recorded it. </p><p>Why is populism on the rise across the globe? One story says this movement is driven by anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment, that they just want to throw the bums out. Another says it’s driven by identity politics, an anti-immigrant pro-nativist ideology. Both stories don’t leave room for much hope. But what if there was another story that not only gives us some hope but supplies a clear solution.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="50792327" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/8bc63972-f2bc-41f6-95ef-b0c4c5eec89c/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=8bc63972-f2bc-41f6-95ef-b0c4c5eec89c&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Is Bad Government Driving The Rise of Populism?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:52:29</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Hello Not Another Politics Podcast Listeners. We took some time off in preparation for the Thanksgiving Holiday but given the incredible political events of the month we wanted to re-share an episode that we think is even more relevant today than when we recorded it. 

Why is populism on the rise across the globe? One story says this movement is driven by anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment, that they just want to throw the bums out. Another says it’s driven by identity politics, an anti-immigrant pro-nativist ideology. Both stories don’t leave room for much hope. But what if there was another story that not only gives us some hope but supplies a clear solution.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Hello Not Another Politics Podcast Listeners. We took some time off in preparation for the Thanksgiving Holiday but given the incredible political events of the month we wanted to re-share an episode that we think is even more relevant today than when we recorded it. 

Why is populism on the rise across the globe? One story says this movement is driven by anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment, that they just want to throw the bums out. Another says it’s driven by identity politics, an anti-immigrant pro-nativist ideology. Both stories don’t leave room for much hope. But what if there was another story that not only gives us some hope but supplies a clear solution.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>trump, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political, anthony fowler, will howell, policy, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, wioletta dziuda, populism, politics podcast, american politics, university of chicago podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>125</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">1ab2bed3-4f25-4e70-b77e-85753d30945a</guid>
      <title>Why Did Trump Win Again in 2024?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Trump’s back in the White House—how did it happen? This week, we break down what the political science literature has to tell us about why voters swung his way, what Kamala Harris’s loss tells us about populism and political discontent, and what’s next for American democracy. Plus, co-host Will Howell makes a big announcement!</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 8 Nov 2024 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Trump’s back in the White House—how did it happen? This week, we break down what the political science literature has to tell us about why voters swung his way, what Kamala Harris’s loss tells us about populism and political discontent, and what’s next for American democracy. Plus, co-host Will Howell makes a big announcement!</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="46993246" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/446dc1e7-6573-423c-9cda-563166773e95/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=446dc1e7-6573-423c-9cda-563166773e95&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Why Did Trump Win Again in 2024?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:48:56</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Trump’s back in the White House—how did it happen? This week, we break down what the political science literature has to tell us about why voters swung his way, what Kamala Harris’s loss tells us about populism and political discontent, and what’s next for American democracy. Plus, co-host Will Howell makes a big announcement!</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Trump’s back in the White House—how did it happen? This week, we break down what the political science literature has to tell us about why voters swung his way, what Kamala Harris’s loss tells us about populism and political discontent, and what’s next for American democracy. Plus, co-host Will Howell makes a big announcement!</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>poli sci, democrat, democrats, election, trump, republican, political science research, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, science, political, democracy podcast, policy, government podcast, government, political podcast, policy podcast, election 2024, politics podcast, research, american politics, academic, politics, 2024 election, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, democracy, donald trump, republicans, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>124</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">ce95c915-0a05-4922-9993-76e1bf0cc089</guid>
      <title>Do Democrats and Republicans Agree on What (and Who) to Censor?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>When it comes to online discourse, do Americans really value free speech—or are they more comfortable with censorship than expected?</p><p>A surprising new paper from University of Rochester Political Scientist Jamie Druckman, “Illusory Interparty Disagreement: Partisans Agree On What Hate Speech To Censor But Do Not Know It” reveals a surprising alignment between Democrats and Republicans on what kinds of speech should be silenced. But is this unity a good thing, or does it hint at a creeping authoritarianism?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When it comes to online discourse, do Americans really value free speech—or are they more comfortable with censorship than expected?</p><p>A surprising new paper from University of Rochester Political Scientist Jamie Druckman, “Illusory Interparty Disagreement: Partisans Agree On What Hate Speech To Censor But Do Not Know It” reveals a surprising alignment between Democrats and Republicans on what kinds of speech should be silenced. But is this unity a good thing, or does it hint at a creeping authoritarianism?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="44306629" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/9e722303-17f8-4162-bdd6-6242c5d9b8be/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=9e722303-17f8-4162-bdd6-6242c5d9b8be&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Democrats and Republicans Agree on What (and Who) to Censor?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:46:07</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When it comes to online discourse, do Americans really value free speech—or are they more comfortable with censorship than expected?

A surprising new paper from University of Rochester Political Scientist Jamie Druckman, “Illusory Interparty Disagreement: Partisans Agree On What Hate Speech To Censor But Do Not Know It” reveals a surprising alignment between Democrats and Republicans on what kinds of speech should be silenced. But is this unity a good thing, or does it hint at a creeping authoritarianism?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When it comes to online discourse, do Americans really value free speech—or are they more comfortable with censorship than expected?

A surprising new paper from University of Rochester Political Scientist Jamie Druckman, “Illusory Interparty Disagreement: Partisans Agree On What Hate Speech To Censor But Do Not Know It” reveals a surprising alignment between Democrats and Republicans on what kinds of speech should be silenced. But is this unity a good thing, or does it hint at a creeping authoritarianism?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>uchicago podcast, democrats, uchicago, university of chicago podcast network, free speech, ucpn, free expression, political, censorship, social media, uchicago podcast network, policy, government podcast, authoritarianism, government, political podcast, jamie druckman, policy podcast, politics podcast, hate speech, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, democracy, republicans</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>123</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">b254ab51-9ccc-488a-bd7c-fee2b7f761c0</guid>
      <title>Do Fraud Claims About The 2020 Presidential Election Stand Up To Scrutiny?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>In the wake of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, claims of widespread voter fraud have fueled political controversies and public distrust. But how credible are these claims?</p><p>In this episode, we sit down with political scientist Justin Grimmer to discuss his new paper “An Evaluation of Fraud Claims from the 2020 Trump Election Contests” which systematically debunks over 1,000 fraud allegations from the 2020 election. Grimmer and his co-author comb through the data, analyzing everything from accusations of underage voting to machine vote-switching. Are these claims grounded in reality, or are they just a tool for sowing doubt? Tune in as we dive into the data, the myths, and the facts about the integrity of American elections.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 9 Oct 2024 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>In the wake of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, claims of widespread voter fraud have fueled political controversies and public distrust. But how credible are these claims?</p><p>In this episode, we sit down with political scientist Justin Grimmer to discuss his new paper “An Evaluation of Fraud Claims from the 2020 Trump Election Contests” which systematically debunks over 1,000 fraud allegations from the 2020 election. Grimmer and his co-author comb through the data, analyzing everything from accusations of underage voting to machine vote-switching. Are these claims grounded in reality, or are they just a tool for sowing doubt? Tune in as we dive into the data, the myths, and the facts about the integrity of American elections.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="47637071" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/7c44fdfe-b12e-439b-ab88-c97e1ed17779/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=7c44fdfe-b12e-439b-ab88-c97e1ed17779&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Fraud Claims About The 2020 Presidential Election Stand Up To Scrutiny?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:35</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In the wake of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, claims of widespread voter fraud have fueled political controversies and public distrust. But how credible are these claims?
 
In this episode, we sit down with political scientist Justin Grimmer to discuss his new paper “An Evaluation of Fraud Claims from the 2020 Trump Election Contests” which systematically debunks over 1,000 fraud allegations from the 2020 election. Grimmer and his co-author comb through the data, analyzing everything from accusations of underage voting to machine vote-switching. Are these claims grounded in reality, or are they just a tool for sowing doubt? Tune in as we dive into the data, the myths, and the facts about the integrity of American elections.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In the wake of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, claims of widespread voter fraud have fueled political controversies and public distrust. But how credible are these claims?
 
In this episode, we sit down with political scientist Justin Grimmer to discuss his new paper “An Evaluation of Fraud Claims from the 2020 Trump Election Contests” which systematically debunks over 1,000 fraud allegations from the 2020 election. Grimmer and his co-author comb through the data, analyzing everything from accusations of underage voting to machine vote-switching. Are these claims grounded in reality, or are they just a tool for sowing doubt? Tune in as we dive into the data, the myths, and the facts about the integrity of American elections.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>debunking fraud, american democracy, voter fraud, uchicago, election integrity, data analysis, university of chicago podcast network, political polarization, misinformation in politics, statistical analysis, political, electoral integrity, uchicago podcast network, policy, government podcast, government, political podcast, policy podcast, political misinformation, politics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, public trust, university of chicago, justin grimmer, political science, trump election claims</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>122</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">5f49bf75-0ca0-4b59-baa6-e15874961ac9</guid>
      <title>What&apos;s Behind The Educational Realignment In Voting?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Ever thought about how your college degree might sway your political leanings? Voters with and without college degrees drifting apart, especially on issues like economics, social values, and foreign policy, but what's driving this shift, and how are party positions influencing voters across different education levels?</p><p>A new paper from University of Pennsylvania’s William Marble, “What Explains Educational Realignment? An Issue Voting Framework for Analyzing Electoral Coalitions” gives some surprising answers to these questions and challenges the assumptions we often hear in the media.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2024 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ever thought about how your college degree might sway your political leanings? Voters with and without college degrees drifting apart, especially on issues like economics, social values, and foreign policy, but what's driving this shift, and how are party positions influencing voters across different education levels?</p><p>A new paper from University of Pennsylvania’s William Marble, “What Explains Educational Realignment? An Issue Voting Framework for Analyzing Electoral Coalitions” gives some surprising answers to these questions and challenges the assumptions we often hear in the media.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="54516921" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/57fbc0fe-2da1-4b38-8a6e-f66aec01d4ce/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=57fbc0fe-2da1-4b38-8a6e-f66aec01d4ce&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>What&apos;s Behind The Educational Realignment In Voting?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:56:43</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Ever thought about how your college degree might sway your political leanings? Voters with and without college degrees drifting apart, especially on issues like economics, social values, and foreign policy, but what&apos;s driving this shift, and how are party positions influencing voters across different education levels?
 
A new paper from University of Pennsylvania’s William Marble, “What Explains Educational Realignment? An Issue Voting Framework for Analyzing Electoral Coalitions” gives some surprising answers to these questions and challenges the assumptions we often hear in the media.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Ever thought about how your college degree might sway your political leanings? Voters with and without college degrees drifting apart, especially on issues like economics, social values, and foreign policy, but what&apos;s driving this shift, and how are party positions influencing voters across different education levels?
 
A new paper from University of Pennsylvania’s William Marble, “What Explains Educational Realignment? An Issue Voting Framework for Analyzing Electoral Coalitions” gives some surprising answers to these questions and challenges the assumptions we often hear in the media.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>party platforms, harris school of public policy, voting behavior, university of pennsylvania, uchicago, public policy, dick cheney, university of chicago podcast network, party ideologies, electoral implications, political, educational polarization, uchicago podcast network, policy, government podcast, government, political podcast, policy podcast, cultural issues, educational realignment, social issues, politics podcast, american politics, kamala harris, politics, not another politics podcast, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, upenn, voter alignment</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>121</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">90586b5f-6831-4242-ba93-ecc4ae430413</guid>
      <title>Does Election Timing Matter For Turnout And Policy Outcomes?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>We talk about it every election cycle…how can we get higher voter turnout? As part of the Center for Effective Government’s primer series focusing on the scholarship covering the pros and cons of different government reforms, University of Chicago Policy Professor Christopher Berry examined whether changing the timing of elections can result in higher turnout.</p><p>But he also explored a much more contentious and complex question. Does higher voter turnout result in better policies? Is it possible that a higher turnout often results in less knowledgeable voters pushing elections in a direction that results in worse outcomes?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2024 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We talk about it every election cycle…how can we get higher voter turnout? As part of the Center for Effective Government’s primer series focusing on the scholarship covering the pros and cons of different government reforms, University of Chicago Policy Professor Christopher Berry examined whether changing the timing of elections can result in higher turnout.</p><p>But he also explored a much more contentious and complex question. Does higher voter turnout result in better policies? Is it possible that a higher turnout often results in less knowledgeable voters pushing elections in a direction that results in worse outcomes?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="40851423" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/59f7e3e7-89bc-4438-b854-27b4193a8fbc/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=59f7e3e7-89bc-4438-b854-27b4193a8fbc&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Does Election Timing Matter For Turnout And Policy Outcomes?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:42:33</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We talk about it every election cycle…how can we get higher voter turnout? As part of the Center for Effective Government’s primer series focusing on the scholarship covering the pros and cons of different government reforms, University of Chicago Policy Professor Christopher Berry examined whether changing the timing of elections can result in higher turnout.
 
But he also explored a much more contentious and complex question. Does higher voter turnout result in better policies? Is it possible that a higher turnout often results in less knowledgeable voters pushing elections in a direction that results in worse outcomes?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We talk about it every election cycle…how can we get higher voter turnout? As part of the Center for Effective Government’s primer series focusing on the scholarship covering the pros and cons of different government reforms, University of Chicago Policy Professor Christopher Berry examined whether changing the timing of elections can result in higher turnout.
 
But he also explored a much more contentious and complex question. Does higher voter turnout result in better policies? Is it possible that a higher turnout often results in less knowledgeable voters pushing elections in a direction that results in worse outcomes?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>democrats, christopher berry, voters, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, voting podcast, elections podcast, political, policy, elections, voter turnout, william howell, political podcast, policy podcast, politics podcast, center for effective government, politics, get out the vote, voting, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, republicans</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>120</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">fbee2063-ad96-4237-8a4c-56c8e0830ad5</guid>
      <title>Do Committees Lead To Better-Informed Legislative Voting?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>In a recent paper by Washington University political scientist Michael Olson, he documents a very strange phenomenon. It seems that when legislators join committees, they’re voting record becomes less aligned with their constituents’ political preferences. The question is…why?</p><p>Could it be that being on a committee means they’re just better informed about what good policy really would be, or could it be that they’re nefariously colluding with their colleagues? We explore all these possibilities and more on this episode.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2024 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a recent paper by Washington University political scientist Michael Olson, he documents a very strange phenomenon. It seems that when legislators join committees, they’re voting record becomes less aligned with their constituents’ political preferences. The question is…why?</p><p>Could it be that being on a committee means they’re just better informed about what good policy really would be, or could it be that they’re nefariously colluding with their colleagues? We explore all these possibilities and more on this episode.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="36298845" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/03d39760-2701-4f35-b282-a508a39be253/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=03d39760-2701-4f35-b282-a508a39be253&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Committees Lead To Better-Informed Legislative Voting?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:37:46</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In a recent paper by Washington University political scientist Michael Olson, he documents a very strange phenomenon. It seems that when legislators join committees, they’re voting record becomes less aligned with their constituents’ political preferences. The question is…why?

Could it be that being on a committee means they’re just better informed about what good policy really would be, or could it be that they’re nefariously colluding with their colleagues? We explore all these possibilities and more on this episode.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In a recent paper by Washington University political scientist Michael Olson, he documents a very strange phenomenon. It seems that when legislators join committees, they’re voting record becomes less aligned with their constituents’ political preferences. The question is…why?

Could it be that being on a committee means they’re just better informed about what good policy really would be, or could it be that they’re nefariously colluding with their colleagues? We explore all these possibilities and more on this episode.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>michael olson, legislators, democrat, democrats, uchicago, senate, republican, university of chicago podcast network, political, uchicago podcast network, policy, government podcast, government, political podcast, policy podcast, house of representatives, politics podcast, research, politics, polisci, congress, not another politics podcast, politics research, university of chicago, democracy, republicans, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>119</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">ff3e3f2b-aab8-40fe-b0b9-b07adab72a24</guid>
      <title>Do Presidents Have As Much Power As We Think?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Since Biden’s debate performance, America’s political elite have been engaged in a debate. How much does a President really matter for effective government? If his administration seems to work fine, how much of an affect can a President have? At the same time, we important Supreme Court decisions that seem to be giving more power to Presidents which makes finding answers to these questions even more pressing.</p><p>Well, there is one famous political scientist who explored these questions long ago in one of the most well-known texts in the field “President Power and the Modern Presidents” by Richard Neustadt. It’s a book that sat bedside for several Presidents in the White House. It was meant to inform them about how they ought to exercise power and where they might actually be able to find power in a system that was stacked against them. It's worth taking stock of his argument and trying to make sense of both its elements and the extent to which it speaks to this president political moment.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2024 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since Biden’s debate performance, America’s political elite have been engaged in a debate. How much does a President really matter for effective government? If his administration seems to work fine, how much of an affect can a President have? At the same time, we important Supreme Court decisions that seem to be giving more power to Presidents which makes finding answers to these questions even more pressing.</p><p>Well, there is one famous political scientist who explored these questions long ago in one of the most well-known texts in the field “President Power and the Modern Presidents” by Richard Neustadt. It’s a book that sat bedside for several Presidents in the White House. It was meant to inform them about how they ought to exercise power and where they might actually be able to find power in a system that was stacked against them. It's worth taking stock of his argument and trying to make sense of both its elements and the extent to which it speaks to this president political moment.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="43546810" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/dbe471d6-f871-4524-9d4a-841fdeb02f17/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=dbe471d6-f871-4524-9d4a-841fdeb02f17&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Presidents Have As Much Power As We Think?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:45:20</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Since Biden’s debate performance, America’s political elite have been engaged in a debate. How much does a President really matter for effective government? If his administration seems to work fine, how much of an affect can a President have? At the same time, we important Supreme Court decisions that seem to be giving more power to Presidents which makes finding answers to these questions even more pressing.

Well, there is one famous political scientist who explored these questions long ago in one of the most well-known texts in the field “President Power and the Modern Presidents” by Richard Neustadt. It’s a book that sat bedside for several Presidents in the White House. It was meant to inform them about how they ought to exercise power and where they might actually be able to find power in a system that was stacked against them. It&apos;s worth taking stock of his argument and trying to make sense of both its elements and the extent to which it speaks to this president political moment.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Since Biden’s debate performance, America’s political elite have been engaged in a debate. How much does a President really matter for effective government? If his administration seems to work fine, how much of an affect can a President have? At the same time, we important Supreme Court decisions that seem to be giving more power to Presidents which makes finding answers to these questions even more pressing.

Well, there is one famous political scientist who explored these questions long ago in one of the most well-known texts in the field “President Power and the Modern Presidents” by Richard Neustadt. It’s a book that sat bedside for several Presidents in the White House. It was meant to inform them about how they ought to exercise power and where they might actually be able to find power in a system that was stacked against them. It&apos;s worth taking stock of his argument and trying to make sense of both its elements and the extent to which it speaks to this president political moment.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>president, richard neustadt, harris school of public policy, democrats, public policy, university of chicago podcast network, president biden, political, anthony fowler, policy, government podcast, presidential power, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, wioletta dziuda, politics podcast, public policy podcast, university of chicago podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, president trump, university of chicago, republicans</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>118</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">c53e79ee-3525-4b11-9107-dd05a6de43a1</guid>
      <title>Do City Services Move Faster for Affluent and White Neighborhoods?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Have you ever made a 311 call? This is a service provided by many cities that allows citizens to call in things like potholes, graffiti, fallen trees, ect. There is an assumption that many people have that requests made by white and more affluent neighborhoods probably get responded to faster. But is that accurate? </p><p>In a recent paper, “Unequal Responsiveness in City Service Delivery: Evidence from 24 Million 311 Calls” Stanford Postdoctoral Fellow Derek Holliday uses a large an unique dataset to find some surprising answers. But what are the implications of these findings, and are they positive or concerning results?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have you ever made a 311 call? This is a service provided by many cities that allows citizens to call in things like potholes, graffiti, fallen trees, ect. There is an assumption that many people have that requests made by white and more affluent neighborhoods probably get responded to faster. But is that accurate? </p><p>In a recent paper, “Unequal Responsiveness in City Service Delivery: Evidence from 24 Million 311 Calls” Stanford Postdoctoral Fellow Derek Holliday uses a large an unique dataset to find some surprising answers. But what are the implications of these findings, and are they positive or concerning results?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45455390" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/aa28b29c-d770-417c-87ee-44074bf37755/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=aa28b29c-d770-417c-87ee-44074bf37755&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do City Services Move Faster for Affluent and White Neighborhoods?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:19</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Have you ever made a 311 call? This is a service provided by many cities that allows citizens to call in things like potholes, graffiti, fallen trees, ect. There is an assumption that many people have that requests made by white and more affluent neighborhoods probably get responded to faster. But is that accurate? 

In a recent paper, “Unequal Responsiveness in City Service Delivery: Evidence from 24 Million 311 Calls” Stanford Postdoctoral Fellow Derek Holliday uses a large an unique dataset to find some surprising answers. But what are the implications of these findings, and are they positive or concerning results?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Have you ever made a 311 call? This is a service provided by many cities that allows citizens to call in things like potholes, graffiti, fallen trees, ect. There is an assumption that many people have that requests made by white and more affluent neighborhoods probably get responded to faster. But is that accurate? 

In a recent paper, “Unequal Responsiveness in City Service Delivery: Evidence from 24 Million 311 Calls” Stanford Postdoctoral Fellow Derek Holliday uses a large an unique dataset to find some surprising answers. But what are the implications of these findings, and are they positive or concerning results?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, uchicago podcast, stanford, local government, uchicago, university of chicago podcast network, racism, racial discrimination, race, political, anthony fowler, will howell, policy, government podcast, william howell, municipal government, government, political podcast, inequality podcast, policy podcast, city government, political science podcast, wioletta dziuda, politics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, inequality, public services, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>117</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">efbef140-6dda-47f7-a8b1-3f9346ccc10a</guid>
      <title>How To &quot;Get Out The Vote&quot;</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Hello Not Another Politics Podcast listeners. We’re taking some much needed time off as the school year comes to a close; but with the elections right around the corner we still wanted to share some incredibly relevant and important political science research.</p><p>Every Presidential election, we talk about “getting out the vote”. But what really works in terms of getting people to go to the polls? We speak to one political scientist who has conducted more studies into “get out the vote” campaigns than any other. </p><p>Professor Donald Green from Columbia University shares his research about what works in terms of getting out the vote, and how we expect things to be different this years due to COVID-19.</p><p>And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again!</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Not Another Politics Podcast listeners. We’re taking some much needed time off as the school year comes to a close; but with the elections right around the corner we still wanted to share some incredibly relevant and important political science research.</p><p>Every Presidential election, we talk about “getting out the vote”. But what really works in terms of getting people to go to the polls? We speak to one political scientist who has conducted more studies into “get out the vote” campaigns than any other. </p><p>Professor Donald Green from Columbia University shares his research about what works in terms of getting out the vote, and how we expect things to be different this years due to COVID-19.</p><p>And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again!</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="40539540" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/6bdb64e9-0b63-41c3-bee7-4355b4106e70/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=6bdb64e9-0b63-41c3-bee7-4355b4106e70&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>How To &quot;Get Out The Vote&quot;</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:42:02</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Hello Not Another Politics Podcast listeners. We’re taking some much needed time off as the school year comes to a close; but with the elections right around the corner we still wanted to share some incredibly relevant and important political science research.

Every Presidential election, we talk about “getting out the vote”. But what really works in terms of getting people to go to the polls? We speak to one political scientist who has conducted more studies into “get out the vote” campaigns than any other. 

Professor Donald Green from Columbia University shares his research about what works in terms of getting out the vote, and how we expect things to be different this years due to COVID-19.

And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again!</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Hello Not Another Politics Podcast listeners. We’re taking some much needed time off as the school year comes to a close; but with the elections right around the corner we still wanted to share some incredibly relevant and important political science research.

Every Presidential election, we talk about “getting out the vote”. But what really works in terms of getting people to go to the polls? We speak to one political scientist who has conducted more studies into “get out the vote” campaigns than any other. 

Professor Donald Green from Columbia University shares his research about what works in terms of getting out the vote, and how we expect things to be different this years due to COVID-19.

And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again!</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>116</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">e33d315b-f1ed-45bd-84c5-187b8d426806</guid>
      <title>How Powerful Are October Surprises?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Hello Not Another Politics Podcast listeners. We’re taking some much needed time off as the school year comes to a close; but with the elections right around the corner we still wanted to share some incredibly relevant and important political science research. </p><p>This week we’re resharing an episode all about October Surprises that has some counter intuitive insights that could become important during this election year. </p><p>And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible, but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again!</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Not Another Politics Podcast listeners. We’re taking some much needed time off as the school year comes to a close; but with the elections right around the corner we still wanted to share some incredibly relevant and important political science research. </p><p>This week we’re resharing an episode all about October Surprises that has some counter intuitive insights that could become important during this election year. </p><p>And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible, but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again!</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="35250259" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/f15d0129-23f5-4371-a2e5-e2d9aae777e4/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=f15d0129-23f5-4371-a2e5-e2d9aae777e4&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>How Powerful Are October Surprises?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:36:25</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Hello Not Another Politics Podcast listeners. We’re taking some much needed time off as the school year comes to a close; but with the elections right around the corner we still wanted to share some incredibly relevant and important political science research. 

This week we’re resharing an episode all about October Surprises that has some counter intuitive insights that could become important during this election year. 

And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again!</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Hello Not Another Politics Podcast listeners. We’re taking some much needed time off as the school year comes to a close; but with the elections right around the corner we still wanted to share some incredibly relevant and important political science research. 

This week we’re resharing an episode all about October Surprises that has some counter intuitive insights that could become important during this election year. 

And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again!</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>election, trump, president biden, political, october surprises, biden, policy, elections, political podcast, policy podcast, politics podcast, politics, 2024 election, 2024 elections, not another politics podcast, president trump</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>115</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">a43f3cc0-edd8-44d0-a612-ec2d9c1b6e19</guid>
      <title>Does The Public View The Supreme Court As Legitimate In A Post-Dobbs World ?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>The Supreme Court is supposed to be our non-political branch of government, making decisions solely on the constitutional soundness of laws. But in recent years it appears as though the Court has taken a shift to the right, most notably in the Dobbs decision in 2022. Which raises a question: does the public still the view the Court as legitimate?</p><p>Those are the questions explored in a new paper from UPenn political scientist Matthew Levendusky in a paper titled “Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post-Dobbs world”.</p><p> </p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2024 13:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>The Supreme Court is supposed to be our non-political branch of government, making decisions solely on the constitutional soundness of laws. But in recent years it appears as though the Court has taken a shift to the right, most notably in the Dobbs decision in 2022. Which raises a question: does the public still the view the Court as legitimate?</p><p>Those are the questions explored in a new paper from UPenn political scientist Matthew Levendusky in a paper titled “Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post-Dobbs world”.</p><p> </p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="41996270" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/6be020c3-fba9-42a7-9c03-6a0d81748707/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=6be020c3-fba9-42a7-9c03-6a0d81748707&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Does The Public View The Supreme Court As Legitimate In A Post-Dobbs World ?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:43:43</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court is supposed to be our non-political branch of government, making decisions solely on the constitutional soundness of laws. But in recent years it appears as though the Court has taken a shift to the right, most notably in the Dobbs decision in 2022. Which raises a question: does the public still the view the Court as legitimate?

Those are the questions explored in a new paper from UPenn political scientist Matthew Levendusky in a paper titled “Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post-Dobbs world”.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>The Supreme Court is supposed to be our non-political branch of government, making decisions solely on the constitutional soundness of laws. But in recent years it appears as though the Court has taken a shift to the right, most notably in the Dobbs decision in 2022. Which raises a question: does the public still the view the Court as legitimate?

Those are the questions explored in a new paper from UPenn political scientist Matthew Levendusky in a paper titled “Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post-Dobbs world”.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>114</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">9eb7aec7-d772-4249-aed6-e861f10eb450</guid>
      <title>How Good Are We At Spotting Fake News?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>If the media is to be believed, the US public has a tenuous at best grasp on accurate political news. They’re either consuming disinformation and fake news on social media or following biasedly inaccurate news outlets. Either journalistic truth is as good as dead or we’re living in separate informational universes. But is this too alarmist, could the real story be more nuanced?</p><p>That’s what Columbia professor of economics Andrea Prat finds in his recent paper “Is Journalistic Truth Dead? Measuring How Informed Voters Are About Political News”. But what are we to make of these results, and how do we square them with claims of political polarization?</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2024 11:23:51 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>If the media is to be believed, the US public has a tenuous at best grasp on accurate political news. They’re either consuming disinformation and fake news on social media or following biasedly inaccurate news outlets. Either journalistic truth is as good as dead or we’re living in separate informational universes. But is this too alarmist, could the real story be more nuanced?</p><p>That’s what Columbia professor of economics Andrea Prat finds in his recent paper “Is Journalistic Truth Dead? Measuring How Informed Voters Are About Political News”. But what are we to make of these results, and how do we square them with claims of political polarization?</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="46526473" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/eac48ab3-2bde-40ac-a637-a71fb8a3245e/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=eac48ab3-2bde-40ac-a637-a71fb8a3245e&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>How Good Are We At Spotting Fake News?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:48:26</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>If the media is to be believed, the US public has a tenuous at best grasp on accurate political news. They’re either consuming disinformation and fake news on social media or following biasedly inaccurate news outlets. Either journalistic truth is as good as dead or we’re living in separate informational universes. But is this too alarmist, could the real story be more nuanced?

That’s what Columbia professor of economics Andrea Prat finds in his recent paper “Is Journalistic Truth Dead? Measuring How Informed Voters Are About Political News”. But what are we to make of these results, and how do we square them with claims of political polarization?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>If the media is to be believed, the US public has a tenuous at best grasp on accurate political news. They’re either consuming disinformation and fake news on social media or following biasedly inaccurate news outlets. Either journalistic truth is as good as dead or we’re living in separate informational universes. But is this too alarmist, could the real story be more nuanced?

That’s what Columbia professor of economics Andrea Prat finds in his recent paper “Is Journalistic Truth Dead? Measuring How Informed Voters Are About Political News”. But what are we to make of these results, and how do we square them with claims of political polarization?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>violeta dziuda, university of chicago podcast network, political, anthony fowler, fake news, william howell, andrea prat, political podcast, political science podcast, columbia, journalism, disinformation, politics podcast, university of chicago podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>113</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">1fada2bf-6cb8-4af4-8a22-9ced58db329e</guid>
      <title>Is Partisan Animosity Directed At Fellow Citizens Or Elites?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>There is a fact of our political discourse so agreed upon that nobody thinks to question it: affective polarization…democrats and republicans disliking each other...has been getting worse, much worse. But what if that belief is actually based on polls measuring the wrong thing?</p><p>That’s the argument made by Northwestern Political Scientist James Druckman in his paper “What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?”</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 1 May 2024 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a fact of our political discourse so agreed upon that nobody thinks to question it: affective polarization…democrats and republicans disliking each other...has been getting worse, much worse. But what if that belief is actually based on polls measuring the wrong thing?</p><p>That’s the argument made by Northwestern Political Scientist James Druckman in his paper “What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?”</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="37625527" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/298a2733-d2a2-4b7a-a8a5-ec46bfee4f79/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=298a2733-d2a2-4b7a-a8a5-ec46bfee4f79&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Is Partisan Animosity Directed At Fellow Citizens Or Elites?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:39:10</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There is a fact of our political discourse so agreed upon that nobody thinks to question it: affective polarization…democrats and republicans disliking each other...has been getting worse, much worse. But what if that belief is actually based on polls measuring the wrong thing?

That’s the argument made by Northwestern Political Scientist James Druckman in his paper “What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?”</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There is a fact of our political discourse so agreed upon that nobody thinks to question it: affective polarization…democrats and republicans disliking each other...has been getting worse, much worse. But what if that belief is actually based on polls measuring the wrong thing?

That’s the argument made by Northwestern Political Scientist James Druckman in his paper “What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?”</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political polarization, science, political, affective polarization, northwestern, policy, government podcast, government, political podcast, policy podcast, political science podcast, politics podcast, research, polarization, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, james druckman, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>112</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">a6c1ca69-a372-4d64-a5b8-f12b84d5c10e</guid>
      <title>Should Policy Match Voters&apos; Preferences?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>How do we know if our democracy is healthy? For political scientist, the answer often comes down to things we can measure like responsiveness to voter’s wishes. But is that really the right thing to measure?</p><p>There are two camps in this debate. The empiricists want to focus on what and how we can measure things like the health of our democracy, often focusing on indicators like responsiveness, while the normative theorists want to focus on what we even mean…and what we should mean…by democratic health.</p><p>If you’ve listened to our show before, you can probably guess that we fall more into the empiricists camp, but we wanted to bring on someone who could challenge our assumptions.</p><p>Andrew Sabl is a political scientist from the University of Toronto and the author of “The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide” in which he argues that the empiricists need to pay more attention to what they’re measuring and why.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How do we know if our democracy is healthy? For political scientist, the answer often comes down to things we can measure like responsiveness to voter’s wishes. But is that really the right thing to measure?</p><p>There are two camps in this debate. The empiricists want to focus on what and how we can measure things like the health of our democracy, often focusing on indicators like responsiveness, while the normative theorists want to focus on what we even mean…and what we should mean…by democratic health.</p><p>If you’ve listened to our show before, you can probably guess that we fall more into the empiricists camp, but we wanted to bring on someone who could challenge our assumptions.</p><p>Andrew Sabl is a political scientist from the University of Toronto and the author of “The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide” in which he argues that the empiricists need to pay more attention to what they’re measuring and why.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="41259349" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/3e9e3880-8305-4268-88f1-fdba203723e5/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=3e9e3880-8305-4268-88f1-fdba203723e5&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Should Policy Match Voters&apos; Preferences?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:42:55</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>How do we know if our democracy is healthy? For political scientist, the answer often comes down to things we can measure like responsiveness to voter’s wishes. But is that really the right thing to measure?

There are two camps in this debate. The empiricists want to focus on what and how we can measure things like the health of our democracy, often focusing on indicators like responsiveness, while the normative theorists want to focus on what we even mean…and what we should mean…by democratic health.

If you’ve listened to our show before, you can probably guess that we fall more into the empiricists camp, but we wanted to bring on someone who could challenge our assumptions.

Andrew Sabl is a political scientist from the University of Toronto and the author of “The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide” in which he argues that the empiricists need to pay more attention to what they’re measuring and why.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>How do we know if our democracy is healthy? For political scientist, the answer often comes down to things we can measure like responsiveness to voter’s wishes. But is that really the right thing to measure?

There are two camps in this debate. The empiricists want to focus on what and how we can measure things like the health of our democracy, often focusing on indicators like responsiveness, while the normative theorists want to focus on what we even mean…and what we should mean…by democratic health.

If you’ve listened to our show before, you can probably guess that we fall more into the empiricists camp, but we wanted to bring on someone who could challenge our assumptions.

Andrew Sabl is a political scientist from the University of Toronto and the author of “The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide” in which he argues that the empiricists need to pay more attention to what they’re measuring and why.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>andrew sabl, university of chicago podcast network, democratic, ucpn, political, democracy podcast, policy, political podcast, policy podcast, university of toronto, political science podcast, politics podcast, research, academic podcast, academic, university of chicago podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, research podcast, democracy, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>111</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">ffdf3673-38e3-4944-b743-8fc1893af669</guid>
      <title>Are Too Many Political Appointments Harming Our Bureaucracy?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>When it comes to our federal bureaucracy, there are two schools of thought. One says that an insulated group of career bureaucrats have created a deep state that corrupts the performance of government. The other says that our bureaucracy is dysfunctional because there is too much turnover or positions left vacant. Both rest on an underlying feature of our democracy: many of the positions in the federal bureaucracy are appointed by the President and approved by Congress. But, could having less politically selected appointments give us a more functional government?</p><p>In this episode, we’re doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with David Lewis from Vanderbilt University who wrote a primer on this question: should we have more politically appointed bureaucrats or less?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 3 Apr 2024 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When it comes to our federal bureaucracy, there are two schools of thought. One says that an insulated group of career bureaucrats have created a deep state that corrupts the performance of government. The other says that our bureaucracy is dysfunctional because there is too much turnover or positions left vacant. Both rest on an underlying feature of our democracy: many of the positions in the federal bureaucracy are appointed by the President and approved by Congress. But, could having less politically selected appointments give us a more functional government?</p><p>In this episode, we’re doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with David Lewis from Vanderbilt University who wrote a primer on this question: should we have more politically appointed bureaucrats or less?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="47734909" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/a7f4a6d8-cae7-4535-a42c-76fa11a1b413/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=a7f4a6d8-cae7-4535-a42c-76fa11a1b413&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Are Too Many Political Appointments Harming Our Bureaucracy?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:42</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When it comes to our federal bureaucracy, there are two schools of thought. One says that an insulated group of career bureaucrats have created a deep state that corrupts the performance of government. The other says that our bureaucracy is dysfunctional because there is too much turnover or positions left vacant. Both rest on an underlying feature of our democracy: many of the positions in the federal bureaucracy are appointed by the President and approved by Congress. But, could having less politically selected appointments give us a more functional government?

In this episode, we’re doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with David Lewis from Vanderbilt University who wrote a primer on this question: should we have more politically appointed bureaucrats or less?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When it comes to our federal bureaucracy, there are two schools of thought. One says that an insulated group of career bureaucrats have created a deep state that corrupts the performance of government. The other says that our bureaucracy is dysfunctional because there is too much turnover or positions left vacant. Both rest on an underlying feature of our democracy: many of the positions in the federal bureaucracy are appointed by the President and approved by Congress. But, could having less politically selected appointments give us a more functional government?

In this episode, we’re doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with David Lewis from Vanderbilt University who wrote a primer on this question: should we have more politically appointed bureaucrats or less?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political, anthony fowler, vanderbilt university, deep state, federal bureaucracy, policy, government podcast, william howell, david lewis, government, political podcast, policy podcast, harris school, wioletta dziuda, politics podcast, university of chicago podcast, politics, bureaucracy, not another politics podcast, university of chicago</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>110</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">195adae3-55b8-401f-972e-94f8e35b7e04</guid>
      <title>Should Judges Be Elected or Appointed?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics involved in elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?</p><p>In this episode, we’re doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar  who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with Sanford Gordon from the Politics Department at NYU who wrote a primer on this question: is it better to elect or appoint judges?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 12:48:32 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics involved in elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?</p><p>In this episode, we’re doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar  who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with Sanford Gordon from the Politics Department at NYU who wrote a primer on this question: is it better to elect or appoint judges?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="47913196" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/a4ecd915-1eaa-455c-a065-a6be7c675c21/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=a4ecd915-1eaa-455c-a065-a6be7c675c21&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Should Judges Be Elected or Appointed?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:53</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics involved in elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?

In this episode, we’re doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar  who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with Sanford Gordon from the Politics Department at NYU who wrote a primer on this question: is it better to elect or appoint judges?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics involved in elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?

In this episode, we’re doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar  who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with Sanford Gordon from the Politics Department at NYU who wrote a primer on this question: is it better to elect or appoint judges?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>nyu, political, anthony fowler, law podcast, judicial, policy, government podcast, lawyers, william howell, government, political podcast, law, policy podcast, sanford gordon, politics podcast, judicial podcast, judges, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, wioletta dzuida</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>109</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">a510952f-7d0a-4fcf-8999-3396fe3c4894</guid>
      <title>Why Women Are Underrepresented in U.S. Politics</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Despite making up roughly half of the U.S. population, women only make up about one-quarter of representatives and senators. And this trend is not just national—it holds true globally as well. What explains why women are underrepresented in politics? If women are just as likely to win elections as men do, then why are they less likely to run for office?</p><p>In a recent paper, "Modeling Theories of Women's Underrepresentation in Elections," University of Chicago Professors Scott Ashworth, Christopher Berry and Ethan Bueno de Mesquita explore the facts and theories around why women are elected less than men in U.S. politics. In this episode, we speak with Ashworth, a Professor in the Harris School of Public Policy.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Despite making up roughly half of the U.S. population, women only make up about one-quarter of representatives and senators. And this trend is not just national—it holds true globally as well. What explains why women are underrepresented in politics? If women are just as likely to win elections as men do, then why are they less likely to run for office?</p><p>In a recent paper, "Modeling Theories of Women's Underrepresentation in Elections," University of Chicago Professors Scott Ashworth, Christopher Berry and Ethan Bueno de Mesquita explore the facts and theories around why women are elected less than men in U.S. politics. In this episode, we speak with Ashworth, a Professor in the Harris School of Public Policy.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="48501161" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/e270ea18-56cc-4db2-802c-c570025bcd64/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=e270ea18-56cc-4db2-802c-c570025bcd64&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Why Women Are Underrepresented in U.S. Politics</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:50:18</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Despite making up roughly half of the U.S. population, women only make up about one-quarter of representatives and senators. And this trend is not just national—it holds true globally as well. What explains why women are underrepresented in politics? If women are just as likely to win elections as men do, then why are they less likely to run for office?

In a recent paper, &quot;Modeling Theories of Women&apos;s Underrepresentation in Elections,&quot; University of Chicago Professors Scott Ashworth, Christopher Berry and Ethan Bueno de Mesquita explore the facts and theories around why women are elected less than men in U.S. politics. In this episode, we speak with Ashworth, a Professor in the Harris School of Public Policy.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Despite making up roughly half of the U.S. population, women only make up about one-quarter of representatives and senators. And this trend is not just national—it holds true globally as well. What explains why women are underrepresented in politics? If women are just as likely to win elections as men do, then why are they less likely to run for office?

In a recent paper, &quot;Modeling Theories of Women&apos;s Underrepresentation in Elections,&quot; University of Chicago Professors Scott Ashworth, Christopher Berry and Ethan Bueno de Mesquita explore the facts and theories around why women are elected less than men in U.S. politics. In this episode, we speak with Ashworth, a Professor in the Harris School of Public Policy.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>womeninpolitics, ussenate, election, representation, representatives, womeninoffice, politics, scott ashworth</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>108</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">87a995d7-1a43-4d2b-b498-f76360f24eb7</guid>
      <title>What Makes A Legislator Effective?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>When it comes to passing actual legislation, putting it forward and getting it all the way through the process, it can be difficult to measure exactly which legislators are effective. Not to mention which types of legislators tend to be more effective, moderates or extremists? And does majority-party membership increase effectives?</p><p>In an innovative new paper, “Effective Lawmaking Across Congressional Eras”, University of Pittsburgh professor of political science Max Goplerud proposes a new measure of legislative effectiveness that may help us to answer some of these complex questions.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When it comes to passing actual legislation, putting it forward and getting it all the way through the process, it can be difficult to measure exactly which legislators are effective. Not to mention which types of legislators tend to be more effective, moderates or extremists? And does majority-party membership increase effectives?</p><p>In an innovative new paper, “Effective Lawmaking Across Congressional Eras”, University of Pittsburgh professor of political science Max Goplerud proposes a new measure of legislative effectiveness that may help us to answer some of these complex questions.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="42596532" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/38f9a913-eef7-42fc-a512-360b0d41e886/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=38f9a913-eef7-42fc-a512-360b0d41e886&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>What Makes A Legislator Effective?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:44:10</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When it comes to passing actual legislation, putting it forward and getting it all the way through the process, it can be difficult to measure exactly which legislators are effective. Not to mention which types of legislators tend to be more effective, moderates or extremists? And does majority-party membership increase effectives?

In an innovative new paper, “Effective Lawmaking Across Congressional Eras”, University of Pittsburgh professor of political science Max Goplerud proposes a new measure of legislative effectiveness that may help us to answer some of these complex questions.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When it comes to passing actual legislation, putting it forward and getting it all the way through the process, it can be difficult to measure exactly which legislators are effective. Not to mention which types of legislators tend to be more effective, moderates or extremists? And does majority-party membership increase effectives?

In an innovative new paper, “Effective Lawmaking Across Congressional Eras”, University of Pittsburgh professor of political science Max Goplerud proposes a new measure of legislative effectiveness that may help us to answer some of these complex questions.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>legislators, political, anthony fowler, will howell, policy, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, legislature, political science podcast, politics podcast, wioletta druid, university of pittsburgh, congress podcast, politics, congress, not another politics podcast, max goplerud, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>107</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">5bcbd6f7-ab67-4794-a1d9-c108594e4a87</guid>
      <title>Do Conservatives Sabotage The Administrative State?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>When we talk about the interpretation and ultimately implementation of policy we’re not talking about Congress so much as the Administrative State. But what happens when those who work in those agencies decide through their positions to not only sabotage a policy they’re meant to carry out, but perhaps the whole agency?</p><p>In a recent paper titled “Administrative Sabotage” Rutgers law professor, David Noll, looks at the history of how agencies sabotage themselves and discuses what this means for a democracy and for the power of the Presidency.  </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 7 Feb 2024 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When we talk about the interpretation and ultimately implementation of policy we’re not talking about Congress so much as the Administrative State. But what happens when those who work in those agencies decide through their positions to not only sabotage a policy they’re meant to carry out, but perhaps the whole agency?</p><p>In a recent paper titled “Administrative Sabotage” Rutgers law professor, David Noll, looks at the history of how agencies sabotage themselves and discuses what this means for a democracy and for the power of the Presidency.  </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="50068014" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/9ece6057-6a06-4399-9cfe-0561593c746f/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=9ece6057-6a06-4399-9cfe-0561593c746f&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Conservatives Sabotage The Administrative State?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:52:08</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When we talk about the interpretation and ultimately implementation of policy we’re not talking about Congress so much as the Administrative State. But what happens when those who work in those agencies decide through their positions to not only sabotage a policy they’re meant to carry out, but perhaps the whole agency?

In a recent paper titled “Administrative Sabotage” Rutgers law professor, David Noll, looks at the history of how agencies sabotage themselves and discuses what this means for a democracy and for the power of the Presidency.  </itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When we talk about the interpretation and ultimately implementation of policy we’re not talking about Congress so much as the Administrative State. But what happens when those who work in those agencies decide through their positions to not only sabotage a policy they’re meant to carry out, but perhaps the whole agency?

In a recent paper titled “Administrative Sabotage” Rutgers law professor, David Noll, looks at the history of how agencies sabotage themselves and discuses what this means for a democracy and for the power of the Presidency.  </itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>trump, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, trump administration, political, anthony fowler, deep state, will howell, policy, government podcast, administrative state, government, political podcast, law, policy podcast, wioletta dziuda, politics podcast, david noll, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, rutgers</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>106</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">b1198b29-0722-41e7-a450-d912faa30c17</guid>
      <title>Who Gets Heard On Redistribution, The Rich Or Poor?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>When we talk about policy choices around redistribution there is an assumption so obvious that most people never question it. That politicians are more responsive to the desires of the rich, and that policy preferences of the poor don’t hold as much sway. But what if that assumption was wrong?</p><p>In a recent paper by Boston University Economist Raymond Fisman titled “Whose Preference Matter For Redistribution: Cross-Country Evidence” uses cross-sectional data from 93 countries to see how much a government redistributes lines up with how much redistribution citizens of different socioeconomic statuses actually want. The findings are surprising.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2024 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When we talk about policy choices around redistribution there is an assumption so obvious that most people never question it. That politicians are more responsive to the desires of the rich, and that policy preferences of the poor don’t hold as much sway. But what if that assumption was wrong?</p><p>In a recent paper by Boston University Economist Raymond Fisman titled “Whose Preference Matter For Redistribution: Cross-Country Evidence” uses cross-sectional data from 93 countries to see how much a government redistributes lines up with how much redistribution citizens of different socioeconomic statuses actually want. The findings are surprising.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="47257730" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/efbc31f3-1f8c-4dd1-86b3-9d4526ac8d70/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=efbc31f3-1f8c-4dd1-86b3-9d4526ac8d70&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Who Gets Heard On Redistribution, The Rich Or Poor?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:12</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When we talk about policy choices around redistribution there is an assumption so obvious that most people never question it. That politicians are more responsive to the desires of the rich, and that policy preferences of the poor don’t hold as much sway. But what if that assumption was wrong?

In a recent paper by Boston University Economist Raymond Fisman titled “Whose Preference Matter For Redistribution: Cross-Country Evidence” uses cross-sectional data from 93 countries to see how much a government redistributes lines up with how much redistribution citizens of different socioeconomic statuses actually want. The findings are surprising.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When we talk about policy choices around redistribution there is an assumption so obvious that most people never question it. That politicians are more responsive to the desires of the rich, and that policy preferences of the poor don’t hold as much sway. But what if that assumption was wrong?

In a recent paper by Boston University Economist Raymond Fisman titled “Whose Preference Matter For Redistribution: Cross-Country Evidence” uses cross-sectional data from 93 countries to see how much a government redistributes lines up with how much redistribution citizens of different socioeconomic statuses actually want. The findings are surprising.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>boston university, political, anthony fowler, will howell, policy, politicians, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, politics podcast, socioeconomic, raymond fisman, politics, redistribution, not another politics podcast, wioletta dzuida</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>105</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">67bfaff9-f681-475e-a77e-072d45ffc770</guid>
      <title>Can We Believe Political Surveys?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn’t be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we’re release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. </p><p>And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn’t be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we’re release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. </p><p>And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="44366176" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/4fbb031e-dbdd-4b30-92af-b3c60d88e046/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=4fbb031e-dbdd-4b30-92af-b3c60d88e046&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Can We Believe Political Surveys?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:46:06</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn’t be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we’re release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. 

And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn’t be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we’re release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. 

And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>political, anthony fowler, policy, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, politics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, wioletta dzuida</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>104</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">00de4de5-64a8-4fb6-917d-eab58fac563a</guid>
      <title>Should It Be Illegal Not To Vote?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><i>Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn’t be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we’re release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. </i></p><p><i>And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.</i></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2023 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn’t be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we’re release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. </i></p><p><i>And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.</i></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="35372851" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/6796ce8e-d408-44a2-8ea5-5fd0885b76a3/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=6796ce8e-d408-44a2-8ea5-5fd0885b76a3&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Should It Be Illegal Not To Vote?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:36:47</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn’t be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we’re release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. 

And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn’t be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we’re release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. 

And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don’t make money off this show, it’s a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>vote, political, anthony fowler, will howell, policy, government podcast, government, political podcast, policy podcast, politics podcast, wioletta druid, politics, voting, not another politics podcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>103</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">dd000445-b293-4e3d-9a32-41bc27f37cc9</guid>
      <title>Is There A &quot;Spiral of Silence&quot; On Campus And In Our Politics?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>The recent crisis in the Israel and Palestine conflict has added fuel to the already heated debate over free speech in our politics and on college campuses. Does the scientific literature having anything to tell us about the health of public discourse in these domains?</p><p>A recent paper by Harvard Ph.D. candidate Yihong Huang titled “Breaking the Spiral of Silence” holds some answers. It looks at how the attention we pay, or don’t pay, to who stays silent in a debate can exacerbate self-censorship.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2023 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The recent crisis in the Israel and Palestine conflict has added fuel to the already heated debate over free speech in our politics and on college campuses. Does the scientific literature having anything to tell us about the health of public discourse in these domains?</p><p>A recent paper by Harvard Ph.D. candidate Yihong Huang titled “Breaking the Spiral of Silence” holds some answers. It looks at how the attention we pay, or don’t pay, to who stays silent in a debate can exacerbate self-censorship.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="46410427" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/d3515811-cb4e-4cc2-9e4d-5ebde08ddd62/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=d3515811-cb4e-4cc2-9e4d-5ebde08ddd62&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Is There A &quot;Spiral of Silence&quot; On Campus And In Our Politics?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:48:10</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>The recent crisis in the Israel and Palestine conflict has added fuel to the already heated debate over free speech in our politics and on college campuses. Does the scientific literature having anything to tell us about the health of public discourse in these domains?
 
A recent paper by Harvard Ph.D. candidate Yihong Huang titled “Breaking the Spiral of Silence” holds some answers. It looks at how the attention we pay, or don’t pay, to who stays silent in a debate can exacerbate self-censorship.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>The recent crisis in the Israel and Palestine conflict has added fuel to the already heated debate over free speech in our politics and on college campuses. Does the scientific literature having anything to tell us about the health of public discourse in these domains?
 
A recent paper by Harvard Ph.D. candidate Yihong Huang titled “Breaking the Spiral of Silence” holds some answers. It looks at how the attention we pay, or don’t pay, to who stays silent in a debate can exacerbate self-censorship.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>university of chicago podcast network, free speech, free expression, harvard, political, anthony fowler, university, policy, william howell, political podcast, policy podcast, free speech at universities, politics podcast, research, academic, politics, yihong huang, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, research podcast, wioletta dzuida</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>102</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">2b707328-ebd6-46fe-849a-7c8cc3903566</guid>
      <title>The Bargaining Strategies of Extremists</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>There is a political puzzle that has become prominent in the last few decades, especially with the recent turmoil over the Republican led Speaker of the House: how do a small group of extremists manage to get their way despite being a minority of members?</p><p>In a recent paper, “Organizing at the Extreme: Hardline Strategy and Institutional Design” University of Chicago Political Scientist Ruth Bloch Rubin takes that question head on. Her conclusions could tell us a lot about the bargaining strategies of extremists, when and why they work, and how those strategies may create sticky organization practices and structures.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2023 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a political puzzle that has become prominent in the last few decades, especially with the recent turmoil over the Republican led Speaker of the House: how do a small group of extremists manage to get their way despite being a minority of members?</p><p>In a recent paper, “Organizing at the Extreme: Hardline Strategy and Institutional Design” University of Chicago Political Scientist Ruth Bloch Rubin takes that question head on. Her conclusions could tell us a lot about the bargaining strategies of extremists, when and why they work, and how those strategies may create sticky organization practices and structures.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="48271424" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/d7c82c80-c3d9-49ec-9c3a-25b09883c872/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=d7c82c80-c3d9-49ec-9c3a-25b09883c872&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The Bargaining Strategies of Extremists</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:50:04</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There is a political puzzle that has become prominent in the last few decades, especially with the recent turmoil over the Republican led Speaker of the House: how do a small group of extremists manage to get their way despite being a minority of members?
 
In a recent paper, “Organizing at the Extreme: Hardline Strategy and Institutional Design” University of Chicago Political Scientist Ruth Bloch Rubin takes that question head on. Her conclusions could tell us a lot about the bargaining strategies of extremists, when and why they work, and how those strategies may create sticky organization practices and structures.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There is a political puzzle that has become prominent in the last few decades, especially with the recent turmoil over the Republican led Speaker of the House: how do a small group of extremists manage to get their way despite being a minority of members?
 
In a recent paper, “Organizing at the Extreme: Hardline Strategy and Institutional Design” University of Chicago Political Scientist Ruth Bloch Rubin takes that question head on. Her conclusions could tell us a lot about the bargaining strategies of extremists, when and why they work, and how those strategies may create sticky organization practices and structures.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, democrat, uchicago, wioletta dzudia, republican, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political, anthony fowler, will howell, uchicago podcast network, ruth bloch rubin, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, harris school, politics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>101</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">e808a88b-6228-4bcb-ab18-191c5440b3ce</guid>
      <title>Is Gridlock Causing Polarization?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>We often say on this podcast that the American electorate is not polarized but the elites are, and that this polarization causes policy gridlock. But what if it’s the other way around? Is it possible that gridlock in government is actually causing polarization and a turn toward extremist candidates?</p><p>That’s the assertion of a paper called “From Gridlock to Polarization” by Barton Lee, the Chair of Political Economy and eDemocracy at ETH Zurich. Lee uses a large-scale online experiment to show how voters become more willing to vote for extremist candidates. It leads to some fascinating implications for how we should think about the consequences of ineffective government.</p><p>Paper link:<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4521276">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4521276</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:28:01 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We often say on this podcast that the American electorate is not polarized but the elites are, and that this polarization causes policy gridlock. But what if it’s the other way around? Is it possible that gridlock in government is actually causing polarization and a turn toward extremist candidates?</p><p>That’s the assertion of a paper called “From Gridlock to Polarization” by Barton Lee, the Chair of Political Economy and eDemocracy at ETH Zurich. Lee uses a large-scale online experiment to show how voters become more willing to vote for extremist candidates. It leads to some fascinating implications for how we should think about the consequences of ineffective government.</p><p>Paper link:<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4521276">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4521276</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="48063676" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/94759c25-54d9-4125-8ba8-50887a9a1ce6/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=94759c25-54d9-4125-8ba8-50887a9a1ce6&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Is Gridlock Causing Polarization?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:49</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We often say on this podcast that the American electorate is not polarized but the elites are, and that this polarization causes policy gridlock. But what if it’s the other way around? Is it possible that gridlock in government is actually causing polarization and a turn toward extremist candidates?
 
That’s the assertion of a paper called “From Gridlock to Polarization” by Barton Lee, the Chair of Political Economy and eDemocracy at ETH Zurich. Lee uses a large-scale online experiment to show how voters become more willing to vote for extremist candidates. It leads to some fascinating implications for how we should think about the consequences of ineffective government.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We often say on this podcast that the American electorate is not polarized but the elites are, and that this polarization causes policy gridlock. But what if it’s the other way around? Is it possible that gridlock in government is actually causing polarization and a turn toward extremist candidates?
 
That’s the assertion of a paper called “From Gridlock to Polarization” by Barton Lee, the Chair of Political Economy and eDemocracy at ETH Zurich. Lee uses a large-scale online experiment to show how voters become more willing to vote for extremist candidates. It leads to some fascinating implications for how we should think about the consequences of ineffective government.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>barton lee, populists, democrats, political polarization, political, anthony fowler, will howell, american government, government, political podcast, politics podcast, american electorate, polarization, politcal gridlock, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, wioletta dzuida, republicans</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>100</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">e26e5e66-97b3-418a-a738-cc4bf60fb72b</guid>
      <title>Partisan Identities vs Anti-Establishment Orientations</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>When political commentators talk about polarization, they often mean a partisan ideological divide: the left vs the right, republicans vs democrats, progressives vs conservatives. But what if there is a different dichotomy driving our political disagreements that is orthogonal to ideological differences?</p><p> </p><p>That’s what University of Miami political scientist Joseph Uscinski argues in a recent paper, “American Politics in Two Dimensions: Partisan and Ideological Identities versus Anti-Establishment Orientations. Using two national surveys from 2019 and 2020, he shows that anti-establishment and anti-elite sentiments may be more of a driving force in our politics than partisan ideology.</p><p> </p><p>Paper link: <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajps.12616">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajps.12616</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 1 Nov 2023 12:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When political commentators talk about polarization, they often mean a partisan ideological divide: the left vs the right, republicans vs democrats, progressives vs conservatives. But what if there is a different dichotomy driving our political disagreements that is orthogonal to ideological differences?</p><p> </p><p>That’s what University of Miami political scientist Joseph Uscinski argues in a recent paper, “American Politics in Two Dimensions: Partisan and Ideological Identities versus Anti-Establishment Orientations. Using two national surveys from 2019 and 2020, he shows that anti-establishment and anti-elite sentiments may be more of a driving force in our politics than partisan ideology.</p><p> </p><p>Paper link: <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajps.12616">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajps.12616</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="54502559" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/5045f0b1-4e60-4192-9ae6-75df20a62820/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=5045f0b1-4e60-4192-9ae6-75df20a62820&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Partisan Identities vs Anti-Establishment Orientations</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:56:44</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When political commentators talk about polarization, they often mean a partisan ideological divide: the left vs the right, republicans vs democrats, progressives vs conservatives. But what if there is a different dichotomy driving our political disagreements that is orthogonal to ideological differences?
 
That’s what University of Miami political scientist Joseph Uscinski argues in a recent paper, “American Politics in Two Dimensions: Partisan and Ideological Identities versus Anti-Establishment Orientations. Using two national surveys from 2019 and 2020, he shows that anti-establishment and anti-elite sentiments may be more of a driving force in our politics than partisan ideology.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When political commentators talk about polarization, they often mean a partisan ideological divide: the left vs the right, republicans vs democrats, progressives vs conservatives. But what if there is a different dichotomy driving our political disagreements that is orthogonal to ideological differences?
 
That’s what University of Miami political scientist Joseph Uscinski argues in a recent paper, “American Politics in Two Dimensions: Partisan and Ideological Identities versus Anti-Establishment Orientations. Using two national surveys from 2019 and 2020, he shows that anti-establishment and anti-elite sentiments may be more of a driving force in our politics than partisan ideology.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>democrats, trump, republican, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, biden, government podcast, government, political podcast, politcal, politics podcast, polarization, politics, joseph uscinski, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>99</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">0565c4ac-cd43-4781-9210-749bb5ee8daa</guid>
      <title>LIVE: Does Money Distort Our Politics?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>If there is one thing the right and left seem to agree on it’s that money distorts our politics. It allows the rich to shape policy, choose who gets elected, and escape consequences. But what if this common belief isn’t as true as you think?</p><p>On our second live episode, we look back to famous paper in the political science literature, “Why Is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?” by Stephen Ansolabehere, John Figueiredo and James Snyder. Their provocative paper asks an often-overlooked question: if political money is so effective, why isn’t there more of it?</p><p>This episode was recorded live at the University of Chicago Podcast Network Festival.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If there is one thing the right and left seem to agree on it’s that money distorts our politics. It allows the rich to shape policy, choose who gets elected, and escape consequences. But what if this common belief isn’t as true as you think?</p><p>On our second live episode, we look back to famous paper in the political science literature, “Why Is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?” by Stephen Ansolabehere, John Figueiredo and James Snyder. Their provocative paper asks an often-overlooked question: if political money is so effective, why isn’t there more of it?</p><p>This episode was recorded live at the University of Chicago Podcast Network Festival.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="46432681" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/c4fc83f3-f755-42a9-970d-deb5638d4aa8/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=c4fc83f3-f755-42a9-970d-deb5638d4aa8&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>LIVE: Does Money Distort Our Politics?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:48:21</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>If there is one thing the right and left seem to agree on it’s that money distorts our politics. It allows the rich to shape policy, choose who gets elected, and escape consequences. But what if this common belief isn’t as true as you think?

On our second live episode, we look back to famous paper in the political science literature, “Why Is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?” by Stephen Ansolabehere, John Figueiredo and James Snyder. Their provocative paper asks an often-overlooked question: if political money is so effective, why isn’t there more of it?
 
This episode was recorded live at the University of Chicago Podcast Network Festival.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>If there is one thing the right and left seem to agree on it’s that money distorts our politics. It allows the rich to shape policy, choose who gets elected, and escape consequences. But what if this common belief isn’t as true as you think?

On our second live episode, we look back to famous paper in the political science literature, “Why Is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?” by Stephen Ansolabehere, John Figueiredo and James Snyder. Their provocative paper asks an often-overlooked question: if political money is so effective, why isn’t there more of it?
 
This episode was recorded live at the University of Chicago Podcast Network Festival.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>university of chicago podcast network, political, john figeiredo, anthony fowler, political money, policy, corruption, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, james snyder, politics podcast, university of chicago podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, wioletta dzuida, money in politics, stephen ansolabehere</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>98</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">f5e577b8-a2aa-459f-b691-f41e3c51d324</guid>
      <title>Presidential Power, Parties, And The Rise Of The Administrative State</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>One of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign promises is to upend the modern civil service through an executive order called “Schedule F”. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting over this administrative state since its conception, but why is this area of government so divisive and what power does it really hold?</p><p>The history of the civil services’ origins is one that holds many lessons about the rise of presidential power, the fall of the party system, and the polarization of politics. And there is no better expert on these topics than University of Virginia political scientist, Sidney Milkis. His 1993 book “The President and the Parties” is one of those books that seems to always be relevant but, with increased conservative focus on the administrative state, it is especially worth revisiting today.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign promises is to upend the modern civil service through an executive order called “Schedule F”. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting over this administrative state since its conception, but why is this area of government so divisive and what power does it really hold?</p><p>The history of the civil services’ origins is one that holds many lessons about the rise of presidential power, the fall of the party system, and the polarization of politics. And there is no better expert on these topics than University of Virginia political scientist, Sidney Milkis. His 1993 book “The President and the Parties” is one of those books that seems to always be relevant but, with increased conservative focus on the administrative state, it is especially worth revisiting today.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45006026" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/34cf649d-e6f7-49a2-b81f-2b9a6227d6b3/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=34cf649d-e6f7-49a2-b81f-2b9a6227d6b3&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Presidential Power, Parties, And The Rise Of The Administrative State</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:46:52</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>One of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign promises is to upend the modern civil service through an executive order called “Schedule F”. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting over this administrative state since its conception, but why is this area of government so divisive and what power does it really hold?

The history of the civil services’ origins is one that holds many lessons about the rise of presidential power, the fall of the party system, and the polarization of politics. And there is no better expert on these topics than University of Virginia political scientist, Sidney Milkis. His 1993 book “The President and the Parties” is one of those books that seems to always be relevant but, with increased conservative focus on the administrative state, it is especially worth revisiting today.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>One of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign promises is to upend the modern civil service through an executive order called “Schedule F”. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting over this administrative state since its conception, but why is this area of government so divisive and what power does it really hold?

The history of the civil services’ origins is one that holds many lessons about the rise of presidential power, the fall of the party system, and the polarization of politics. And there is no better expert on these topics than University of Virginia political scientist, Sidney Milkis. His 1993 book “The President and the Parties” is one of those books that seems to always be relevant but, with increased conservative focus on the administrative state, it is especially worth revisiting today.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>university of virginia, democrats, trump, university of chicago podcast network, political polarization, sidney milkis, political, civil service, 2024, policy, government podcast, presidential power, administrative state, government, political podcast, policy podcast, political parties, political science podcast, politics podcast, polarization, university of chicago podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, president trump, university of chicago, schedule f, donald trump, republicans, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>97</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">0619e6d8-c2c6-4a15-97b0-9685eca25da8</guid>
      <title>Does Social Media Polarize Our Politics?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>It’s one of the most common refrains in political discourse today: social media is the source of polarization. It’s a difficult proposition to empirically study because companies like Meta and X don’t share their data publicly. Until now.</p><p>In a landmark series of papers, three in Science and one in Nature, Princeton political scientists Andy Guess and a massive team of researchers were given unique access by Meta to study how the platform and algorithms affected users’ attitudes and behaviors during the 2020 election. The findings are surprising and fascinating, even as the project itself raises intriguing questions about how to conduct research on a company in partnership with that very same company.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It’s one of the most common refrains in political discourse today: social media is the source of polarization. It’s a difficult proposition to empirically study because companies like Meta and X don’t share their data publicly. Until now.</p><p>In a landmark series of papers, three in Science and one in Nature, Princeton political scientists Andy Guess and a massive team of researchers were given unique access by Meta to study how the platform and algorithms affected users’ attitudes and behaviors during the 2020 election. The findings are surprising and fascinating, even as the project itself raises intriguing questions about how to conduct research on a company in partnership with that very same company.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="56698294" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/94e5a392-1b55-4cff-b411-58a9c4002b10/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=94e5a392-1b55-4cff-b411-58a9c4002b10&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Does Social Media Polarize Our Politics?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:59:01</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>It’s one of the most common refrains in political discourse today: social media is the source of polarization. It’s a difficult proposition to empirically study because companies like Meta and X don’t share their data publicly. Until now.

In a landmark series of papers, three in Science and one in Nature, Princeton political scientists Andy Guess and a massive team of researchers were given unique access by Meta to study how the platform and algorithms affected users’ attitudes and behaviors during the 2020 election. The findings are surprising and fascinating, even as the project itself raises intriguing questions about how to conduct research on a company in partnership with that very same company.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>It’s one of the most common refrains in political discourse today: social media is the source of polarization. It’s a difficult proposition to empirically study because companies like Meta and X don’t share their data publicly. Until now.

In a landmark series of papers, three in Science and one in Nature, Princeton political scientists Andy Guess and a massive team of researchers were given unique access by Meta to study how the platform and algorithms affected users’ attitudes and behaviors during the 2020 election. The findings are surprising and fascinating, even as the project itself raises intriguing questions about how to conduct research on a company in partnership with that very same company.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>princeton, harris school of public policy, andy guess, university of chicago podcast network, science, anthony fowler, social media, policy, government podcast, william howell, government, policy podcast, political science podcast, facebook, politics podcast, polarization, university of chicago podcast, politics, x, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, meta, polarized, wioletta dzuida, nature, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>96</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">b8a03cdc-3972-420b-a8a3-f053d9bae7a1</guid>
      <title>Is Partisan Gerrymandering As Bad As You Think?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>There is no political topic that can get people’s blood boiling quite like partisan gerrymandering. Many even go so far as to call it an afront to our democracy. But what do we know about how effective it is and what the data shows about its outcomes?</p><p>In a new paper, “Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, But Reduces Electoral Competition” Princeton political scientist, Kosuke Imai, uses a novel methodological approach to try and document the effect of partisan gerrymandering. What he finds is surprising and may lead people who participate in it to re-think whether it’s worth the effort.</p><p>Link to paper: <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120">https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 6 Sep 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no political topic that can get people’s blood boiling quite like partisan gerrymandering. Many even go so far as to call it an afront to our democracy. But what do we know about how effective it is and what the data shows about its outcomes?</p><p>In a new paper, “Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, But Reduces Electoral Competition” Princeton political scientist, Kosuke Imai, uses a novel methodological approach to try and document the effect of partisan gerrymandering. What he finds is surprising and may lead people who participate in it to re-think whether it’s worth the effort.</p><p>Link to paper: <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120">https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="53501831" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/98826ec6-e2d7-4a22-8644-71bd9d325164/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=98826ec6-e2d7-4a22-8644-71bd9d325164&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Is Partisan Gerrymandering As Bad As You Think?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:55:42</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There is no political topic that can get people’s blood boiling quite like partisan gerrymandering. Many even go so far as to call it an afront to our democracy. But what do we know about how effective it is and what the data shows about its outcomes?
 
In a new paper, “Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, But Reduces Electoral Competition” Princeton political scientist, Kosuke Imai, uses a novel methodological approach to try and document the effect of partisan gerrymandering. What he finds is surprising and may lead people who participate in it to re-think whether it’s worth the effort.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There is no political topic that can get people’s blood boiling quite like partisan gerrymandering. Many even go so far as to call it an afront to our democracy. But what do we know about how effective it is and what the data shows about its outcomes?
 
In a new paper, “Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, But Reduces Electoral Competition” Princeton political scientist, Kosuke Imai, uses a novel methodological approach to try and document the effect of partisan gerrymandering. What he finds is surprising and may lead people who participate in it to re-think whether it’s worth the effort.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>partisan gerrymandering, kosuke imai, pnas, democrats, uchicago, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political, anthony fowler, uchicago podcast network, policy, elections, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, uchicago podacast, politics podcast, research, partisan politics, academic podcast, gerrymandering, academic, polarization, university of chicago podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, research podcast, wioletta dzuida, political scientist, republicans, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>95</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">3e8eb1aa-edbb-4e34-8e6c-025180aab358</guid>
      <title>Does Ousting Incumbents Improve The Economy?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>The assumption in political science has always been that electing challengers can lead to a downturn in performance. It takes time to do all the hiring involved in establishing a new government, and there is always a learning curve about processes and procedures. But a surprising new paper shows the opposite might be true.</p><p>In “Electoral Turnovers”, Boston University economist Benjamin Marx uses a vast new data set to show that ousting the incumbent always seems to lead to improved performance, especially economic performance.</p><p>Paper: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4039485">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4039485</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The assumption in political science has always been that electing challengers can lead to a downturn in performance. It takes time to do all the hiring involved in establishing a new government, and there is always a learning curve about processes and procedures. But a surprising new paper shows the opposite might be true.</p><p>In “Electoral Turnovers”, Boston University economist Benjamin Marx uses a vast new data set to show that ousting the incumbent always seems to lead to improved performance, especially economic performance.</p><p>Paper: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4039485">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4039485</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="49847591" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/e22ae7cf-2138-4b70-9eeb-60bfc41d7d6e/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=e22ae7cf-2138-4b70-9eeb-60bfc41d7d6e&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Does Ousting Incumbents Improve The Economy?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:51:54</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>The assumption in political science has always been that electing challengers can lead to a downturn in performance. It takes time to do all the hiring involved in establishing a new government, and there is always a learning curve about processes and procedures. But a surprising new paper shows the opposite might be true.
 
In “Electoral Turnovers”, Boston University economist Benjamin Marx uses a vast new data set to show that ousting the incumbent always seems to lead to improved performance, especially economic performance.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>The assumption in political science has always been that electing challengers can lead to a downturn in performance. It takes time to do all the hiring involved in establishing a new government, and there is always a learning curve about processes and procedures. But a surprising new paper shows the opposite might be true.
 
In “Electoral Turnovers”, Boston University economist Benjamin Marx uses a vast new data set to show that ousting the incumbent always seems to lead to improved performance, especially economic performance.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>econ podcast, uchicago podcast, economy, economics, econ, boston university, election, uchicago, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, elections podcast, political, anthony fowler, policy, elections, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, politics podcast, economic performance, university of chicago podcast, economics podcast, election podcast, politics, economy podcast, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, electoral turnovers, wioletta dzuida, benjamin marx</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>94</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">6e4aff2a-6c93-43cc-b11b-c2ab3dbd07b5</guid>
      <title>Do Partisans Really Believe Different Facts?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>The common refrain in political coverage today says that each side of the aisle is living in an information bubble. There is a partisan knowledge gap between the facts Democrats know and the facts Republicans know. May believe this gap could be the downfall of our democracy. But what if that gap isn’t as large as we think?</p><p>In a new paper by independent researcher, Gaurav Sood, titled “A Gap In Our Understanding? Reconsidering the Evidence for Partisan Knowledge Gaps” he finds that the way we study knowledge gaps is flawed, and that differences in factual knowledge may not be as high as supposed.</p><p>Paper Link: <a href="https://www.gsood.com/research/papers/partisan_gap.pdf">https://www.gsood.com/research/papers/partisan_gap.pdf</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 9 Aug 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The common refrain in political coverage today says that each side of the aisle is living in an information bubble. There is a partisan knowledge gap between the facts Democrats know and the facts Republicans know. May believe this gap could be the downfall of our democracy. But what if that gap isn’t as large as we think?</p><p>In a new paper by independent researcher, Gaurav Sood, titled “A Gap In Our Understanding? Reconsidering the Evidence for Partisan Knowledge Gaps” he finds that the way we study knowledge gaps is flawed, and that differences in factual knowledge may not be as high as supposed.</p><p>Paper Link: <a href="https://www.gsood.com/research/papers/partisan_gap.pdf">https://www.gsood.com/research/papers/partisan_gap.pdf</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="46410733" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/f63420ee-8095-4431-9d0e-29fd6e1d73a9/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=f63420ee-8095-4431-9d0e-29fd6e1d73a9&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Partisans Really Believe Different Facts?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:48:19</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>The common refrain in political coverage today says that each side of the aisle is living in an information bubble. There is a partisan knowledge gap between the facts Democrats know and the facts Republicans know. May believe this gap could be the downfall of our democracy. But what if that gap isn’t as large as we think?
 
In a new paper by independent researcher, Gaurav Sood, titled “A Gap In Our Understanding? Reconsidering the Evidence for Partisan Knowledge Gaps” he finds that the way we study knowledge gaps is flawed, and that differences in factual knowledge may not be as high as supposed.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>The common refrain in political coverage today says that each side of the aisle is living in an information bubble. There is a partisan knowledge gap between the facts Democrats know and the facts Republicans know. May believe this gap could be the downfall of our democracy. But what if that gap isn’t as large as we think?
 
In a new paper by independent researcher, Gaurav Sood, titled “A Gap In Our Understanding? Reconsidering the Evidence for Partisan Knowledge Gaps” he finds that the way we study knowledge gaps is flawed, and that differences in factual knowledge may not be as high as supposed.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>uchicago podcast, democrats, uchicago, gaurav sood, university of chicago podcast network, political polarization, political, partisan knowledge gaps, anthony fowler, democracy podcast, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, misinformation, disinformation, politics podcast, partisan politics, university of chicago podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, wioletta dzuida, democracy, republicans</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>93</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">23fa7522-22cc-4387-bdbf-691fa8ab7372</guid>
      <title>Is Voter Rationality A Test Of A Health Democracy?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>There’s a long tradition in political science of using voter rationality to test the health of our democracy. But could this myopia be misguided? Are there any situations where irrational and uninformed voters could actually generate a healthier democracy?</p><p>We’re taking a short summer break to catch up on some incredible episodes we have in the works. But in the meantime, we’re going to re-share some of our prior conversations that we think are the most vital and fascinating. Thanks for listening and we’ll see you soon with new episodes of Not Another Politics Podcast.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:14:39 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There’s a long tradition in political science of using voter rationality to test the health of our democracy. But could this myopia be misguided? Are there any situations where irrational and uninformed voters could actually generate a healthier democracy?</p><p>We’re taking a short summer break to catch up on some incredible episodes we have in the works. But in the meantime, we’re going to re-share some of our prior conversations that we think are the most vital and fascinating. Thanks for listening and we’ll see you soon with new episodes of Not Another Politics Podcast.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="46222881" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/9fdf9525-e2a9-4f6a-94a3-0053ac68ca95/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=9fdf9525-e2a9-4f6a-94a3-0053ac68ca95&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Is Voter Rationality A Test Of A Health Democracy?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:48:07</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There’s a long tradition in political science of using voter rationality to test the health of our democracy. But could this myopia be misguided? Are there any situations where irrational and uninformed voters could actually generate a healthier democracy?

We’re taking a short summer break to catch up on some incredible episodes we have in the works. But in the meantime, we’re going to re-share some of our prior conversations that we think are the most vital and fascinating. Thanks for listening and we’ll see you soon with new episodes of Not Another Politics Podcast.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There’s a long tradition in political science of using voter rationality to test the health of our democracy. But could this myopia be misguided? Are there any situations where irrational and uninformed voters could actually generate a healthier democracy?

We’re taking a short summer break to catch up on some incredible episodes we have in the works. But in the meantime, we’re going to re-share some of our prior conversations that we think are the most vital and fascinating. Thanks for listening and we’ll see you soon with new episodes of Not Another Politics Podcast.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>92</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">9797b377-75e7-4598-a767-df2ae5bef943</guid>
      <title>When Fox Viewers Watch CNN Instead</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Partisan misinformation. Many people think it comes from the news people watch. When it comes to cable news, Fox and CNN have pretty partisan viewers. So, what would happen if Fox viewers tuned into CNN for a month? Would they suddenly adopt different views more aligned with CNN?</p><p>We’re taking a short summer break to catch up on some incredible episodes we have in the works. But in the meantime, we’re going to re-share some of our prior conversations that we think are the most vital and fascinating. Thanks for listening and we’ll see you soon with new episodes of Not Another Politics Podcast.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Partisan misinformation. Many people think it comes from the news people watch. When it comes to cable news, Fox and CNN have pretty partisan viewers. So, what would happen if Fox viewers tuned into CNN for a month? Would they suddenly adopt different views more aligned with CNN?</p><p>We’re taking a short summer break to catch up on some incredible episodes we have in the works. But in the meantime, we’re going to re-share some of our prior conversations that we think are the most vital and fascinating. Thanks for listening and we’ll see you soon with new episodes of Not Another Politics Podcast.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="47835909" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/6d69c6bb-83ce-4d20-93cf-74de3fc775d8/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=6d69c6bb-83ce-4d20-93cf-74de3fc775d8&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>When Fox Viewers Watch CNN Instead</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:48</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Partisan misinformation. Many people think it comes from the news people watch. When it comes to cable news, Fox and CNN have pretty partisan viewers. So, what would happen if Fox viewers tuned into CNN for a month? Would they suddenly adopt different views more aligned with CNN? 

We’re taking a short summer break to catch up on some incredible episodes we have in the works. But in the meantime, we’re going to re-share some of our prior conversations that we think are the most vital and fascinating. Thanks for listening and we’ll see you soon with new episodes of Not Another Politics Podcast.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Partisan misinformation. Many people think it comes from the news people watch. When it comes to cable news, Fox and CNN have pretty partisan viewers. So, what would happen if Fox viewers tuned into CNN for a month? Would they suddenly adopt different views more aligned with CNN? 

We’re taking a short summer break to catch up on some incredible episodes we have in the works. But in the meantime, we’re going to re-share some of our prior conversations that we think are the most vital and fascinating. Thanks for listening and we’ll see you soon with new episodes of Not Another Politics Podcast.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>91</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">48d230ae-631c-477b-b01c-f153df0b843e</guid>
      <title>Do White Americans Favor White Politicians?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>As the Supreme Court debates whether to end affirmative action, concerns about the power of implicit racial bias to shape who gets ahead in America are as salient as ever. But what do we know about the extent and power of this racism to drive voting decisions? Is there a scientific way to measure it?</p><p>In a new paper “Disfavor or Favor? Assessing the Valence of White Americans’ Racial Attitudes” political scientist Tim Ryan provides a new framework for how perceived racial attitudes line up with voting. It takes on the faults of our existing racial bias literature and provides striking evidence about how to characterize white American’s racial attitudes. </p><p>Ryan is a professor at The University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill. You can find the paper at this link: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3701331">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3701331 </a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As the Supreme Court debates whether to end affirmative action, concerns about the power of implicit racial bias to shape who gets ahead in America are as salient as ever. But what do we know about the extent and power of this racism to drive voting decisions? Is there a scientific way to measure it?</p><p>In a new paper “Disfavor or Favor? Assessing the Valence of White Americans’ Racial Attitudes” political scientist Tim Ryan provides a new framework for how perceived racial attitudes line up with voting. It takes on the faults of our existing racial bias literature and provides striking evidence about how to characterize white American’s racial attitudes. </p><p>Ryan is a professor at The University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill. You can find the paper at this link: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3701331">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3701331 </a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="46222824" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/0932f0b8-7f9e-4e76-95d6-10ae990252a2/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=0932f0b8-7f9e-4e76-95d6-10ae990252a2&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do White Americans Favor White Politicians?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:55</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>As the Supreme Court debates whether to end affirmative action, concerns about the power of implicit racial bias to shape who gets ahead in America are as salient as ever. But what do we know about the extent and power of this racism to drive voting decisions? Is there a scientific way to measure it?
 
In a new paper “Disfavor or Favor? Assessing the Valence of White Americans’ Racial Attitudes” political scientist Tim Ryan provides a new framework for how perceived racial attitudes line up with voting. It takes on the faults of our existing racial bias literature and provides striking evidence about how to characterize white American’s racial attitudes. 
 
Ryan is a professor at The University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill. You can find the paper at this link: https://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/QJPS-21119 </itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>As the Supreme Court debates whether to end affirmative action, concerns about the power of implicit racial bias to shape who gets ahead in America are as salient as ever. But what do we know about the extent and power of this racism to drive voting decisions? Is there a scientific way to measure it?
 
In a new paper “Disfavor or Favor? Assessing the Valence of White Americans’ Racial Attitudes” political scientist Tim Ryan provides a new framework for how perceived racial attitudes line up with voting. It takes on the faults of our existing racial bias literature and provides striking evidence about how to characterize white American’s racial attitudes. 
 
Ryan is a professor at The University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill. You can find the paper at this link: https://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/QJPS-21119 </itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>uchicago podcast, racial attitudes, uchicago, public policy, university of chicago podcast network, political scientist podcast, race podcast, race, political, affirmative action, racial bias, will howell, uchicago podcast network, policy, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, political science podcast, politics podcast, public policy podcast, the university of north caroline at chapel hill, university of chicago podcast, tim ryan, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, wioletta dzuida, political scientist, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>90</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">813a8f4d-8ce9-49c3-94cb-4a85262b37c4</guid>
      <title>Do Stimulus Checks Buy Votes?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>We’ve become deeply familiar with stimulus checks in the last few years, but what isn’t clear is what affect these transfers may have on elections. Could stimulus checks be enough for citizens to change their votes to the party handing out the money and if so, is this a way for politicians to buy votes?</p><p>Northwestern Professor of economics Silvia Vannutelli explores these questions in a paper titled “The Political Economy of Stimulus Transfers”. She looks at stimulus payments in Italy in 2014 and uncovers some surprising findings. Not only did these transfers appear to “purchase” some votes, but the effect seem to persist into the future.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 7 Jun 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>We’ve become deeply familiar with stimulus checks in the last few years, but what isn’t clear is what affect these transfers may have on elections. Could stimulus checks be enough for citizens to change their votes to the party handing out the money and if so, is this a way for politicians to buy votes?</p><p>Northwestern Professor of economics Silvia Vannutelli explores these questions in a paper titled “The Political Economy of Stimulus Transfers”. She looks at stimulus payments in Italy in 2014 and uncovers some surprising findings. Not only did these transfers appear to “purchase” some votes, but the effect seem to persist into the future.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="44986538" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/59d0e23c-d4ea-4b2d-845f-1c91010b1b2a/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=59d0e23c-d4ea-4b2d-845f-1c91010b1b2a&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Stimulus Checks Buy Votes?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:46:50</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We’ve become deeply familiar with stimulus checks in the last few years, but what isn’t clear is what affect these transfers may have on elections. Could stimulus checks be enough for citizens to change their votes to the party handing out the money and if so, is this a way for politicians to buy votes?

Northwestern Professor of economics Silvia Vannutelli explores these questions in a paper titled “The Political Economy of Stimulus Transfers”. She looks at stimulus payments in Italy in 2014 and uncovers some surprising findings. Not only did these transfers appear to “purchase” some votes, but the effect seem to persist into the future.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We’ve become deeply familiar with stimulus checks in the last few years, but what isn’t clear is what affect these transfers may have on elections. Could stimulus checks be enough for citizens to change their votes to the party handing out the money and if so, is this a way for politicians to buy votes?

Northwestern Professor of economics Silvia Vannutelli explores these questions in a paper titled “The Political Economy of Stimulus Transfers”. She looks at stimulus payments in Italy in 2014 and uncovers some surprising findings. Not only did these transfers appear to “purchase” some votes, but the effect seem to persist into the future.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>econ podcast, economics, econ, political economy, university of chicago podcast network, elections podcast, political, anthony fowler, elections, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, politics podcast, research, academic podcast, academic, university of chicago podcast, economics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, research podcast, wioletta dzuida</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>89</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">b5ed7fe5-4a35-4327-9b14-1f88fc91799d</guid>
      <title>Can You Judge A Politician By Their Looks?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>We all know you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but if we’re being honest we all do it on occasion anyway. Could it be that we also elect our politicians just based on how they look? Of course, there’s the old idea of looking “presidential”, but how much power does that really have to sway an election?</p><p>A famous paper by University of Chicago behavioral scientist Alexander Todorov provides us with some surprising insights. Just by flashing two faces of competing politicians for mere seconds, participants were able to accurately judge the outcomes of elections based on how competent they thought the politicians looked. It’s a curious finding that raises more questions than it answers, and we dig into both on this episode.  </p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 May 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>We all know you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but if we’re being honest we all do it on occasion anyway. Could it be that we also elect our politicians just based on how they look? Of course, there’s the old idea of looking “presidential”, but how much power does that really have to sway an election?</p><p>A famous paper by University of Chicago behavioral scientist Alexander Todorov provides us with some surprising insights. Just by flashing two faces of competing politicians for mere seconds, participants were able to accurately judge the outcomes of elections based on how competent they thought the politicians looked. It’s a curious finding that raises more questions than it answers, and we dig into both on this episode.  </p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="41624074" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/bf5dcbf7-a22a-4a6b-b86c-9f67db5303d0/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=bf5dcbf7-a22a-4a6b-b86c-9f67db5303d0&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Can You Judge A Politician By Their Looks?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:43:20</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We all know you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but if we’re being honest we all do it on occasion anyway. Could it be that we also elect our politicians just based on how they look? Of course, there’s the old idea of looking “presidential”, but how much power does that really have to sway an election?
 
A famous paper by University of Chicago behavioral scientist Alexander Todorov provides us with some surprising insights. Just by flashing two faces of competing politicians for mere seconds, participants were able to accurately judge the outcomes of elections based on how competent they thought the politicians looked. It’s a curious finding that raises more questions than it answers, and we dig into both on this episode.  </itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We all know you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but if we’re being honest we all do it on occasion anyway. Could it be that we also elect our politicians just based on how they look? Of course, there’s the old idea of looking “presidential”, but how much power does that really have to sway an election?
 
A famous paper by University of Chicago behavioral scientist Alexander Todorov provides us with some surprising insights. Just by flashing two faces of competing politicians for mere seconds, participants were able to accurately judge the outcomes of elections based on how competent they thought the politicians looked. It’s a curious finding that raises more questions than it answers, and we dig into both on this episode.  </itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, uchicago podcast, election, uchicago, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, elections podcast, political, anthony fowler, will howell, policy, elections, politicians, government podcast, government, political podcast, policy podcast, alexander todorov, harris school, politics podcast, research, academic podcast, academic, university of chicago podcast, election podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, research podcast, wioletta dzuida</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>88</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">8ef719f5-3af0-4c43-a07e-a6ccb706264e</guid>
      <title>Can Citizen Appeals Change Government Action?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>When citizens directly appeal to their government, are their concerns ignored or taken seriously? It’s an important question for understanding norms around accountability, especially in authoritarian regimes. </p><p>To find some answers, University of Chicago Professor of Public Policy Shaoda Wang helped develop a clever field experiment evaluating how Chinese regulators respond to citizen appeals about companies violating pollution standards. </p><p>The experiment is fascinating on its own, but it also provides a wealth of data about the effectiveness of citizen appeals, how corporations respond when complaints are public or private, and even the incentives companies follow when it comes to adhering to pollution standards. </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 May 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When citizens directly appeal to their government, are their concerns ignored or taken seriously? It’s an important question for understanding norms around accountability, especially in authoritarian regimes. </p><p>To find some answers, University of Chicago Professor of Public Policy Shaoda Wang helped develop a clever field experiment evaluating how Chinese regulators respond to citizen appeals about companies violating pollution standards. </p><p>The experiment is fascinating on its own, but it also provides a wealth of data about the effectiveness of citizen appeals, how corporations respond when complaints are public or private, and even the incentives companies follow when it comes to adhering to pollution standards. </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="42311252" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/96158343-67db-46ba-b05e-9fa1ecb7a1e7/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=96158343-67db-46ba-b05e-9fa1ecb7a1e7&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Can Citizen Appeals Change Government Action?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:43:51</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When citizens directly appeal to their government, are their concerns ignored or taken seriously? It’s an important question for understanding norms around accountability, especially in authoritarian regimes. 
 
To find some answers, University of Chicago Professor of Public Policy Shaoda Wang helped develop a clever field experiment evaluating how Chinese regulators respond to citizen appeals about companies violating pollution standards. 
 
The experiment is fascinating on its own, but it also provides a wealth of data about the effectiveness of citizen appeals, how corporations respond when complaints are public or private, and even the incentives companies follow when it comes to adhering to pollution standards. </itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When citizens directly appeal to their government, are their concerns ignored or taken seriously? It’s an important question for understanding norms around accountability, especially in authoritarian regimes. 
 
To find some answers, University of Chicago Professor of Public Policy Shaoda Wang helped develop a clever field experiment evaluating how Chinese regulators respond to citizen appeals about companies violating pollution standards. 
 
The experiment is fascinating on its own, but it also provides a wealth of data about the effectiveness of citizen appeals, how corporations respond when complaints are public or private, and even the incentives companies follow when it comes to adhering to pollution standards. </itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, chinese politics, citizenship, public policy, shaoda wang, university of chicago podcast network, citizen, political, anthony fowler, will howell, chinese policy, policy, government podcast, government, political podcast, policy podcast, politics podcast, public policy podcast, university of chicago podcast, pollution standards, pollution, politics, china, government accountability, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, wioletta dzuida, china podcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>87</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">8afa990e-e333-4820-af5e-a7d57d7876a8</guid>
      <title>Does Bad Government Breed Populism?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Why is populism on the rise across the globe? One story says this movement is driven by anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment, that they just want to throw the bums out. Another says it’s driven by identity politics, an anti-immigrant pro-nativist ideology. Both stories don’t leave room for much hope. But what if there was another story that not only gives us some hope but supplies a clear solution.</p><p>A new paper by economist Giacomo Ponzetto from the Barcelona School of Economics provides us just that story. It’s called “Do Incompetent Politicians Breed Populist Voters? Evidence from Italian Municipalities”, and it looks at home simply increasing the effectiveness of local government may decrease support for populist candidates.</p><p>Paper link:<a> https://bse.eu/research/working-papers/do-incompetent-politicians-breed-populist-voters-evidence-italian</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why is populism on the rise across the globe? One story says this movement is driven by anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment, that they just want to throw the bums out. Another says it’s driven by identity politics, an anti-immigrant pro-nativist ideology. Both stories don’t leave room for much hope. But what if there was another story that not only gives us some hope but supplies a clear solution.</p><p>A new paper by economist Giacomo Ponzetto from the Barcelona School of Economics provides us just that story. It’s called “Do Incompetent Politicians Breed Populist Voters? Evidence from Italian Municipalities”, and it looks at home simply increasing the effectiveness of local government may decrease support for populist candidates.</p><p>Paper link:<a> https://bse.eu/research/working-papers/do-incompetent-politicians-breed-populist-voters-evidence-italian</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="47335100" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/0c89a7fe-f5fc-4808-8c53-952982fd5a38/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=0c89a7fe-f5fc-4808-8c53-952982fd5a38&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Does Bad Government Breed Populism?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:16</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Why is populism on the rise across the globe? One story says this movement is driven by anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment, that they just want to throw the bums out. Another says it’s driven by identity politics, an anti-immigrant pro-nativist ideology. Both stories don’t leave room for much hope. But what if there was another story that not only gives us some hope but supplies a clear solution.
 
A new paper by economist Giacomo Ponzetto from the Barcelona School of Economics provides us just that story. It’s called “Do Incompetent Politicians Breed Populist Voters? Evidence from Italian Municipalities”, and it looks at home simply increasing the effectiveness of local government may decrease support for populist candidates.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Why is populism on the rise across the globe? One story says this movement is driven by anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment, that they just want to throw the bums out. Another says it’s driven by identity politics, an anti-immigrant pro-nativist ideology. Both stories don’t leave room for much hope. But what if there was another story that not only gives us some hope but supplies a clear solution.
 
A new paper by economist Giacomo Ponzetto from the Barcelona School of Economics provides us just that story. It’s called “Do Incompetent Politicians Breed Populist Voters? Evidence from Italian Municipalities”, and it looks at home simply increasing the effectiveness of local government may decrease support for populist candidates.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>academic research, uchicago, voters, giacomo ponzetto, university of chicago podcast network, barcelona school of economics, international politics, political, uchicago podcast network, policy, government podcast, government, political podcast, policy podcast, populism, politics podcast, research, academic, italy, populist, politics, voting, not another politics podcast, university of chicago</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>86</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">7abc96a8-4135-4663-99e2-a6685511bd11</guid>
      <title>Do Political Endorsements Undermine Trust In Science?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>In the runup to the 2020 election, the academic journal Nature made the unprecedented decision to endorse Joe Biden for President. During an era when trust in science has never seemed more crucial, this decision led many to wonder if explicitly political statements increase or decrease public trust in science.</p><p>Luckily, one PhD graduate from the Stanford School of Business designed a well-crafted experiment to find an answer. Using the Nature endorsement as a test case, Floyd Zhang wrote a paper that helps us explore the effects of public trust when scientific journals make endorsements.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>In the runup to the 2020 election, the academic journal Nature made the unprecedented decision to endorse Joe Biden for President. During an era when trust in science has never seemed more crucial, this decision led many to wonder if explicitly political statements increase or decrease public trust in science.</p><p>Luckily, one PhD graduate from the Stanford School of Business designed a well-crafted experiment to find an answer. Using the Nature endorsement as a test case, Floyd Zhang wrote a paper that helps us explore the effects of public trust when scientific journals make endorsements.</p></blockquote><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45548550" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/1da1bf2e-48f8-4ac7-a2fa-2a7e884f10a0/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=1da1bf2e-48f8-4ac7-a2fa-2a7e884f10a0&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Political Endorsements Undermine Trust In Science?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:25</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In the runup to the 2020 election, the academic journal Nature made the unprecedented decision to endorse Joe Biden for President. During an era when trust in science has never seemed more crucial, this decision led many to wonder if explicitly political statements increase or decrease public trust in science.
 
Luckily, one PhD graduate from the Stanford School of Business designed a well-crafted experiment to find an answer. Using the Nature endorsement as a test case, Floyd Zhang wrote a paper that helps us explore the effects of public trust when scientific journals make endorsements.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In the runup to the 2020 election, the academic journal Nature made the unprecedented decision to endorse Joe Biden for President. During an era when trust in science has never seemed more crucial, this decision led many to wonder if explicitly political statements increase or decrease public trust in science.
 
Luckily, one PhD graduate from the Stanford School of Business designed a well-crafted experiment to find an answer. Using the Nature endorsement as a test case, Floyd Zhang wrote a paper that helps us explore the effects of public trust when scientific journals make endorsements.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>joe biden, floyd zhang, election, public policy, science, political endorsements, political, academics, anthony fowler, will howell, scientist, policy, william howell, political podcast, policy podcast, us election, scientific journals, politics podcast, academic, politics, us politics, not another politics podcast, stanford school of business, wioletta dzuida, 2020 election, nature</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>85</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">871f543d-a0ec-4d0b-bf2a-b9c7dfcc8ad3</guid>
      <title>Do Politicians Spend Money Differently Depending On Its Source?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Paper link: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3273001">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3273001</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2023 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paper link: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3273001">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3273001</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45148420" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/3c1f585b-bcb5-4456-9170-6df4cb7b4461/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=3c1f585b-bcb5-4456-9170-6df4cb7b4461&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Politicians Spend Money Differently Depending On Its Source?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:00</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>If you found a hundred-dollar bill on the sidewalk, would you spend it differently than a hundred dollars made at work? This same question applies to politicians. Governments collect revenues from a variety of sources, does where the money comes from change how it’s spent?
 
In a paper looking at taxes and royalties from natural resources in Columbia, University of Chicago Professor of Public Policy Luis Martinez shows how the source of revenue seems to determine whether it is wasted frivolously or put toward necessary public projects.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>If you found a hundred-dollar bill on the sidewalk, would you spend it differently than a hundred dollars made at work? This same question applies to politicians. Governments collect revenues from a variety of sources, does where the money comes from change how it’s spent?
 
In a paper looking at taxes and royalties from natural resources in Columbia, University of Chicago Professor of Public Policy Luis Martinez shows how the source of revenue seems to determine whether it is wasted frivolously or put toward necessary public projects.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, uchicago podcast, government revenues, luis martinez, uchicago, public policy, university of chicago podcast network, political, anthony fowler, will howell, policy, politicians, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, columbia, politics podcast, research, academic podcast, public policy podcast, academic, university of chicago podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, research podcast, wioletta dzuida, taxes</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>84</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">26a29b03-be8c-4875-b6c9-403bc0b4345f</guid>
      <title>How Does Representation Work?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Paper: <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1952717">https://www.jstor.org/stable/1952717</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2023 12:14:22 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paper: <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1952717">https://www.jstor.org/stable/1952717</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="39407825" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/01561674-a21f-409b-a831-ea6d61766b48/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=01561674-a21f-409b-a831-ea6d61766b48&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>How Does Representation Work?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:41:02</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There are two classic questions in political science research: how does representation work and how should it work? They’re crucial questions when it comes to designing a functioning democracy.

In fact, researchers have been trying to answer these questions for decades. On this episode, we dive into one of the formative papers on the subject from Warren Miller and Donald Stokes which was published in 1963. How does this paper shape the way we think about representation, and how much progress have we since then?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There are two classic questions in political science research: how does representation work and how should it work? They’re crucial questions when it comes to designing a functioning democracy.

In fact, researchers have been trying to answer these questions for decades. On this episode, we dive into one of the formative papers on the subject from Warren Miller and Donald Stokes which was published in 1963. How does this paper shape the way we think about representation, and how much progress have we since then?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>83</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">f2ea36f5-df51-4eae-8ac5-144d48e9a5c2</guid>
      <title>The Polarization Of State Legislatures</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Paper link: <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/a/now/jnlpip/113.00000063.html ">https://ideas.repec.org/a/now/jnlpip/113.00000063.html </a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 1 Mar 2023 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paper link: <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/a/now/jnlpip/113.00000063.html ">https://ideas.repec.org/a/now/jnlpip/113.00000063.html </a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="47135381" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/06d9ea34-f9e1-4a2e-bff9-6ebd5a9b5843/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=06d9ea34-f9e1-4a2e-bff9-6ebd5a9b5843&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The Polarization Of State Legislatures</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:00</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When we talk about polarization on this podcast it’s almost always in the context of congress or the presidency. But are state legislatures polarizing as well? And, if they are, what can that tell us about the state of our democracy?
 
In a new paper, Princeton political scientist Nolan McCarty shows that not only are state legislatures polarizing, but they’re polarizing faster and more intensely than congress. 
 </itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When we talk about polarization on this podcast it’s almost always in the context of congress or the presidency. But are state legislatures polarizing as well? And, if they are, what can that tell us about the state of our democracy?
 
In a new paper, Princeton political scientist Nolan McCarty shows that not only are state legislatures polarizing, but they’re polarizing faster and more intensely than congress. 
 </itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>princeton, napp, university of chicago podcast network, state, ucpn, political polarization, state legislatures, political, education podcast, anthony fowler, nolan mccarty, will howell, policy, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, govern, policy podcast, politics podcast, academic podcast, academic, polarization, university of chicago podcast, educational podcast, politics, congress, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, education, wioletta dzuida, state politics, educational, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>82</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">6085433a-d7b3-466c-aa0a-de0a01e5e75c</guid>
      <title>Are We In A Period Of Global Democratic Decline?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>The popular narrative these days is that democracies around the globe are backsliding. If we turn to countries like Hungary, Poland, and Venezuela, this threat certainly is true — authoritarian dictators have contributed to democratic decline. But what does the global picture reveal? Does the claim hold true? A new paper by Anne Meng and Andrew Little investigates this question, by analyzing more objective indicators such as incumbent performance in elections.</p><p>Anne Meng is an associate professor in the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia. Link to paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4327307 </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2023 13:11:24 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The popular narrative these days is that democracies around the globe are backsliding. If we turn to countries like Hungary, Poland, and Venezuela, this threat certainly is true — authoritarian dictators have contributed to democratic decline. But what does the global picture reveal? Does the claim hold true? A new paper by Anne Meng and Andrew Little investigates this question, by analyzing more objective indicators such as incumbent performance in elections.</p><p>Anne Meng is an associate professor in the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia. Link to paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4327307 </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="48120949" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/7f910748-5538-4263-9381-fb845a052ea7/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=7f910748-5538-4263-9381-fb845a052ea7&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Are We In A Period Of Global Democratic Decline?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:50:06</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary></itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>university of virginia, democratic backsliding, university of chicago podcast network, political, us, anthony fowler, democracy podcast, will howell, policy, government podcast, government, political podcast, policy podcast, politics podcast, american politics, william howel, university of chicago podcast, politics, us politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, wioletta dzuida, america, democracy, anne meng</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>81</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">cd349247-63ec-4a64-8b47-2b9fa3d56967</guid>
      <title>Political Brokers In India’s Most Marginalized Communities</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>On this show, we focus a lot on ideological polarization but it’s important to remember that politics is about more than ideology or even policy victories. It’s about distribution and redistribution of goods and services in return for party support, votes. This view of politics is called clientelism, and it often goes overlooked.</p><p>One of the landmark papers on clientelism is from Tariq Thatchil, a political scientist at The University of Pennsylvania. It won the award for best paper in the APSR in 2018, and it’s called “How Clients Select Brokers, Competition and Choice in India’s Slums”. Their investigation prompts a re-thinking of the dynamics of clientelism and perhaps even holds some lessons for how to re-think the ideological view of politics as well.</p><p><a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5310a4d8e4b05a56d51f81c8/t/5b4cbc711ae6cf1a9051724e/1531755638231/Auerbach_Thachil_APSR.pdf"><strong>https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5310a4d8e4b05a56d51f81c8/t/5b4cbc711ae6cf1a9051724e/1531755638231/Auerbach_Thachil_APSR.pdf</strong></a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 2 Feb 2023 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On this show, we focus a lot on ideological polarization but it’s important to remember that politics is about more than ideology or even policy victories. It’s about distribution and redistribution of goods and services in return for party support, votes. This view of politics is called clientelism, and it often goes overlooked.</p><p>One of the landmark papers on clientelism is from Tariq Thatchil, a political scientist at The University of Pennsylvania. It won the award for best paper in the APSR in 2018, and it’s called “How Clients Select Brokers, Competition and Choice in India’s Slums”. Their investigation prompts a re-thinking of the dynamics of clientelism and perhaps even holds some lessons for how to re-think the ideological view of politics as well.</p><p><a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5310a4d8e4b05a56d51f81c8/t/5b4cbc711ae6cf1a9051724e/1531755638231/Auerbach_Thachil_APSR.pdf"><strong>https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5310a4d8e4b05a56d51f81c8/t/5b4cbc711ae6cf1a9051724e/1531755638231/Auerbach_Thachil_APSR.pdf</strong></a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="47964534" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/165849d6-7ae3-4e03-bb77-b32b2fda967c/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=165849d6-7ae3-4e03-bb77-b32b2fda967c&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Political Brokers In India’s Most Marginalized Communities</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:56</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary></itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>uchicago podcast, university of pennsylvania, uchicago, university of chicago podcast network, political, education podcast, anthony fowler, university, will howell, policy, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, politics podcast, tariq thatchil, academic podcast, academic, university of chicago podcast, india politics, educational podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, india, education, university podcast, wioletta dzuida, educational</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>80</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">10699198-c03d-428a-8b18-4cf4be8297e4</guid>
      <title>An Algorithm for Detecting Election Fraud</title>
      <description><![CDATA[For better or worse, one of the biggest stories in US politics today is the detection of election fraud, or in many cases the lack of election fraud. But determining whether fraud happened in an election can be difficult, even while proving the validity of elections for some has become increasingly important. Wouldn’t it be incredible if we could just plug a set of data from an election into a toolkit that could give us an answer if fraud occurred?

Well, one political scientist from the University of Michigan, Walter Mebane believes he may have developed just such a toolkit. It’s called “election forensics”. Much like machine learning algorithms, when tested in the field it does seem to perform fantastically well, but figuring out exactly how it works can be a complicated web to untangle. We give it a shot on this episode. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="35890912" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/05fa69b7-60f6-4e69-9a23-f71d085c2c6a/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=05fa69b7-60f6-4e69-9a23-f71d085c2c6a&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>An Algorithm for Detecting Election Fraud</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:37:21</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>For better or worse, one of the biggest stories in US politics today is the detection of election fraud, or in many cases the lack of election fraud. But determining whether fraud happened in an election can be difficult, even while proving the validity of elections for some has become increasingly important. Wouldn’t it be incredible if we could just plug a set of data from an election into a toolkit that could give us an answer if fraud occurred?

Well, one political scientist from the University of Michigan, Walter Mebane believes he may have developed just such a toolkit. It’s called “election forensics”. Much like machine learning algorithms, when tested in the field it does seem to perform fantastically well, but figuring out exactly how it works can be a complicated web to untangle. We give it a shot on this episode.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>For better or worse, one of the biggest stories in US politics today is the detection of election fraud, or in many cases the lack of election fraud. But determining whether fraud happened in an election can be difficult, even while proving the validity of elections for some has become increasingly important. Wouldn’t it be incredible if we could just plug a set of data from an election into a toolkit that could give us an answer if fraud occurred?

Well, one political scientist from the University of Michigan, Walter Mebane believes he may have developed just such a toolkit. It’s called “election forensics”. Much like machine learning algorithms, when tested in the field it does seem to perform fantastically well, but figuring out exactly how it works can be a complicated web to untangle. We give it a shot on this episode.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, election, walter mebane, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political, education podcast, policy, elections, us politics podcast, government podcast, government, election fraud, political podcast, election forensics, policy podcast, harris school, politics podcast, academic podcast, academic, university of chicago podcast, educational podcast, politics, us politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, education, university of michigan, educational</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>79</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">234922d9-aaad-4f73-8a40-296c829854d5</guid>
      <title>Why The U.S. Isn’t As Polarized As It Seems</title>
      <description><![CDATA[As we approach the anniversary of the January 6th attack on the US Capitol, we wanted to reflect on where we are as a country and whether politics are really as polarized as they seem. 

Our co-host Will Howell recently joined another University of Chicago podcast called Big Brains to discuss these very questions. We're going to share that episode with you this week, we hope you enjoy it, and look forward to being back with a new episode in a few weeks.
 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 5 Jan 2023 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="29165291" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/f8526ac7-5795-40e8-858a-82c3879105d2/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=f8526ac7-5795-40e8-858a-82c3879105d2&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Why The U.S. Isn’t As Polarized As It Seems</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:30:21</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>As we approach the anniversary of the January 6th attack on the US Capitol, we wanted to reflect on where we are as a country and whether politics are really as polarized as they seem. 

Our co-host Will Howell recently joined another University of Chicago podcast called Big Brains to discuss these very questions. We&apos;re going to share that episode with you this week, we hope you enjoy it, and look forward to being back with a new episode in a few weeks.
</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>As we approach the anniversary of the January 6th attack on the US Capitol, we wanted to reflect on where we are as a country and whether politics are really as polarized as they seem. 

Our co-host Will Howell recently joined another University of Chicago podcast called Big Brains to discuss these very questions. We&apos;re going to share that episode with you this week, we hope you enjoy it, and look forward to being back with a new episode in a few weeks.
</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>polarization podcast, uchicago podcast, jan 6th, uchicago, big brains, capitol riots, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political polarization, political, civil war, uchicago podcast network, jan 6th., government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, paul rand, politics podcast, polarization, university of chicago podcast, politics, us politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, u.s. politics, january 6th, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>78</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">0e065f1b-c1c8-4e15-9a67-f51d8d767882</guid>
      <title>Why Aren&apos;t the Majority Of Voters Getting What They Want?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Lately it feels like politicians are favoring smaller groups of their constituents over the majority of them. If you've been skeptical about whether this favoritism exists, there's a new theory that supports it. Some voters who are more vocal or intense about political issues are more likely to get their local politician's attention, and these smaller groups of constituents are more likely to get what they want.</p><p>In his new book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Frustrated-Majorities-Intensity-Political-Institutions/dp/1009167685"><i>Frustrated Majorities: How Issue Intensity Enables Smaller Groups of Voters to Get What They Want</i></a><i>, </i>University of San Diego political scientist <a href="https://www.sethjhill.com/">Seth J. Hill</a> uses new empirical evidence to tackle a question that has been floating on the radar: Is democracy broken or are politicians becoming more undemocratic with their approach to win votes?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2022 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lately it feels like politicians are favoring smaller groups of their constituents over the majority of them. If you've been skeptical about whether this favoritism exists, there's a new theory that supports it. Some voters who are more vocal or intense about political issues are more likely to get their local politician's attention, and these smaller groups of constituents are more likely to get what they want.</p><p>In his new book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Frustrated-Majorities-Intensity-Political-Institutions/dp/1009167685"><i>Frustrated Majorities: How Issue Intensity Enables Smaller Groups of Voters to Get What They Want</i></a><i>, </i>University of San Diego political scientist <a href="https://www.sethjhill.com/">Seth J. Hill</a> uses new empirical evidence to tackle a question that has been floating on the radar: Is democracy broken or are politicians becoming more undemocratic with their approach to win votes?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="43829455" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/7cdfafd9-06d9-4b20-9b41-37a696c0b2fe/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=7cdfafd9-06d9-4b20-9b41-37a696c0b2fe&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Why Aren&apos;t the Majority Of Voters Getting What They Want?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:45:30</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary></itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>american politics podcast, harris school of public policy, uchicago podcast, us government podcast, uchicago, voters, seth hill, university of chicago podcast network, political, democracy podcast, uchicago podcast network, policy, government podcast, government, political podcast, policy podcast, university of san diego, harris school, political science podcast, politics podcast, american politics, university of chicago podcast, politics, voting, us politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, democracy, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>77</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">b4644380-0abf-491f-b1f2-9caa135fab58</guid>
      <title>An International Look At Affective Polarization</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Paper: <a href="https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01160/109262/Cross-Country-Trends-in-Affective-Polarization?redirectedFrom=fulltext">https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01160/109262/Cross-Country-Trends-in-Affective-Polarization?redirectedFrom=fulltext</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 7 Dec 2022 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paper: <a href="https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01160/109262/Cross-Country-Trends-in-Affective-Polarization?redirectedFrom=fulltext">https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01160/109262/Cross-Country-Trends-in-Affective-Polarization?redirectedFrom=fulltext</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="43365573" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/ebb789fc-0880-4e1e-b8bd-73264723580a/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=ebb789fc-0880-4e1e-b8bd-73264723580a&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>An International Look At Affective Polarization</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:44:57</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We often talk about the rise of affective polarization in the United States, but rarely are the trends we observe domestically placed in an international context. What about Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Japan? What are the trends in global affective polarization, and can those trends teach us anything about what’s driving the increase in the US?

On this episode, we speak with Stanford political scientist Matthew Gentzkow about his first of its kind paper doing a cross-country analysis of the trends in affective polarization. The findings are fascinating and give us some insights into what drives affective polarization generally.

Paper: https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01160/109262/Cross-Country-Trends-in-Affective-Polarization?redirectedFrom=fulltext</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We often talk about the rise of affective polarization in the United States, but rarely are the trends we observe domestically placed in an international context. What about Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Japan? What are the trends in global affective polarization, and can those trends teach us anything about what’s driving the increase in the US?

On this episode, we speak with Stanford political scientist Matthew Gentzkow about his first of its kind paper doing a cross-country analysis of the trends in affective polarization. The findings are fascinating and give us some insights into what drives affective polarization generally.

Paper: https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01160/109262/Cross-Country-Trends-in-Affective-Polarization?redirectedFrom=fulltext</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, stanford, democrats, matt gentzkow, global, international politics, political, anthony fowler, affective polarization, stanford politics, will howell, government podcast, government, political podcast, politics podcast, matthew gentzkow, polarization, university of chicago podcast, international, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, polarized, wioletta dzuida, republicans</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>76</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">add21f05-5dac-451d-aa28-ffb3df31a666</guid>
      <title>Why Aren&apos;t There More Moderate Politicians?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[We took some time off to enjoy the holiday with our families, but in the wake of the 2024 mid-terms, we’re going to re-share this crucial episode and relevant episode.

When it comes to polarization, most people in American politics blame the voters. But much of the political science data suggests most voters are actually moderates. So, where are all the moderate politicians?

In a new book, “Who Wants To Run?: How The Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization”, Stanford political scientist Andrew Hall argues that the reason we don’t have more moderate politicians is actually quite simple…there just aren’t any incentives for them to run. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:34:13 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="43399938" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/a21200e1-bfe8-48d3-a4ce-1fcb42d6c1a3/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=a21200e1-bfe8-48d3-a4ce-1fcb42d6c1a3&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Why Aren&apos;t There More Moderate Politicians?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:45:11</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We took some time off to enjoy the holiday with our families, but in the wake of the 2024 mid-terms, we’re going to re-share this crucial episode and relevant episode.

When it comes to polarization, most people in American politics blame the voters. But much of the political science data suggests most voters are actually moderates. So, where are all the moderate politicians?

In a new book, “Who Wants To Run?: How The Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization”, Stanford political scientist Andrew Hall argues that the reason we don’t have more moderate politicians is actually quite simple…there just aren’t any incentives for them to run.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We took some time off to enjoy the holiday with our families, but in the wake of the 2024 mid-terms, we’re going to re-share this crucial episode and relevant episode.

When it comes to polarization, most people in American politics blame the voters. But much of the political science data suggests most voters are actually moderates. So, where are all the moderate politicians?

In a new book, “Who Wants To Run?: How The Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization”, Stanford political scientist Andrew Hall argues that the reason we don’t have more moderate politicians is actually quite simple…there just aren’t any incentives for them to run.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>stanford, mid-terms, university of chicago podcast network, political, anthony fowler, will howell, elections, william howell, political podcast, midterms, politics podcast, wioletta dzuidaa, american politics, polarization, university of chicago podcast, politics, andrew hall, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>75</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">70f86f08-3f7a-4774-9c40-fd9125d0b86c</guid>
      <title>LIVE: How Members Of Congress Forge Relationships With Their Voters</title>
      <description><![CDATA[This episode was recorded live at the NASPAA conference in Chicago.
 
With the midterms upon us, we decided to look back at a piece of landmark scholarship that may be able to tell us something about the dynamics of personal interactions between representatives and their constituencies. It’s by political scientist Richard Fenno called “U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration”.
 
We often assume that voters cast their ballots based on ideology and policy, but it could it be more personal than that? Fennon took a novel approach to answering that question that he calls “soaking and poking”. We explore what his discoveries can tell us about our current elections and how representatives think about their interactions with their constituents.  
 
Paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1960097#metadata_info_tab_contents  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 9 Nov 2022 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="35368357" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/58ae1a7a-2476-423c-ac9f-7ce74759906b/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=58ae1a7a-2476-423c-ac9f-7ce74759906b&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>LIVE: How Members Of Congress Forge Relationships With Their Voters</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:36:48</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>This episode was recorded live at the NASPAA conference in Chicago.
 
With the midterms upon us, we decided to look back at a piece of landmark scholarship that may be able to tell us something about the dynamics of personal interactions between representatives and their constituencies. It’s by political scientist Richard Fenno called “U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration”.
 
We often assume that voters cast their ballots based on ideology and policy, but it could it be more personal than that? Fennon took a novel approach to answering that question that he calls “soaking and poking”. We explore what his discoveries can tell us about our current elections and how representatives think about their interactions with their constituents.  
 
Paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1960097#metadata_info_tab_contents </itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>This episode was recorded live at the NASPAA conference in Chicago.
 
With the midterms upon us, we decided to look back at a piece of landmark scholarship that may be able to tell us something about the dynamics of personal interactions between representatives and their constituencies. It’s by political scientist Richard Fenno called “U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration”.
 
We often assume that voters cast their ballots based on ideology and policy, but it could it be more personal than that? Fennon took a novel approach to answering that question that he calls “soaking and poking”. We explore what his discoveries can tell us about our current elections and how representatives think about their interactions with their constituents.  
 
Paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1960097#metadata_info_tab_contents </itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>wiolettaa dzudia, richard fenno, election, voters, political, anthony fowler, policy, elections, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, political science podcast, politics podcast, representatives, politics, voting, congress, not another politics podcast, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>74</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">bc765e99-f398-4ec4-bcec-febf787b486a</guid>
      <title>What Can We Learn About Polarization From The UK?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[One theme on our show is trying to make sense of why elites appear to be so polarized when the larger public is more moderate. We almost always study these trends in the U.S. but could we look to another country for insight? A country like the UK perhaps?
 
In her paper “Has The British Public Depolarized Along with Political Elites?” University of Oxford political scientist Jane Green measures the differences between elite and public polarization during the eighties and nineties when the parties actually depolarized. Did elite depolarization lead to public depolarization, and what lessons do this data hold for the US? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2022 12:21:31 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="46140628" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/7d5b5bac-9e89-4060-9fd2-acc91f5843dd/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=7d5b5bac-9e89-4060-9fd2-acc91f5843dd&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>What Can We Learn About Polarization From The UK?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:48:02</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>One theme on our show is trying to make sense of why elites appear to be so polarized when the larger public is more moderate. We almost always study these trends in the U.S. but could we look to another country for insight? A country like the UK perhaps?
 
In her paper “Has The British Public Depolarized Along with Political Elites?” University of Oxford political scientist Jane Green measures the differences between elite and public polarization during the eighties and nineties when the parties actually depolarized. Did elite depolarization lead to public depolarization, and what lessons do this data hold for the US?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>One theme on our show is trying to make sense of why elites appear to be so polarized when the larger public is more moderate. We almost always study these trends in the U.S. but could we look to another country for insight? A country like the UK perhaps?
 
In her paper “Has The British Public Depolarized Along with Political Elites?” University of Oxford political scientist Jane Green measures the differences between elite and public polarization during the eighties and nineties when the parties actually depolarized. Did elite depolarization lead to public depolarization, and what lessons do this data hold for the US?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>jane green, university of oxford, wioletta dzudia, research podcas, university of chicago podcast network, science, united kingdom, politics podcas, political, anthony fowler, will howell, uk, government podcast, william howell, britain, government, political podcast, england, research, academic podcast, academic, polarization, university of chicago podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, education, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>73</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">4defdfe9-86de-478e-b094-f4c3ea5b5016</guid>
      <title>Are Legislators Beating The Market With Insider Information?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[There might not be a more controversial political hack than members of Congress being legally allowed to trade stocks. Infamously, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the wealthiest members of Congress, has been regularly accused of insider trading.
 
Recently the House of Representatives has introduced a bill that would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and children, from trading stocks. Although the bill has stalled, it's renewed a really important lingering question: are members of Congress actually advanced investors, and how much are they benefiting from inside information?
 
In a 2014 paper by University of Chicago's Andy Eggers and Stanford University's Jens Hainmueller titled, Political Capital: Corporate Connections and Stock Investments in the U.S. Congress, they look at a wide data set of investments made by hundreds of members of Congress between 2004 and 2008, to see whether or not they're getting an unfair advantage. The results may surprise you. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2022 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="47820803" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/752e7d45-f25a-4fc1-9a45-b5bb2d15da7b/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=752e7d45-f25a-4fc1-9a45-b5bb2d15da7b&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Are Legislators Beating The Market With Insider Information?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:33</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There might not be a more controversial political hack than members of Congress being legally allowed to trade stocks. Infamously, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the wealthiest members of Congress, has been regularly accused of insider trading.
 
Recently the House of Representatives has introduced a bill that would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and children, from trading stocks. Although the bill has stalled, it&apos;s renewed a really important lingering question: are members of Congress actually advanced investors, and how much are they benefiting from inside information?
 
In a 2014 paper by University of Chicago&apos;s Andy Eggers and Stanford University&apos;s Jens Hainmueller titled, Political Capital: Corporate Connections and Stock Investments in the U.S. Congress, they look at a wide data set of investments made by hundreds of members of Congress between 2004 and 2008, to see whether or not they&apos;re getting an unfair advantage. The results may surprise you.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There might not be a more controversial political hack than members of Congress being legally allowed to trade stocks. Infamously, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the wealthiest members of Congress, has been regularly accused of insider trading.
 
Recently the House of Representatives has introduced a bill that would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and children, from trading stocks. Although the bill has stalled, it&apos;s renewed a really important lingering question: are members of Congress actually advanced investors, and how much are they benefiting from inside information?
 
In a 2014 paper by University of Chicago&apos;s Andy Eggers and Stanford University&apos;s Jens Hainmueller titled, Political Capital: Corporate Connections and Stock Investments in the U.S. Congress, they look at a wide data set of investments made by hundreds of members of Congress between 2004 and 2008, to see whether or not they&apos;re getting an unfair advantage. The results may surprise you.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>stocks, harris school of public policy, stanford, investments, uchicago, stock trading, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, stanford university, political, andy eggers, anthony fowler, corruption, government podcast, william howell, harris, government, political podcast, jens hainmueller, political science podcast, politics podcast, university of chicago podcast, politics, congress, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, corruption in congress, wioletta dzuida, political science, insider information</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>72</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">407c3c42-e63b-4fff-afc1-fbf492e4b759</guid>
      <title>Do Primaries Cause Polarization?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[For years, political scholars and pundits have claimed that primary elections are exacerbating polarization and with the 2022 midterm elections approaching this year has been no different. With many extremist candidates on both sides of the aisle, it certainly feels like this claim should be true, but does the political science back that up?
 
To find an answer we turn to Harvard political scientist James Snyder and his 2010 paper “Primary Elections and Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Congress”. The findings are surprising and may have some key insights for how we should think about primary elections in the U.S. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2022 12:14:40 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="46898005" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/f7102cf7-001c-464e-9059-a918f58e9406/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=f7102cf7-001c-464e-9059-a918f58e9406&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Primaries Cause Polarization?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:48:48</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>For years, political scholars and pundits have claimed that primary elections are exacerbating polarization and with the 2022 midterm elections approaching this year has been no different. With many extremist candidates on both sides of the aisle, it certainly feels like this claim should be true, but does the political science back that up?
 
To find an answer we turn to Harvard political scientist James Snyder and his 2010 paper “Primary Elections and Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Congress”. The findings are surprising and may have some key insights for how we should think about primary elections in the U.S.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>For years, political scholars and pundits have claimed that primary elections are exacerbating polarization and with the 2022 midterm elections approaching this year has been no different. With many extremist candidates on both sides of the aisle, it certainly feels like this claim should be true, but does the political science back that up?
 
To find an answer we turn to Harvard political scientist James Snyder and his 2010 paper “Primary Elections and Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Congress”. The findings are surprising and may have some key insights for how we should think about primary elections in the U.S.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>polarization podcast, university of chicago podcast netowkr, primaries, primary elections, napp, wioletta dzudia, elections podcast, political, anthony fowler, educational podcasat, elections, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, political science podcast, extremism, politics podcast, academic podcast, academic, polarization, university of chicago podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, educational, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>71</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">28c19c83-5068-4a62-ad80-5807dfdbac81</guid>
      <title>Can Fact-Checking Counter Misinformation?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The COVID-19 pandemic has been an era of misinformation. From social media to cable news, the spread of false or misleading information about COVID vaccines has been rampant. Some social media platforms have moved more aggressively by trying to flag misleading posts with disclaimers. Can fact-checking reduce the spread of misinformation? And perhaps more importantly, can fact-checks change people's minds about getting vaccinated?
 
In a new study, George Washington University political scientist Ethan Porter decided to look at COVID-19 misinformation spanning across ten countries, from Brazil to Nigeria, to the United States. He and his co-authors evaluated factual corrections in these ten countries to see whether or not they changed people's beliefs and whether they got vaccinated. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2022 12:57:34 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="49701579" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/0bfa1d2d-270b-4409-89bf-e719ac78b4b0/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=0bfa1d2d-270b-4409-89bf-e719ac78b4b0&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Can Fact-Checking Counter Misinformation?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:51:42</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>The COVID-19 pandemic has been an era of misinformation. From social media to cable news, the spread of false or misleading information about COVID vaccines has been rampant. Some social media platforms have moved more aggressively by trying to flag misleading posts with disclaimers. Can fact-checking reduce the spread of misinformation? And perhaps more importantly, can fact-checks change people&apos;s minds about getting vaccinated?
 
In a new study, George Washington University political scientist Ethan Porter decided to look at COVID-19 misinformation spanning across ten countries, from Brazil to Nigeria, to the United States. He and his co-authors evaluated factual corrections in these ten countries to see whether or not they changed people&apos;s beliefs and whether they got vaccinated.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>The COVID-19 pandemic has been an era of misinformation. From social media to cable news, the spread of false or misleading information about COVID vaccines has been rampant. Some social media platforms have moved more aggressively by trying to flag misleading posts with disclaimers. Can fact-checking reduce the spread of misinformation? And perhaps more importantly, can fact-checks change people&apos;s minds about getting vaccinated?
 
In a new study, George Washington University political scientist Ethan Porter decided to look at COVID-19 misinformation spanning across ten countries, from Brazil to Nigeria, to the United States. He and his co-authors evaluated factual corrections in these ten countries to see whether or not they changed people&apos;s beliefs and whether they got vaccinated.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, george washington university, public policy, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, disinformation podcast, political, education podcast, anthony fowler, fact-checking, will howell, policy, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, covid-19 misinformation, harris school, misinformation, wioletta dziuda, disinformation, politics podcast, public policy podcast, misinformation podcast, university of chicago podcast, politics, covid-19, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, education, ethan porter</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>70</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">303f2ac8-c741-4946-8483-82bd89d37572</guid>
      <title>Do People Automatically Reject Policies Of The Opposite Party?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[In our hyper-polarized climate, it is often said that partisans determine their policy positions not based on thought and reason but on opposition to the other party. If I’m a Republican and I hear that Nancy Pelosi supports a particular policy, I’ll reflexively take the opposite stance. There is a literature in political science that suggests this is the case, but could it be wrong?

 

In a new paper, “Updating amidst Disagreement: New Experimental Evidence on Partisan Cues”, our very own Will Howell and Anthony Fowler demonstrate that more robust research designs leads to a completely different conclusion. The American public may be more open to deliberative policy positions than we think; they just need to be given the option. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="45247921" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/e8430aee-0ca9-4abf-84b3-1d7bbe020c00/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=e8430aee-0ca9-4abf-84b3-1d7bbe020c00&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do People Automatically Reject Policies Of The Opposite Party?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:06</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In our hyper-polarized climate, it is often said that partisans determine their policy positions not based on thought and reason but on opposition to the other party. If I’m a Republican and I hear that Nancy Pelosi supports a particular policy, I’ll reflexively take the opposite stance. There is a literature in political science that suggests this is the case, but could it be wrong?

 

In a new paper, “Updating amidst Disagreement: New Experimental Evidence on Partisan Cues”, our very own Will Howell and Anthony Fowler demonstrate that more robust research designs leads to a completely different conclusion. The American public may be more open to deliberative policy positions than we think; they just need to be given the option.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In our hyper-polarized climate, it is often said that partisans determine their policy positions not based on thought and reason but on opposition to the other party. If I’m a Republican and I hear that Nancy Pelosi supports a particular policy, I’ll reflexively take the opposite stance. There is a literature in political science that suggests this is the case, but could it be wrong?

 

In a new paper, “Updating amidst Disagreement: New Experimental Evidence on Partisan Cues”, our very own Will Howell and Anthony Fowler demonstrate that more robust research designs leads to a completely different conclusion. The American public may be more open to deliberative policy positions than we think; they just need to be given the option.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>democrat, partisanship, public policy, republican, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political polarization, political, education podcast, anthony fowler, will howell, policy, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, policy podcast, political science podcast, politics podcast, american politics, public policy podcast, polarization, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, education, wioletta dzuida, university of chicago podcastt, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>69</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">66b346e0-c2be-4ba1-b4ae-e370ebcd36b8</guid>
      <title>Does The Economy Affect Elections?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The midterm elections are fast approaching, and with rampant inflation one of the main concerns for Democrats is the state of the economy. It’s commonly accepted that some voters cast their ballots solely on the price of gas and bread, but does the science back that up?
 
There is a classic paper by political scientist Gerald Kramer from 1971 that can help us answer that question. It systematically evaluates the relationship between changes in the various dimensions of the economy and two party vote share over the better part of a century. On this episode, we discuss that paper, what it can tell us about the Democrat’s chances in the 2022 midterms, and if the possible effects of the Inflation Reduction Act. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2022 12:33:22 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="40468093" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/913cfb18-47d5-4db5-a26c-40dcf87817f6/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=913cfb18-47d5-4db5-a26c-40dcf87817f6&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Does The Economy Affect Elections?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:41:59</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>The midterm elections are fast approaching, and with rampant inflation one of the main concerns for Democrats is the state of the economy. It’s commonly accepted that some voters cast their ballots solely on the price of gas and bread, but does the science back that up?
 
There is a classic paper by political scientist Gerald Kramer from 1971 that can help us answer that question. It systematically evaluates the relationship between changes in the various dimensions of the economy and two party vote share over the better part of a century. On this episode, we discuss that paper, what it can tell us about the Democrat’s chances in the 2022 midterms, and if the possible effects of the Inflation Reduction Act.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>The midterm elections are fast approaching, and with rampant inflation one of the main concerns for Democrats is the state of the economy. It’s commonly accepted that some voters cast their ballots solely on the price of gas and bread, but does the science back that up?
 
There is a classic paper by political scientist Gerald Kramer from 1971 that can help us answer that question. It systematically evaluates the relationship between changes in the various dimensions of the economy and two party vote share over the better part of a century. On this episode, we discuss that paper, what it can tell us about the Democrat’s chances in the 2022 midterms, and if the possible effects of the Inflation Reduction Act.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>economy, 2022 midterms, democrats, voters, inflation, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, 2022 elections, elections podcast, political, anthony fowler, elections, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, wioletta dziuda, politics podcast, politics, voting, economy podcast, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, chicago</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>68</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">78066d98-1d79-4ad0-98a5-0c5dea6934e9</guid>
      <title>Best Of: Does Ranked Choice Reduce Strategic Voting?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Something curious has happened in American politics. Andrew Yang of 2016 presidential election fame has launched a third party, The Forward Party, and he's attracting some attention. A key feature of this party is a belief in ranked choice voting and raising up the possibility that through ranked choice voting, we might recover our our democracy.

We're taking a week off to spend time with family, but we wanted to resurrect our discussion with our colleague Andy Eggers, who has written at length on ranked choice voting and the relationship between ranked choice voting and strategic voting. We hope you enjoy it. And we'll be back in two weeks with a brand new episode of Not Another Politics Podcast. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 3 Aug 2022 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="46953130" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/5a16b4dd-6ed7-4409-a0c1-cb8a34a9db8a/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=5a16b4dd-6ed7-4409-a0c1-cb8a34a9db8a&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Best Of: Does Ranked Choice Reduce Strategic Voting?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:48:28</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Something curious has happened in American politics. Andrew Yang of 2016 presidential election fame has launched a third party, The Forward Party, and he&apos;s attracting some attention. A key feature of this party is a belief in ranked choice voting and raising up the possibility that through ranked choice voting, we might recover our our democracy.

We&apos;re taking a week off to spend time with family, but we wanted to resurrect our discussion with our colleague Andy Eggers, who has written at length on ranked choice voting and the relationship between ranked choice voting and strategic voting. We hope you enjoy it. And we&apos;ll be back in two weeks with a brand new episode of Not Another Politics Podcast.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Something curious has happened in American politics. Andrew Yang of 2016 presidential election fame has launched a third party, The Forward Party, and he&apos;s attracting some attention. A key feature of this party is a belief in ranked choice voting and raising up the possibility that through ranked choice voting, we might recover our our democracy.

We&apos;re taking a week off to spend time with family, but we wanted to resurrect our discussion with our colleague Andy Eggers, who has written at length on ranked choice voting and the relationship between ranked choice voting and strategic voting. We hope you enjoy it. And we&apos;ll be back in two weeks with a brand new episode of Not Another Politics Podcast.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, votes, democrats, voters, vote, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political, andy eggers, government podcast, harris, government, political podcast, andrew yang, politics podcast, american politics, politics, voting, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, rank choice voting, republicans</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>67</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">b7c60657-8c9c-400a-bbc1-87a31252c5c2</guid>
      <title>Did Voter Turnout Drop in Communities of Color After Shelby?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Nearly a decade ago, the Supreme Court effectively removed the "preclearance" process in its Shelby County v. Holder decision. That process had been implemented for decades as part of the Voting Rights Act and required places with a history of racial discrimination to get approval from the Justice Department before changing their voting procedures. When the Shelby decision came down, voting rights advocates and mobilization groups panicked. There were widespread fears that this decision would dramatically reduce voter participation in communities of color. Did they?
 
The University of Rochester's Mayya Komisarchik and Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Ariel White sought to answer that question in their recent paper, "Throwing Away the Umbrella: Minority Voting after the Supreme Court’s Shelby Decision." In this episode, we speak to Komisarchik about the impacts of the Shelby decision and whether our fears about countermobilization and voter suppression tactics have held true. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2022 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="38741052" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/3da64d90-f42e-4890-a509-6f6c27bfb7c1/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=3da64d90-f42e-4890-a509-6f6c27bfb7c1&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Did Voter Turnout Drop in Communities of Color After Shelby?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:40:08</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Nearly a decade ago, the Supreme Court effectively removed the &quot;preclearance&quot; process in its Shelby County v. Holder decision. That process had been implemented for decades as part of the Voting Rights Act and required places with a history of racial discrimination to get approval from the Justice Department before changing their voting procedures. When the Shelby decision came down, voting rights advocates and mobilization groups panicked. There were widespread fears that this decision would dramatically reduce voter participation in communities of color. Did they?
 
The University of Rochester&apos;s Mayya Komisarchik and Massachusetts Institute of Technology&apos;s Ariel White sought to answer that question in their recent paper, &quot;Throwing Away the Umbrella: Minority Voting after the Supreme Court’s Shelby Decision.&quot; In this episode, we speak to Komisarchik about the impacts of the Shelby decision and whether our fears about countermobilization and voter suppression tactics have held true.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Nearly a decade ago, the Supreme Court effectively removed the &quot;preclearance&quot; process in its Shelby County v. Holder decision. That process had been implemented for decades as part of the Voting Rights Act and required places with a history of racial discrimination to get approval from the Justice Department before changing their voting procedures. When the Shelby decision came down, voting rights advocates and mobilization groups panicked. There were widespread fears that this decision would dramatically reduce voter participation in communities of color. Did they?
 
The University of Rochester&apos;s Mayya Komisarchik and Massachusetts Institute of Technology&apos;s Ariel White sought to answer that question in their recent paper, &quot;Throwing Away the Umbrella: Minority Voting after the Supreme Court’s Shelby Decision.&quot; In this episode, we speak to Komisarchik about the impacts of the Shelby decision and whether our fears about countermobilization and voter suppression tactics have held true.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>mayya komisarchik, uchicago, vote, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, supreme court, political, anthony fowler, voting rights act, communities of color, will howell, uchicago podcast network, william howell, the supreme court, government, political podcast, politics podcast, politics, voting, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, wioletta dzuida, governor podcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>66</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">5652fa95-a14e-4a4d-ad49-e19cd352a15e</guid>
      <title>Do Local Minimum Wages Represent Local Preferences?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Advocates for the striking down of Roe by the Supreme Court say this will improve our politics by allowing people’s preferences to be better represented at the State level. But do State and local governments accurately match the preferences of their citizens when responding to their demands?
 
It’s a difficult question to answer, but one paper by NYU political scientist Julia Payson and co-author Gabor Simonovits at Central European University, “Locally controlled minimum wages are no closer to public preferences” provides a possible answer by way of locally set minimum wages. When local governments increase their minimum wages, do they accurately match local preferences? The answer is surprising, and has implications for policies beyond just minimum wage. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 6 Jul 2022 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="49103341" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/e1d078af-2a9b-4104-999c-6703e40ed547/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=e1d078af-2a9b-4104-999c-6703e40ed547&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Local Minimum Wages Represent Local Preferences?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:50:57</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Advocates for the striking down of Roe by the Supreme Court say this will improve our politics by allowing people’s preferences to be better represented at the State level. But do State and local governments accurately match the preferences of their citizens when responding to their demands?
 
It’s a difficult question to answer, but one paper by NYU political scientist Julia Payson and co-author Gabor Simonovits at Central European University, “Locally controlled minimum wages are no closer to public preferences” provides a possible answer by way of locally set minimum wages. When local governments increase their minimum wages, do they accurately match local preferences? The answer is surprising, and has implications for policies beyond just minimum wage.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Advocates for the striking down of Roe by the Supreme Court say this will improve our politics by allowing people’s preferences to be better represented at the State level. But do State and local governments accurately match the preferences of their citizens when responding to their demands?
 
It’s a difficult question to answer, but one paper by NYU political scientist Julia Payson and co-author Gabor Simonovits at Central European University, “Locally controlled minimum wages are no closer to public preferences” provides a possible answer by way of locally set minimum wages. When local governments increase their minimum wages, do they accurately match local preferences? The answer is surprising, and has implications for policies beyond just minimum wage.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>economics, econ, uchicago, political economy, university of chicago podcast network, political, anthony fowler, will howell, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, politics podcast, economics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, minimum wage, university of chicago, wioletta dzuida</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>65</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">20c4131e-135c-4fb9-b437-21f19d56c659</guid>
      <title>Roe &amp; Departure From Precedent In The Supreme Court</title>
      <description><![CDATA[There’s long been a belief that the Supreme Court rarely departs from precedent. But as the court appears to intend to strike down Roe, we’re wondering what the data tell us about how consistent the Supreme Court has been at honoring precedent. And, is the Supreme Court more likely to depart from precedent in constitutional cases than other types?
 
To break it all down, we spoke to Washington University law professor Lee Epstein, about her 2015 paper, "The Decision To Depart (or Not) From Constitutional Precedent: An Empirical Study of the Roberts Court", co-authored by William M. Landes and Adam Liptak. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2022 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="54516130" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/500fa69d-134c-430b-b8fc-54add03d02f7/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=500fa69d-134c-430b-b8fc-54add03d02f7&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Roe &amp; Departure From Precedent In The Supreme Court</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:56:41</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There’s long been a belief that the Supreme Court rarely departs from precedent. But as the court appears to intend to strike down Roe, we’re wondering what the data tell us about how consistent the Supreme Court has been at honoring precedent. And, is the Supreme Court more likely to depart from precedent in constitutional cases than other types?
 
To break it all down, we spoke to Washington University law professor Lee Epstein, about her 2015 paper, &quot;The Decision To Depart (or Not) From Constitutional Precedent: An Empirical Study of the Roberts Court&quot;, co-authored by William M. Landes and Adam Liptak.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There’s long been a belief that the Supreme Court rarely departs from precedent. But as the court appears to intend to strike down Roe, we’re wondering what the data tell us about how consistent the Supreme Court has been at honoring precedent. And, is the Supreme Court more likely to depart from precedent in constitutional cases than other types?
 
To break it all down, we spoke to Washington University law professor Lee Epstein, about her 2015 paper, &quot;The Decision To Depart (or Not) From Constitutional Precedent: An Empirical Study of the Roberts Court&quot;, co-authored by William M. Landes and Adam Liptak.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>lee epstein, abortion, dobbs, uchicago, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, supreme court, political, anthony fowler, government podcast, abortion podcast, william howell, the supreme court, government, political podcast, dobbs case, politics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, wioletta dzuida, roe v wade, washington university</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>64</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">42b3f387-5466-4475-9337-387e4c13ff3b</guid>
      <title>Revealing New Data On Who Donates To Campaigns</title>
      <description><![CDATA[There are many questions surrounding the nature of money in politics, but one of the first order questions we should be asking is who exactly is donating that money? We now have access to more data than ever due to a dramatic increase in small donations through online fundraising platforms.
 
Georgetown University Economist Laurent Bouton digs through this new data set in a recent paper “Small Campaign Donors” to answer all sorts of questions like: do big or small donors give more strategically, has there been an increase in donations to extremist candidates, and are the coasts influencing elections more than the rest of the country by donating more money? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 8 Jun 2022 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="47652808" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/f82a6fc8-bbd6-4a33-82c9-8bea79fc29ab/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=f82a6fc8-bbd6-4a33-82c9-8bea79fc29ab&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Revealing New Data On Who Donates To Campaigns</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:36</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There are many questions surrounding the nature of money in politics, but one of the first order questions we should be asking is who exactly is donating that money? We now have access to more data than ever due to a dramatic increase in small donations through online fundraising platforms.
 
Georgetown University Economist Laurent Bouton digs through this new data set in a recent paper “Small Campaign Donors” to answer all sorts of questions like: do big or small donors give more strategically, has there been an increase in donations to extremist candidates, and are the coasts influencing elections more than the rest of the country by donating more money?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There are many questions surrounding the nature of money in politics, but one of the first order questions we should be asking is who exactly is donating that money? We now have access to more data than ever due to a dramatic increase in small donations through online fundraising platforms.
 
Georgetown University Economist Laurent Bouton digs through this new data set in a recent paper “Small Campaign Donors” to answer all sorts of questions like: do big or small donors give more strategically, has there been an increase in donations to extremist candidates, and are the coasts influencing elections more than the rest of the country by donating more money?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>political campaigns, election, wioletta dzudia, political, anthony fowler, will howell, elections, government podcast, government, political podcast, politics podcast, election podcast, laurent bouton, politics, not another politics podcast, money in politics</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>63</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">4af7ec1a-d541-47e6-9147-0dc51ab875c0</guid>
      <title>Best Of: Fixing the Filibuster</title>
      <description><![CDATA[As the academic year draws to a close at The University of Chicago, our hosts are busy attending to the last minute activities of a professor. So, this week we wanted to re-share one of our favorite episodes interrogating a radically different proposal to fix the filibuster rather than abolishing it altogether. 

The filibuster is still one of the most contentious aspects of our politics today, and how it changes or doesn't change has a powerful impact on the most pressing political issues of the moment. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2022 11:29:37 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="45077183" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/e3ccedb1-d370-4d67-81a7-e181c42836fa/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=e3ccedb1-d370-4d67-81a7-e181c42836fa&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Best Of: Fixing the Filibuster</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:46:49</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>As the academic year draws to a close at The University of Chicago, our hosts are busy attending to the last minute activities of a professor. So, this week we wanted to re-share one of our favorite episodes interrogating a radically different proposal to fix the filibuster rather than abolishing it altogether. 

The filibuster is still one of the most contentious aspects of our politics today, and how it changes or doesn&apos;t change has a powerful impact on the most pressing political issues of the moment.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>As the academic year draws to a close at The University of Chicago, our hosts are busy attending to the last minute activities of a professor. So, this week we wanted to re-share one of our favorite episodes interrogating a radically different proposal to fix the filibuster rather than abolishing it altogether. 

The filibuster is still one of the most contentious aspects of our politics today, and how it changes or doesn&apos;t change has a powerful impact on the most pressing political issues of the moment.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>political, anthony fowler, will howell, government podcast, filibuster, government, political podcast, politics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, wioletta dzuida</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>62</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">d6970c20-883f-4abd-baca-944e21b360e3</guid>
      <title>Nuclear Brinkmanship In Ukraine</title>
      <description><![CDATA[One of the biggest questions surrounding the conflict in Ukraine is to what extent the shadow of nuclear war affects the degree of involvement by Western countries. Much of the literature in nuclear deterrence theory assumes the incentives of mutually assured destruction are strong enough to avoid a nuclear war, and hence the existence of nuclear capabilities in Russia and the West should not play much of a role in how the conflict progresses. But one paper by a late University of California Berkeley political scientist calls this theory into question.

On this episode, we discuss Robert Powell’s “Nuclear Brinkmanship, Limited War, and Military Power”. In it, Powell builds a model that explains how conflicts can lead to nuclear war even under mutually assured destruction, but also how threat of that war changes the dynamics of any conflict from the beginning. Both findings give us a number of insights into the current situation in Ukraine. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2022 12:09:13 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="41241140" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/1d961db1-7c85-41e2-a4a6-b02bb0e25d32/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=1d961db1-7c85-41e2-a4a6-b02bb0e25d32&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Nuclear Brinkmanship In Ukraine</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:42:56</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>One of the biggest questions surrounding the conflict in Ukraine is to what extent the shadow of nuclear war affects the degree of involvement by Western countries. Much of the literature in nuclear deterrence theory assumes the incentives of mutually assured destruction are strong enough to avoid a nuclear war, and hence the existence of nuclear capabilities in Russia and the West should not play much of a role in how the conflict progresses. But one paper by a late University of California Berkeley political scientist calls this theory into question.

On this episode, we discuss Robert Powell’s “Nuclear Brinkmanship, Limited War, and Military Power”. In it, Powell builds a model that explains how conflicts can lead to nuclear war even under mutually assured destruction, but also how threat of that war changes the dynamics of any conflict from the beginning. Both findings give us a number of insights into the current situation in Ukraine.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>One of the biggest questions surrounding the conflict in Ukraine is to what extent the shadow of nuclear war affects the degree of involvement by Western countries. Much of the literature in nuclear deterrence theory assumes the incentives of mutually assured destruction are strong enough to avoid a nuclear war, and hence the existence of nuclear capabilities in Russia and the West should not play much of a role in how the conflict progresses. But one paper by a late University of California Berkeley political scientist calls this theory into question.

On this episode, we discuss Robert Powell’s “Nuclear Brinkmanship, Limited War, and Military Power”. In it, Powell builds a model that explains how conflicts can lead to nuclear war even under mutually assured destruction, but also how threat of that war changes the dynamics of any conflict from the beginning. Both findings give us a number of insights into the current situation in Ukraine.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>university of california berkeley, ukraine, political, anthony fowler, russia, ukraine war, will howell, government, political podcast, wioletta dziuda, politics podcast, politics, nuclear war, not another politics podcast, robert powell</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>61</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">76309ec3-f3e9-4937-b4d1-f91105d50bfc</guid>
      <title>What Happens When Fox News Viewers Watch CNN Instead?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[When it comes to cable news, Fox and CNN have pretty partisan viewers. So, what would happen if Fox viewers tuned into CNN for a month? Would they suddenly adopt different views more aligned with CNN?
 
UC Berkeley political scientist David Broockman and his colleagues wanted to find out. When they paid Fox News viewers to watch CNN, they found that Fox News viewers became more supportive of vote-by-mail, and less likely to believe that then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden wanted to eliminate all police funding. 

The findings have made huge waves in the media, so we decided to take our unique microscope to the paper to see if we can get a fuller picture of what these findings tell us. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2022 11:53:40 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="47119317" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/8098103d-3ef5-4fde-8a9d-d2c7b44f6ab9/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=8098103d-3ef5-4fde-8a9d-d2c7b44f6ab9&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>What Happens When Fox News Viewers Watch CNN Instead?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:03</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When it comes to cable news, Fox and CNN have pretty partisan viewers. So, what would happen if Fox viewers tuned into CNN for a month? Would they suddenly adopt different views more aligned with CNN?
 
UC Berkeley political scientist David Broockman and his colleagues wanted to find out. When they paid Fox News viewers to watch CNN, they found that Fox News viewers became more supportive of vote-by-mail, and less likely to believe that then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden wanted to eliminate all police funding. 

The findings have made huge waves in the media, so we decided to take our unique microscope to the paper to see if we can get a fuller picture of what these findings tell us.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When it comes to cable news, Fox and CNN have pretty partisan viewers. So, what would happen if Fox viewers tuned into CNN for a month? Would they suddenly adopt different views more aligned with CNN?
 
UC Berkeley political scientist David Broockman and his colleagues wanted to find out. When they paid Fox News viewers to watch CNN, they found that Fox News viewers became more supportive of vote-by-mail, and less likely to believe that then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden wanted to eliminate all police funding. 

The findings have made huge waves in the media, so we decided to take our unique microscope to the paper to see if we can get a fuller picture of what these findings tell us.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>david broockman, cnn, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political, fox, anthony fowler, will howell, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, political science podcast, uc berkeley, wioletta dziuda, politics podcast, fox news, media, media podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>60</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">d33991c8-cc22-4e8b-a45d-b539a28e6052</guid>
      <title>Does Russian Propaganda Influence Ukrainians?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>By now, we've heard a lot about how state-owned Russian television is distorting the truth about the war in Ukraine. But Russian TV doesn't just reach Russian viewers. Some Ukrainians can receive its analog television signals.</p><p>To understand how this propaganda influences Ukrainians, we turned to New York University political scientist Arturas Rozenas, to talk about his 2017 paper, "<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12355">Electoral Effects of Biased Media: Russian Television in Ukraine</a>".</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By now, we've heard a lot about how state-owned Russian television is distorting the truth about the war in Ukraine. But Russian TV doesn't just reach Russian viewers. Some Ukrainians can receive its analog television signals.</p><p>To understand how this propaganda influences Ukrainians, we turned to New York University political scientist Arturas Rozenas, to talk about his 2017 paper, "<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12355">Electoral Effects of Biased Media: Russian Television in Ukraine</a>".</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="47195597" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/d187bfc2-1c3e-415c-89d9-f1a101e25eed/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=d187bfc2-1c3e-415c-89d9-f1a101e25eed&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Does Russian Propaganda Influence Ukrainians?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:49:08</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>By now, we&apos;ve heard a lot about how state-owned Russian television is distorting the truth about the war in Ukraine. But Russian TV doesn&apos;t just reach Russian viewers. Some Ukrainians can receive its analog television signals.
 
To understand how this propaganda influences Ukrainians, we turned to New York University political scientist Arturas Rozenas, to talk about his 2017 paper, &quot;Electoral Effects of Biased Media: Russian Television in Ukraine&quot;.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>By now, we&apos;ve heard a lot about how state-owned Russian television is distorting the truth about the war in Ukraine. But Russian TV doesn&apos;t just reach Russian viewers. Some Ukrainians can receive its analog television signals.
 
To understand how this propaganda influences Ukrainians, we turned to New York University political scientist Arturas Rozenas, to talk about his 2017 paper, &quot;Electoral Effects of Biased Media: Russian Television in Ukraine&quot;.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, ukraine, nyu, napp, wioletta dzudia, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, arturas rozenas, anthony fowler, russia, will howell, policy, government podcast, william howell, government, policy podcast, putin, politics podcast, new york university, politics, propaganda, not another politics podcast, university of chicago</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>59</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">48283da0-d563-4c20-bc71-1c3462192e30</guid>
      <title>Why Are Cities Hiring Lobbyists?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[We know that lobbyists have the power to influence politics. But not all lobbyists are working on behalf of corporate interest groups. Sometimes, city officials actually hire lobbyists to represent the interests of their constituents in the state legislature.
 
Why would cities do this? This is what New York University political science professor Julia Payson explores in her paper, "The Partisan Logic of City Mobilization: Evidence From State Lobbying Disclosures." She finds that local governments are more likely to depend on lobbyists when there are partisan and ideological mismatches with their state legislators. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2022 12:31:21 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="41623589" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/a0f7d422-e0fb-45d7-93a9-90644f3c28bd/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=a0f7d422-e0fb-45d7-93a9-90644f3c28bd&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Why Are Cities Hiring Lobbyists?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:43:17</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We know that lobbyists have the power to influence politics. But not all lobbyists are working on behalf of corporate interest groups. Sometimes, city officials actually hire lobbyists to represent the interests of their constituents in the state legislature.
 
Why would cities do this? This is what New York University political science professor Julia Payson explores in her paper, &quot;The Partisan Logic of City Mobilization: Evidence From State Lobbying Disclosures.&quot; She finds that local governments are more likely to depend on lobbyists when there are partisan and ideological mismatches with their state legislators.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We know that lobbyists have the power to influence politics. But not all lobbyists are working on behalf of corporate interest groups. Sometimes, city officials actually hire lobbyists to represent the interests of their constituents in the state legislature.
 
Why would cities do this? This is what New York University political science professor Julia Payson explores in her paper, &quot;The Partisan Logic of City Mobilization: Evidence From State Lobbying Disclosures.&quot; She finds that local governments are more likely to depend on lobbyists when there are partisan and ideological mismatches with their state legislators.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political, anthony fowler, will howell, government podcast, lobbyists, government, political podcast, govern, wioletta dziuda, politics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>58</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">65e887db-bf53-4e86-a55f-25483bb0e5da</guid>
      <title>How Concerned Should We Be About Partisan Election Officials?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Paper link: <a href="https://dthompson.scholar.ss.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/Ferrer_et_al_Election_Admin.pdf ">https://dthompson.scholar.ss.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/Ferrer_et_al_Election_Admin.pdf </a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paper link: <a href="https://dthompson.scholar.ss.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/Ferrer_et_al_Election_Admin.pdf ">https://dthompson.scholar.ss.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/Ferrer_et_al_Election_Admin.pdf </a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="41046670" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/a8e9d810-ffaf-44d5-a409-6d2a0d7a42fe/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=a8e9d810-ffaf-44d5-a409-6d2a0d7a42fe&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>How Concerned Should We Be About Partisan Election Officials?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:42:43</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Elections have always been heated in America. But with Republican narratives around a “stolen” 2020 election, and fears that newly elected administrators will sway 2024, concern about the power of election officials is at a high. While it&apos;s true that some election officials are nonpartisan, in a lot of counties, local elections officials are elected by voters and they run as members of a political party. Why wouldn&apos;t they tilt an election in their party&apos;s favor?
 
It&apos;s a fair question on some Americans&apos; minds, and one that UCLA political scientist Dan Thompson sought to answer in a new paper, &quot;How Partisan Is Local Election Administration?&quot;.
 
Paper link: https://dthompson.scholar.ss.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/Ferrer_et_al_Election_Admin.pdf </itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Elections have always been heated in America. But with Republican narratives around a “stolen” 2020 election, and fears that newly elected administrators will sway 2024, concern about the power of election officials is at a high. While it&apos;s true that some election officials are nonpartisan, in a lot of counties, local elections officials are elected by voters and they run as members of a political party. Why wouldn&apos;t they tilt an election in their party&apos;s favor?
 
It&apos;s a fair question on some Americans&apos; minds, and one that UCLA political scientist Dan Thompson sought to answer in a new paper, &quot;How Partisan Is Local Election Administration?&quot;.
 
Paper link: https://dthompson.scholar.ss.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2021/12/Ferrer_et_al_Election_Admin.pdf </itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>democrat, napp, republican, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political, education podcast, anthony fowler, democracy podcast, elections, government podcast, willam howell, government, political podcast, dan thompson, wioletta dziuda, politics podcast, politics, voting, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, education, ucla, democracy</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>57</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">d7a7c854-544b-46e7-908c-8db2542c90cc</guid>
      <title>Ukraine, Putin and Credible Deterrence</title>
      <description><![CDATA[Russia has invaded Ukraine. This horrible global crisis raises questions about Putin’s ultimate ambitions, and how nations can make credible deterrent threats in incredible circumstances.
 
We’re not experts on the Ukraine conflict, but we can dive into the political science research to get some clarity on the underlying dynamics that may be at play. And there’s no better paper to turn to than “Fear, Appeasement, and the Effectiveness of Deterrence” from Alexander V. Hirsch at Caltech. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 2 Mar 2022 12:34:37 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="42851913" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/63c20c4f-d979-4cfb-b47a-7319ab43324b/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=63c20c4f-d979-4cfb-b47a-7319ab43324b&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Ukraine, Putin and Credible Deterrence</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:44:36</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Russia has invaded Ukraine. This horrible global crisis raises questions about Putin’s ultimate ambitions, and how nations can make credible deterrent threats in incredible circumstances.
 
We’re not experts on the Ukraine conflict, but we can dive into the political science research to get some clarity on the underlying dynamics that may be at play. And there’s no better paper to turn to than “Fear, Appeasement, and the Effectiveness of Deterrence” from Alexander V. Hirsch at Caltech.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Russia has invaded Ukraine. This horrible global crisis raises questions about Putin’s ultimate ambitions, and how nations can make credible deterrent threats in incredible circumstances.
 
We’re not experts on the Ukraine conflict, but we can dive into the political science research to get some clarity on the underlying dynamics that may be at play. And there’s no better paper to turn to than “Fear, Appeasement, and the Effectiveness of Deterrence” from Alexander V. Hirsch at Caltech.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>ukraine, uchicago, conflict, caltech, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, war podcast, anthony fowler, russia, alexander v. hirsch, ukraine war, will howell, alexander hirsch, government podcast, william howell, vladamir putin, government, political podcast, war, putin, politics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, wioletta dziud</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>56</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">9159eeca-ed3e-4f03-83b9-d1608de807b9</guid>
      <title>No, Football Games Don’t Affect Elections</title>
      <description><![CDATA[You've probably heard this one before: college football games and shark attacks influence elections in favor of incumbents. Surprising findings like these are exciting, and seem to tell us a lot about the stability of our democracy and the rationality of voters.
 
If you listen to our podcasts regularly, you’ve probably also heard this one: Anthony Fowler doesn’t think voters are irrational. On this episode, we cover a back and forth of academic papers our co-host had arguing that the original result about college football games was a false-positive, and what lessons we should draw from this exchange. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="40554493" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/8d726fdc-efb1-4a89-9ea1-6fef90fac3c4/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=8d726fdc-efb1-4a89-9ea1-6fef90fac3c4&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>No, Football Games Don’t Affect Elections</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:42:12</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>You&apos;ve probably heard this one before: college football games and shark attacks influence elections in favor of incumbents. Surprising findings like these are exciting, and seem to tell us a lot about the stability of our democracy and the rationality of voters.
 
If you listen to our podcasts regularly, you’ve probably also heard this one: Anthony Fowler doesn’t think voters are irrational. On this episode, we cover a back and forth of academic papers our co-host had arguing that the original result about college football games was a false-positive, and what lessons we should draw from this exchange.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>You&apos;ve probably heard this one before: college football games and shark attacks influence elections in favor of incumbents. Surprising findings like these are exciting, and seem to tell us a lot about the stability of our democracy and the rationality of voters.
 
If you listen to our podcasts regularly, you’ve probably also heard this one: Anthony Fowler doesn’t think voters are irrational. On this episode, we cover a back and forth of academic papers our co-host had arguing that the original result about college football games was a false-positive, and what lessons we should draw from this exchange.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, uchicago, wioletta dzudia, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, electoral politics, political, education podcast, academics, anthony fowler, university, will howell, elections, government podcast, william howell, government, political podcast, politics podcast, academic, football, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, education, university podcast, football games, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>55</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">a36c6808-84ff-4e76-88bb-c7afb0446e7e</guid>
      <title>How Redistribution And Beliefs About Meritocracy Go Hand In Hand</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Link to paper: <a href="https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/beliefs%20qje%201%20web.pdf">https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/beliefs%20qje%201%20web.pdf</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:12:52 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Link to paper: <a href="https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/beliefs%20qje%201%20web.pdf">https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/beliefs%20qje%201%20web.pdf</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="40684829" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/76c7f026-ef6c-4c2a-ba6f-18b7759e15af/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=76c7f026-ef6c-4c2a-ba6f-18b7759e15af&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>How Redistribution And Beliefs About Meritocracy Go Hand In Hand</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:42:20</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There’s no question that people in the United States have very different beliefs about meritocracy and redistribution than do people in Europe. But how did these two groups end up in these divergent equilibria? And can anything be done to shift from one to the other?
 
These are the questions Princeton economist Roland Benabou asks in his classic paper, “Belief In A Just World And Redistributive Politics,” which is co-authored with Jean Tirole. Their modeling of these dynamics gives us some possible answers for why redistribution has such a difficult time politically in the United States—and how that could change.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There’s no question that people in the United States have very different beliefs about meritocracy and redistribution than do people in Europe. But how did these two groups end up in these divergent equilibria? And can anything be done to shift from one to the other?
 
These are the questions Princeton economist Roland Benabou asks in his classic paper, “Belief In A Just World And Redistributive Politics,” which is co-authored with Jean Tirole. Their modeling of these dynamics gives us some possible answers for why redistribution has such a difficult time politically in the United States—and how that could change.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>princeton, roland benabou, economics, political economy, ucpn, political, europe, political podcast, politics podcast, politics, redistribution, not another politics podcast, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>54</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">2fba8677-d262-4945-8442-f4f623146cd1</guid>
      <title>How A Single Lie In A Crisis Can Destroy Trust In Government</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Paper: <a href="http://davidyyang.com/pdfs/famine_draft.pdf">http://davidyyang.com/pdfs/famine_draft.pdf</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paper: <a href="http://davidyyang.com/pdfs/famine_draft.pdf">http://davidyyang.com/pdfs/famine_draft.pdf</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45013868" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/299628b9-e84a-4227-aa10-23f8d3fe26bd/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=299628b9-e84a-4227-aa10-23f8d3fe26bd&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>How A Single Lie In A Crisis Can Destroy Trust In Government</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:46:50</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We’re living through a crucial moment for public trust in government. Conflicting and contradictory political and scientific messaging during the coronavirus pandemic seems to have eroded public trust on both sides of the aisle. But what do we know about how governments could avoid further decreases in trust, and how persistence these effects can be?
 
David Yang is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Harvard and has a paper, “Historical Traumas and the Roots of Political Distrust: Political Inference from the Great Chinese Famine”, that speaks to both of these questions. On this episode, we talk about how important government messaging in a crisis can be for destroying public trust even fifty years in to the future.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We’re living through a crucial moment for public trust in government. Conflicting and contradictory political and scientific messaging during the coronavirus pandemic seems to have eroded public trust on both sides of the aisle. But what do we know about how governments could avoid further decreases in trust, and how persistence these effects can be?
 
David Yang is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Harvard and has a paper, “Historical Traumas and the Roots of Political Distrust: Political Inference from the Great Chinese Famine”, that speaks to both of these questions. On this episode, we talk about how important government messaging in a crisis can be for destroying public trust even fifty years in to the future.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>david yang, uchicago, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, harvard, political, anthony fowler, will howell, government podcast, government, political podcast, politics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, wioletta dzuida</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>53</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">b470058e-3870-4acf-99ca-e4aa881097de</guid>
      <title>Can More Information On A Bill Change Votes?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Paper link: <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lsq.12206">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lsq.12206</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 5 Jan 2022 13:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paper link: <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lsq.12206">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lsq.12206</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="42796092" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/1bb185aa-f28e-4264-aa6c-b14f8ec06375/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=1bb185aa-f28e-4264-aa6c-b14f8ec06375&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Can More Information On A Bill Change Votes?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:44:31</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We like to think that our legislators know exactly what’s in the proposals they vote on. But how can we know for sure and, if they don’t know, can simply providing them more information change the way they would vote?
 
These are the questions University of Chicago political scientist Adam Zelizer covers in his paper “How Responsive Are Legislators To Policy Information? Evidence From A Field Experiment In A State Legislature”. In this one of a kind randomized trial, Zelizer documents exactly how more information on proposals can change how legislators vote.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We like to think that our legislators know exactly what’s in the proposals they vote on. But how can we know for sure and, if they don’t know, can simply providing them more information change the way they would vote?
 
These are the questions University of Chicago political scientist Adam Zelizer covers in his paper “How Responsive Are Legislators To Policy Information? Evidence From A Field Experiment In A State Legislature”. In this one of a kind randomized trial, Zelizer documents exactly how more information on proposals can change how legislators vote.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, adam zelizer, uchicago, wioletta dzudia, ucpn, political, anthony fowler, will howell, policy, government podcast, william howell, harris, government, political podcast, legislature, policy podcast, harris school, politics podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>52</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">638bb737-bd4d-4ead-9c13-2354f44e5d1a</guid>
      <title>A Better Way To Think About Polarization?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[We often think of polarization as a single policy spectrum with Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right. But what if this entire framework is wrong, and this error itself is worsening the divides in our country?
 
This is what Michigan State University political scientist Matt Grossman argues in his article: “Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics”. He says that what really divides us isn’t differing policy views but different views of the purpose of government itself. And, perhaps offers us a way out of our current polarization spiral.
 
Grossman is also the host of another fantastic podcast "The Science of Politics", which we highly recommend you give a listen! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2021 12:44:27 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="45078369" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/412b4587-0708-44bb-a22a-ec83d17e9ec5/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=412b4587-0708-44bb-a22a-ec83d17e9ec5&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>A Better Way To Think About Polarization?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:46:54</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We often think of polarization as a single policy spectrum with Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right. But what if this entire framework is wrong, and this error itself is worsening the divides in our country?
 
This is what Michigan State University political scientist Matt Grossman argues in his article: “Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics”. He says that what really divides us isn’t differing policy views but different views of the purpose of government itself. And, perhaps offers us a way out of our current polarization spiral.
 
Grossman is also the host of another fantastic podcast &quot;The Science of Politics&quot;, which we highly recommend you give a listen!</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We often think of polarization as a single policy spectrum with Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right. But what if this entire framework is wrong, and this error itself is worsening the divides in our country?
 
This is what Michigan State University political scientist Matt Grossman argues in his article: “Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics”. He says that what really divides us isn’t differing policy views but different views of the purpose of government itself. And, perhaps offers us a way out of our current polarization spiral.
 
Grossman is also the host of another fantastic podcast &quot;The Science of Politics&quot;, which we highly recommend you give a listen!</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>democrats, wioletta dzudia, the science of politics, university of chicago podcast network, michigan state university, ucpn, science, anthony fowler, will howell, american government, policy, government podcast, politicalm, william howell, government, political podcast, politics podcast, american politics, polarization, science podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, america, matt grossman, republicans, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>51</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">24640534-22cd-4f30-9bd4-afdce7007408</guid>
      <title>Best Of: How The Rich Rule Despite Unpopular Inequality</title>
      <description><![CDATA[We took some time off to enjoy the holiday and our families. We’re going to reshare this crucial episode about how the wealthy retain power in a time of inequality this week, and we’ll be back with a brand new episode next week! Thanks for listening! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 1 Dec 2021 13:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="46187676" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/59c61246-6993-425e-adfc-4a058d7e8916/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=59c61246-6993-425e-adfc-4a058d7e8916&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Best Of: How The Rich Rule Despite Unpopular Inequality</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:48:05</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We took some time off to enjoy the holiday and our families. We’re going to reshare this crucial episode about how the wealthy retain power in a time of inequality this week, and we’ll be back with a brand new episode next week! Thanks for listening!</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We took some time off to enjoy the holiday and our families. We’re going to reshare this crucial episode about how the wealthy retain power in a time of inequality this week, and we’ll be back with a brand new episode next week! Thanks for listening!</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>50</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">e471c411-abf3-4e67-8c83-e20ff0716d77</guid>
      <title>Are Most Voters Moderates?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[If you watch cable news or open your twitter feed it may seem like Americans are more polarized than ever. It certainly feels like everyone is on the far ends of two diametrically opposed ideologies. But, if you look closely at the data, this current conventional wisdom may be wrong.

Our very own co-host Anthony Fowler has developed a reputation on our podcast for being the champion of the idea that most voters are actually moderates. On this episode, he puts his data where his mouth is, and shares the findings of his aptly named paper, “Moderates”, laying out the case for why there are more moderates than we think. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="41665229" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/f53896b2-4c30-4920-8f3d-910563dbe160/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=f53896b2-4c30-4920-8f3d-910563dbe160&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Are Most Voters Moderates?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:43:22</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>If you watch cable news or open your twitter feed it may seem like Americans are more polarized than ever. It certainly feels like everyone is on the far ends of two diametrically opposed ideologies. But, if you look closely at the data, this current conventional wisdom may be wrong.

Our very own co-host Anthony Fowler has developed a reputation on our podcast for being the champion of the idea that most voters are actually moderates. On this episode, he puts his data where his mouth is, and shares the findings of his aptly named paper, “Moderates”, laying out the case for why there are more moderates than we think.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>If you watch cable news or open your twitter feed it may seem like Americans are more polarized than ever. It certainly feels like everyone is on the far ends of two diametrically opposed ideologies. But, if you look closely at the data, this current conventional wisdom may be wrong.

Our very own co-host Anthony Fowler has developed a reputation on our podcast for being the champion of the idea that most voters are actually moderates. On this episode, he puts his data where his mouth is, and shares the findings of his aptly named paper, “Moderates”, laying out the case for why there are more moderates than we think.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>voters, political polarization, political, anthony fowler, will howell, government podcast, government, political moderates, politics podcast, polarization, politica podcast, moderates, politics, voting, not another politics podcast, moderation, wioletta dzuida</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>49</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">12abb8ef-f1f4-48e0-8346-7bf2de117f9e</guid>
      <title>Are Irrational Voters A Threat To Democracy?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>There’s a long tradition in political science of using voter rationality to test the health of our democracy. But could this myopia be misguided? Are there any situations where irrational and uninformed voters could actually generate a healthier democracy?</p><p>That’s exactly what University of Chicago political scientist Ethan BdM examines in his paper “Is Voter Competence Good for Voters?: Information, Rationality, and Democratic Performance”. Using formal models, he lays out the possibility that information and rationality do not always lead to a better democracy and strikes directly at the heart of this foundational literature.</p><p>Paper link: <a href="http://home.uchicago.edu/bdm/PDF/voter_competence.pdf">http://home.uchicago.edu/bdm/PDF/voter_competence.pdf</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 3 Nov 2021 13:16:03 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There’s a long tradition in political science of using voter rationality to test the health of our democracy. But could this myopia be misguided? Are there any situations where irrational and uninformed voters could actually generate a healthier democracy?</p><p>That’s exactly what University of Chicago political scientist Ethan BdM examines in his paper “Is Voter Competence Good for Voters?: Information, Rationality, and Democratic Performance”. Using formal models, he lays out the possibility that information and rationality do not always lead to a better democracy and strikes directly at the heart of this foundational literature.</p><p>Paper link: <a href="http://home.uchicago.edu/bdm/PDF/voter_competence.pdf">http://home.uchicago.edu/bdm/PDF/voter_competence.pdf</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45600251" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/06c8c05f-adf2-4925-990d-e105facef3c8/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=06c8c05f-adf2-4925-990d-e105facef3c8&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Are Irrational Voters A Threat To Democracy?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:27</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There’s a long tradition in political science of using voter rationality to test the health of our democracy. But could this myopia be misguided? Are there any situations where irrational and uninformed voters could actually generate a healthier democracy?

That’s exactly what University of Chicago political scientist Ethan BdM examines in his paper “Is Voter Competence Good for Voters?: Information, Rationality, and Democratic Performance”. Using formal models, he lays out the possibility that information and rationality do not always lead to a better democracy and strikes directly at the heart of this foundational literature.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There’s a long tradition in political science of using voter rationality to test the health of our democracy. But could this myopia be misguided? Are there any situations where irrational and uninformed voters could actually generate a healthier democracy?

That’s exactly what University of Chicago political scientist Ethan BdM examines in his paper “Is Voter Competence Good for Voters?: Information, Rationality, and Democratic Performance”. Using formal models, he lays out the possibility that information and rationality do not always lead to a better democracy and strikes directly at the heart of this foundational literature.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>uchicago, voters, university of chicago podcast network, political, anthony fowler, will howell, elections, government podcast, government, political podcast, wioletta dziuda, politics podcast, politics, voting, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>48</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">ed98adc9-3c1b-43df-856b-0a3bcb305e47</guid>
      <title>Where Are All The Moderate Politicians?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>When it comes to polarization, most people in American politics blame the voters. But much of the political science data suggests most voters are actually moderates. So, where are all the moderate politicians?</p><p>In a new book, “Who Wants To Run?: How The Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization”, Stanford political scientist Andrew Hall argues that the reason we don’t have more moderate politicians is actually quite simple…there just aren’t any incentives for them to run.</p><p>Link to book: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Who-Wants-Run-Devaluing-Polarization/dp/022660957X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Who+Wants+to+run&qid=1634737386&qsid=135-4969868-1265741&sr=8-1&sres=022660957X%2CB08GD242TJ%2CB00000DMFD%2CB07S1CYZ7M%2CB00S732WJE%2C1733444408%2CB076PRWVFG%2CB0758YVFG8%2CB07W2ZRSWK%2CB001SN8GF4%2CB003AIM52A%2C0786967250%2CB09HVCC8SN%2CB06XY881H4%2CB07RK58J53%2CB00000IWD4">Who Wants To Run?: How The Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:48:33 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When it comes to polarization, most people in American politics blame the voters. But much of the political science data suggests most voters are actually moderates. So, where are all the moderate politicians?</p><p>In a new book, “Who Wants To Run?: How The Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization”, Stanford political scientist Andrew Hall argues that the reason we don’t have more moderate politicians is actually quite simple…there just aren’t any incentives for them to run.</p><p>Link to book: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Who-Wants-Run-Devaluing-Polarization/dp/022660957X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Who+Wants+to+run&qid=1634737386&qsid=135-4969868-1265741&sr=8-1&sres=022660957X%2CB08GD242TJ%2CB00000DMFD%2CB07S1CYZ7M%2CB00S732WJE%2C1733444408%2CB076PRWVFG%2CB0758YVFG8%2CB07W2ZRSWK%2CB001SN8GF4%2CB003AIM52A%2C0786967250%2CB09HVCC8SN%2CB06XY881H4%2CB07RK58J53%2CB00000IWD4">Who Wants To Run?: How The Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="42449452" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/a99cf8e5-e150-4e52-84b7-e65427f86ba4/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=a99cf8e5-e150-4e52-84b7-e65427f86ba4&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Where Are All The Moderate Politicians?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:44:11</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When it comes to polarization, most people in American politics blame the voters. But much of the political science data suggests most voters are actually moderates. So, where are all the moderate politicians?

In a new book, “Who Wants To Run?: How The Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization”, Stanford political scientist Andrew Hall argues that the reason we don’t have more moderate politicians is actually quite simple…there just aren’t any incentives for them to run.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When it comes to polarization, most people in American politics blame the voters. But much of the political science data suggests most voters are actually moderates. So, where are all the moderate politicians?

In a new book, “Who Wants To Run?: How The Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization”, Stanford political scientist Andrew Hall argues that the reason we don’t have more moderate politicians is actually quite simple…there just aren’t any incentives for them to run.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>stanford, democrats, uchicago, voters, napp, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, political, government podcast, government, political podcast, politics podcast, american politics, polarization, politics, andrew hall, voting, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, andy hall, polarized politics, republicans</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>47</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">b75da223-6612-4223-8071-8f0ce272a2a8</guid>
      <title>Are Americans “Politically Sophisticated”?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>In 1964, political scientist Philip Converse published one of the most citied papers in the discipline: “The nature of belief systems in mass publics”. It attempted to define just how consistent and sophisticated are the political beliefs of the American public.</p><p>In our current moment, when democracy seems in the balance of an ideologically polarized society, it’s hard to think of paper with more relevance. But how accurate is it, and how has the paper itself pushed political science, creating a feedback loop, to focus on particular questions instead of others?</p><p>The podcast is going to try something different this week. We’re going to look back at this foundational paper, discuss its implications for today, and investigate how it has shaped political science.</p><p>Paper Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08913810608443650 </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 6 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In 1964, political scientist Philip Converse published one of the most citied papers in the discipline: “The nature of belief systems in mass publics”. It attempted to define just how consistent and sophisticated are the political beliefs of the American public.</p><p>In our current moment, when democracy seems in the balance of an ideologically polarized society, it’s hard to think of paper with more relevance. But how accurate is it, and how has the paper itself pushed political science, creating a feedback loop, to focus on particular questions instead of others?</p><p>The podcast is going to try something different this week. We’re going to look back at this foundational paper, discuss its implications for today, and investigate how it has shaped political science.</p><p>Paper Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08913810608443650 </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="32669667" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/cc3317a1-6213-4d6d-8b23-713def31c477/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=cc3317a1-6213-4d6d-8b23-713def31c477&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Are Americans “Politically Sophisticated”?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:33:59</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In 1964, political scientist Philip Converse published one of the most citied papers in the discipline: “The nature of belief systems in mass publics”. It attempted to define just how consistent and sophisticated are the political beliefs of the American public.
 
In our current moment, when democracy seems in the balance of an ideologically polarized society, it’s hard to think of paper with more relevance. But how accurate is it, and how has the paper itself pushed political science, creating a feedback loop, to focus on particular questions instead of others?
 
The podcast is going to try something different this week. We’re going to look back at this foundational paper, discuss its implications for today, and investigate how it has shaped political science.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In 1964, political scientist Philip Converse published one of the most citied papers in the discipline: “The nature of belief systems in mass publics”. It attempted to define just how consistent and sophisticated are the political beliefs of the American public.
 
In our current moment, when democracy seems in the balance of an ideologically polarized society, it’s hard to think of paper with more relevance. But how accurate is it, and how has the paper itself pushed political science, creating a feedback loop, to focus on particular questions instead of others?
 
The podcast is going to try something different this week. We’re going to look back at this foundational paper, discuss its implications for today, and investigate how it has shaped political science.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>uchicago, napp, university of chicago podcast network, political, anthony fowler, will howell, uchicago podcast network, government podcast, william howell, government, wioletta dziuda, politics podcast, politiical podcast, politics, not another politics podcast, university of chicago, polarized, chicago, political science</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>46</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">b41c0b8b-1dba-4166-bef5-72799017d23f</guid>
      <title>Do Lockdowns Work?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[As the delta variant of the coronavirus continues to surge across the U.S. the question of should we lockdown again is on a lot of people’s minds. But, shouldn’t we stop and look at the data to see if lockdowns work?

In a new paper, our very own Anthony Fowler has done just that. And what the data say about the efficacy of state imposed shelter in place orders may surprise you. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="44791197" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/9c3eed45-608f-421f-84a9-546cf7589629/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=9c3eed45-608f-421f-84a9-546cf7589629&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Lockdowns Work?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:46:36</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>As the delta variant of the coronavirus continues to surge across the U.S. the question of should we lockdown again is on a lot of people’s minds. But, shouldn’t we stop and look at the data to see if lockdowns work?

In a new paper, our very own Anthony Fowler has done just that. And what the data say about the efficacy of state imposed shelter in place orders may surprise you.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>As the delta variant of the coronavirus continues to surge across the U.S. the question of should we lockdown again is on a lot of people’s minds. But, shouldn’t we stop and look at the data to see if lockdowns work?

In a new paper, our very own Anthony Fowler has done just that. And what the data say about the efficacy of state imposed shelter in place orders may surprise you.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>45</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">e2758ebd-1797-44de-a514-3d19cc87bfa9</guid>
      <title>Introducing: Entitled</title>
      <description><![CDATA[The University of Chicago Podcast Network is excited to announce the launch of a new show, it’s called "Entitled" and it’s about human rights. Co-hosted by lawyers and UChicago Law School Professors, Claudia Flores and Tom Ginsburg, Entitled explores the stories around why rights matter and what’s the matter with rights.

We’re taking a much needed break at the end of the summer, so we're going to share the first episode of that show with you this week, and recommend you go subscribe! We’ll be back in two weeks with a new episode of Not Another Politics Podcast! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com
for information about our collection and use of personal data for
advertising.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 8 Sep 2021 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <enclosure length="39960637" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/57913189-b7a6-444a-a57f-bc28cb1f4c56/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=57913189-b7a6-444a-a57f-bc28cb1f4c56&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Introducing: Entitled</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:41:34</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>The University of Chicago Podcast Network is excited to announce the launch of a new show, it’s called &quot;Entitled&quot; and it’s about human rights. Co-hosted by lawyers and UChicago Law School Professors, Claudia Flores and Tom Ginsburg, Entitled explores the stories around why rights matter and what’s the matter with rights.

We’re taking a much needed break at the end of the summer, so we&apos;re going to share the first episode of that show with you this week, and recommend you go subscribe! We’ll be back in two weeks with a new episode of Not Another Politics Podcast!</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>The University of Chicago Podcast Network is excited to announce the launch of a new show, it’s called &quot;Entitled&quot; and it’s about human rights. Co-hosted by lawyers and UChicago Law School Professors, Claudia Flores and Tom Ginsburg, Entitled explores the stories around why rights matter and what’s the matter with rights.

We’re taking a much needed break at the end of the summer, so we&apos;re going to share the first episode of that show with you this week, and recommend you go subscribe! We’ll be back in two weeks with a new episode of Not Another Politics Podcast!</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>44</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">405d6dbd-3ec0-4301-add9-39ef1b456e1a</guid>
      <title>Does Ranked Choice Reduce Strategic Voting?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>There’s a long standing debate in political science about the problem of strategic voting: when voters cast their ballots not in line with their true preferences, but for the candidate they hate the least whom they think is also most likely to win.</p><p>In a new paper, University of Chicago political scientist Andrew Eggers shows that a completely different system, ranked-choice voting, could reduce strategic voting and create opportunities for people to vote in line with their true preferences.</p><p>Paper link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2komhumusf8yfr2/strategic_voting_in_AV_v29.pdf?dl=0 </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:15:06 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There’s a long standing debate in political science about the problem of strategic voting: when voters cast their ballots not in line with their true preferences, but for the candidate they hate the least whom they think is also most likely to win.</p><p>In a new paper, University of Chicago political scientist Andrew Eggers shows that a completely different system, ranked-choice voting, could reduce strategic voting and create opportunities for people to vote in line with their true preferences.</p><p>Paper link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2komhumusf8yfr2/strategic_voting_in_AV_v29.pdf?dl=0 </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45578432" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/dd26fe35-bb73-484f-a822-25657463e85f/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=dd26fe35-bb73-484f-a822-25657463e85f&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Does Ranked Choice Reduce Strategic Voting?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:24</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There’s a long standing debate in political science about the problem of strategic voting: when voters cast their ballots not in line with their true preferences, but for the candidate they hate the least whom they think is also most likely to win.
 
In a new paper, University of Chicago political scientist Andrew Eggers shows that a completely different system, ranked-choice voting, could reduce strategic voting and create opportunities for people to vote in line with their true preferences.

Paper link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2komhumusf8yfr2/strategic_voting_in_AV_v29.pdf?dl=0 </itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There’s a long standing debate in political science about the problem of strategic voting: when voters cast their ballots not in line with their true preferences, but for the candidate they hate the least whom they think is also most likely to win.
 
In a new paper, University of Chicago political scientist Andrew Eggers shows that a completely different system, ranked-choice voting, could reduce strategic voting and create opportunities for people to vote in line with their true preferences.

Paper link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2komhumusf8yfr2/strategic_voting_in_AV_v29.pdf?dl=0 </itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>harris school of public policy, wioletta dzudia, university of chicago podcast network, ucpn, anthony fowler, will howell, policy, government podcast, william howell, harris, government, political podcast, policy podcast, politics podcast, andrew eggers, politics, voting, not another politics podcast, voting systems</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>43</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">33d54cb9-91ef-4bd3-9729-de65f1b353d5</guid>
      <title>How Much Should We Believe Surveys?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>You’ve probably seen a lot of surveys recently about how many Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen, or that they support the January 6th insurrection on Capitol Hill, or that they don’t trust the vaccine. Do these responses predict their behavior in the real world? Or are they just partisan cheerleading?</p><p> </p><p>Northwestern Political Scientist Mary McGrath looks into this question in her paper “Economic Behavior and The Partisan Perceptual Screen.” By combing through data about survey responses and spending patterns before and after presidential elections, she investigates whether partisans truly believe it when they say the economy is getting better when one of their own occupies the White House. If partisans do believe what they say, shouldn’t their financial decisions change accordingly? And if these decisions don’t change, what does that mean for how we should think about survey responses in general?</p><p> </p><p>Paper Link: <a href="https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northwestern.edu/dist/b/3288/files/2019/10/2017-McGrath-Partisan-Screen.pdf">https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northwestern.edu/dist/b/3288/files/2019/10/2017-McGrath-Partisan-Screen.pdf </a> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2021 12:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You’ve probably seen a lot of surveys recently about how many Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen, or that they support the January 6th insurrection on Capitol Hill, or that they don’t trust the vaccine. Do these responses predict their behavior in the real world? Or are they just partisan cheerleading?</p><p> </p><p>Northwestern Political Scientist Mary McGrath looks into this question in her paper “Economic Behavior and The Partisan Perceptual Screen.” By combing through data about survey responses and spending patterns before and after presidential elections, she investigates whether partisans truly believe it when they say the economy is getting better when one of their own occupies the White House. If partisans do believe what they say, shouldn’t their financial decisions change accordingly? And if these decisions don’t change, what does that mean for how we should think about survey responses in general?</p><p> </p><p>Paper Link: <a href="https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northwestern.edu/dist/b/3288/files/2019/10/2017-McGrath-Partisan-Screen.pdf">https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northwestern.edu/dist/b/3288/files/2019/10/2017-McGrath-Partisan-Screen.pdf </a> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="43847439" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/b2acc3cf-9cc2-4add-9627-c5d892a51e7a/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=b2acc3cf-9cc2-4add-9627-c5d892a51e7a&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>How Much Should We Believe Surveys?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:45:38</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>You’ve probably seen a lot of surveys recently about how many Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen, or that they support the January 6th insurrection on Capitol Hill, or that they don’t trust the vaccine. Do these responses predict their behavior in the real world? Or are they just partisan cheerleading?
 
Northwestern Political Scientist Mary McGrath looks into this question in her paper “Economic Behavior and The Partisan Perceptual Screen.” By combing through data about survey responses and spending patterns before and after presidential elections, she investigates whether partisans truly believe it when they say the economy is getting better when one of their own occupies the White House. If partisans do believe what they say, shouldn’t their financial decisions change accordingly? And if these decisions don’t change, what does that mean for how we should think about survey responses in general?

Paper Link: https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northwestern.edu/dist/b/3288/files/2019/10/2017-McGrath-Partisan-Screen.pdf </itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>You’ve probably seen a lot of surveys recently about how many Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen, or that they support the January 6th insurrection on Capitol Hill, or that they don’t trust the vaccine. Do these responses predict their behavior in the real world? Or are they just partisan cheerleading?
 
Northwestern Political Scientist Mary McGrath looks into this question in her paper “Economic Behavior and The Partisan Perceptual Screen.” By combing through data about survey responses and spending patterns before and after presidential elections, she investigates whether partisans truly believe it when they say the economy is getting better when one of their own occupies the White House. If partisans do believe what they say, shouldn’t their financial decisions change accordingly? And if these decisions don’t change, what does that mean for how we should think about survey responses in general?

Paper Link: https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northwestern.edu/dist/b/3288/files/2019/10/2017-McGrath-Partisan-Screen.pdf </itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>vaccine, mary mcgrath, capitol hill, democrats, partisanship, uchicago, trump, ucpn, political, biden, northwestern, partisan cheerleading, political podcast, political surveys, politics podcast, politics, university of chicago, january 6th, 2020 election, political scientist, republicans</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>42</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">9ef5c2a3-2b30-4fee-850f-eee626df4421</guid>
      <title>Voters and Vaccines: The Politics of Ground Campaigns</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Whether it’s trying to convince you to vote for a particular candidate or get vaccinated, the identity of the person who knocks on your door may matter. So who are the people who volunteer to do this canvassing? Are they likely to succeed?</p><p> </p><p>These are all questions that Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos investigates in his paper, “Party Activists As Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign As A Principal-Agent Problem.” Using a rare dataset from Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, Enos delves into the politics of door to door campaigns, and we try and tease out some lessons for our current efforts to persuade people to get vaccinated.</p><p> </p><p>Link To Paper: <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/enoshershpa.pdf">https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/enoshershpa.pdf</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:25:31 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whether it’s trying to convince you to vote for a particular candidate or get vaccinated, the identity of the person who knocks on your door may matter. So who are the people who volunteer to do this canvassing? Are they likely to succeed?</p><p> </p><p>These are all questions that Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos investigates in his paper, “Party Activists As Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign As A Principal-Agent Problem.” Using a rare dataset from Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, Enos delves into the politics of door to door campaigns, and we try and tease out some lessons for our current efforts to persuade people to get vaccinated.</p><p> </p><p>Link To Paper: <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/enoshershpa.pdf">https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/enoshershpa.pdf</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45852315" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/fac3314f-7650-4ae1-a14d-e572c6bd840f/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=fac3314f-7650-4ae1-a14d-e572c6bd840f&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Voters and Vaccines: The Politics of Ground Campaigns</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:43</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Whether it’s trying to convince you to vote for a particular candidate or get vaccinated, the identity of the person who knocks on your door may matter. So who are the people who volunteer to do this canvassing? Are they likely to succeed?
 
These are all questions that Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos investigates in his paper, “Party Activists As Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign As A Principal-Agent Problem.” Using a rare dataset from Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, Enos delves into the politics of door to door campaigns, and we try and tease out some lessons for our current efforts to persuade people to get vaccinated. 

Link To Paper: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/enoshershpa.pdf</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Whether it’s trying to convince you to vote for a particular candidate or get vaccinated, the identity of the person who knocks on your door may matter. So who are the people who volunteer to do this canvassing? Are they likely to succeed?
 
These are all questions that Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos investigates in his paper, “Party Activists As Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign As A Principal-Agent Problem.” Using a rare dataset from Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, Enos delves into the politics of door to door campaigns, and we try and tease out some lessons for our current efforts to persuade people to get vaccinated. 

Link To Paper: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/enoshershpa.pdf</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, anthonyfowler, party activists as campaign advertisers: the ground campaign as a principal-agent problem, democrats, obama, harvard, political, policy, presidential campaigns, governmentpodcast, wiolettadzuida, government, coronavirus, notanotherpoliticspodcast, vaccines, williamhowell, ryan enos, pandemic, politics, politicspodcast, republicans, campaigns, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>41</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">9de4f898-b5e3-4bda-afa8-0ee55f6eb7cf</guid>
      <title>The Long Term Effects Of Infrastructure Investment</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Infrastructure. It’s one of the hottest topics in politics today. But what does the research say about the effects and politics of infrastructure investment?</p> <p>Political scientist, Jon Rogowski, from the University of Chicago has a surprising paper that shows the long-term economic outcomes of post office developments in the United States. But it also gives us a lot to think about when it comes to who benefits, misses out, or even loses when infrastructure gets political.</p> <p>Paper: <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rogowski/files/post_office_development_ajps_final.pdf"> https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rogowski/files/post_office_development_ajps_final.pdf</a> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:58:16 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Infrastructure. It’s one of the hottest topics in politics today. But what does the research say about the effects and politics of infrastructure investment?</p> <p>Political scientist, Jon Rogowski, from the University of Chicago has a surprising paper that shows the long-term economic outcomes of post office developments in the United States. But it also gives us a lot to think about when it comes to who benefits, misses out, or even loses when infrastructure gets political.</p> <p>Paper: <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rogowski/files/post_office_development_ajps_final.pdf"> https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rogowski/files/post_office_development_ajps_final.pdf</a> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="48487726" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/ba762061-ab22-4790-94ed-cd0ce410d7cd/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=ba762061-ab22-4790-94ed-cd0ce410d7cd&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The Long Term Effects Of Infrastructure Investment</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/ba762061-ab22-4790-94ed-cd0ce410d7cd/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:50:27</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Infrastructure. It’s one of the hottest topics in politics today. But what does the research say about the effects and politics of infrastructure investment?

Political scientist, Jon Rogowski, from the University of Chicago has a surprising paper that shows the long-term economic outcomes of post office developments in the United States. But it also gives us a lot to think about when it comes to who benefits, misses out, or even loses when infrastructure gets political.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Infrastructure. It’s one of the hottest topics in politics today. But what does the research say about the effects and politics of infrastructure investment?

Political scientist, Jon Rogowski, from the University of Chicago has a surprising paper that shows the long-term economic outcomes of post office developments in the United States. But it also gives us a lot to think about when it comes to who benefits, misses out, or even loses when infrastructure gets political.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, anthonyfowler, democrats, political, policy, governmentpodcast, jonrogowski, wiolettadzuida, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, williamhowell, moderates, politics, infrastructure, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>40</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">3364e89c-cdb6-459c-9848-9561cf3029e9</guid>
      <title>Do Americans Want Moderates Or Extremists?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>It seems like extremists politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene receive a disproportionate amount of attention and money. This has led many political actors to believe that extremism is good politics. There’s even some scientific research to back up that claim.</p> <p>But a new paper by Professor of Politics at Princeton, Brandice Canes-Wrone, shows the exact opposite. It shows that, in fact, moderates may have better chances of getting elected than extremists. So, should more politicians take a moderate approach?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2021 14:17:38 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems like extremists politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene receive a disproportionate amount of attention and money. This has led many political actors to believe that extremism is good politics. There’s even some scientific research to back up that claim.</p> <p>But a new paper by Professor of Politics at Princeton, Brandice Canes-Wrone, shows the exact opposite. It shows that, in fact, moderates may have better chances of getting elected than extremists. So, should more politicians take a moderate approach?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="39117204" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/3fe48626-6e12-47be-8204-1a5d139d3f88/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=3fe48626-6e12-47be-8204-1a5d139d3f88&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Americans Want Moderates Or Extremists?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/3fe48626-6e12-47be-8204-1a5d139d3f88/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:40:42</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>It seems like extremists politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene receive a disproportionate amount of attention and money. This has led many political actors to believe that extremism is good politics. There’s even scientific research to back up that claim.

But a new paper by Professor of Politics at Princeton, Brandice Canes-Wrone, shows the exact opposite. It shows that, in fact, moderates may have better chances of getting elected than extremists. So, should more politicians take a moderate approach</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>It seems like extremists politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene receive a disproportionate amount of attention and money. This has led many political actors to believe that extremism is good politics. There’s even scientific research to back up that claim.

But a new paper by Professor of Politics at Princeton, Brandice Canes-Wrone, shows the exact opposite. It shows that, in fact, moderates may have better chances of getting elected than extremists. So, should more politicians take a moderate approach</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>princeton, universityofchicago, anthonyfowler, democrats, political, policy, governmentpodcast, marjorietaylorgreene, wiolettadzuida, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, williamhowell, moderates, politics, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>39</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">4329c3ef-d467-45ba-b486-f2d2d1705511</guid>
      <title>Fixing the Filibuster</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>The debate about abolishing the filibuster isn’t going anywhere. Proponents say it forces compromise and consensus, while detractors claim it leads to gridlock and minority rule. But is there a third option?  </p> <p>Harvard scholar, Kenneth Shepsle, has a radically different proposal that addresses all these concerns without abolishing the filibuster altogether. We discuss his idea on this episode.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:15:31 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The debate about abolishing the filibuster isn’t going anywhere. Proponents say it forces compromise and consensus, while detractors claim it leads to gridlock and minority rule. But is there a third option?  </p> <p>Harvard scholar, Kenneth Shepsle, has a radically different proposal that addresses all these concerns without abolishing the filibuster altogether. We discuss his idea on this episode.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="43750354" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/4a4b61f2-4ff4-443f-88a0-af56ee973edc/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=4a4b61f2-4ff4-443f-88a0-af56ee973edc&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Fixing the Filibuster</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/4a4b61f2-4ff4-443f-88a0-af56ee973edc/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:45:32</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>The debate about abolishing the filibuster isn’t going anywhere. Proponents say it forces compromise and consensus, while detractors claim it leads to gridlock and minority rule. But is there a third option?  

Harvard scholar, Kenneth Shepsle, has a radically different proposal that addresses all these concerns without abolishing the filibuster altogether. We discuss his idea on this episode.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>The debate about abolishing the filibuster isn’t going anywhere. Proponents say it forces compromise and consensus, while detractors claim it leads to gridlock and minority rule. But is there a third option?  

Harvard scholar, Kenneth Shepsle, has a radically different proposal that addresses all these concerns without abolishing the filibuster altogether. We discuss his idea on this episode.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, ussenate, anthonyfowler, democrats, presidentbiden, political, biden, policy, governmentpodcast, filibuster, wiolettadzuida, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, williamhowell, politics, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>38</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">fa8b7046-0e07-4f4c-a2e0-5ff1645b3642</guid>
      <title>Should The Supreme Court Have Term Limits?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>A lot of people are unhappy with the ideological make-up of the Supreme Court. They say it doesn’t reflect the majority of the country. President Biden’s commission tasked with reforming the Supreme Court started meeting for the first time in May of this year. One of the proposals they’re going to consider is setting term limits on Justices. But they’re far from the first group to consider this idea.</p> <p>Adam Chilton is a Professor of Law at The University of Chicago Law School and the author of a paper the proposes a set of Supreme Court reforms involving terms limits, and then runs simulations to show how the make-up of the Court could have been different if their reforms were in place. If we had term limits from the beginning, could we have avoided the problems people have with the Court?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:56:53 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot of people are unhappy with the ideological make-up of the Supreme Court. They say it doesn’t reflect the majority of the country. President Biden’s commission tasked with reforming the Supreme Court started meeting for the first time in May of this year. One of the proposals they’re going to consider is setting term limits on Justices. But they’re far from the first group to consider this idea.</p> <p>Adam Chilton is a Professor of Law at The University of Chicago Law School and the author of a paper the proposes a set of Supreme Court reforms involving terms limits, and then runs simulations to show how the make-up of the Court could have been different if their reforms were in place. If we had term limits from the beginning, could we have avoided the problems people have with the Court?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="39889179" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/9b80828f-5e83-43dc-b558-c4fa1a373186/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=9b80828f-5e83-43dc-b558-c4fa1a373186&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Should The Supreme Court Have Term Limits?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/9b80828f-5e83-43dc-b558-c4fa1a373186/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:41:31</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>President Biden’s commission tasked with reforming the Supreme Court started meeting for the first time in May of this year. One of the proposals on the table is setting term limits on Justices. They’re far from the first group to consider this idea.

Adam Chilton is a Professor of Law at The University of Chicago Law School and the author of a paper that runs simulations to show how the make-up of the Court could have been different through history if term limits were in place.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>President Biden’s commission tasked with reforming the Supreme Court started meeting for the first time in May of this year. One of the proposals on the table is setting term limits on Justices. They’re far from the first group to consider this idea.

Adam Chilton is a Professor of Law at The University of Chicago Law School and the author of a paper that runs simulations to show how the make-up of the Court could have been different through history if term limits were in place.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, anthonyfowler, democrats, supremecourt, presidentbiden, political, biden, policy, governmentpodcast, wiolettadzuida, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, williamhowell, politics, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>37</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">9db7056b-4f5a-4614-9ade-a0696371919e</guid>
      <title>Always Be Updating: New Research On Old Topics</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>We’ve been doing this podcast for over a year and we’ve covered a lot of research, but each paper is far from the final word on any topic.</p> <p>On this episode, it’s time to do some updating. We’re going to take three recent papers and show how they change or deepen our understanding of prior papers we’ve covered on this podcast.  </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2021 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We’ve been doing this podcast for over a year and we’ve covered a lot of research, but each paper is far from the final word on any topic.</p> <p>On this episode, it’s time to do some updating. We’re going to take three recent papers and show how they change or deepen our understanding of prior papers we’ve covered on this podcast.  </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="39003082" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/63ce4803-22c0-4ae7-8b80-b70ac62df689/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=63ce4803-22c0-4ae7-8b80-b70ac62df689&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Always Be Updating: New Research On Old Topics</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/63ce4803-22c0-4ae7-8b80-b70ac62df689/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:40:33</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We’ve been doing this podcast for over a year and we’ve covered a lot of research, but each paper is far from the final word on any topic.

On this episode, it’s time to do some updating. We’re going to take three recent papers and show how they change or deepen our understanding of prior papers we’ve covered on this podcast.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We’ve been doing this podcast for over a year and we’ve covered a lot of research, but each paper is far from the final word on any topic.

On this episode, it’s time to do some updating. We’re going to take three recent papers and show how they change or deepen our understanding of prior papers we’ve covered on this podcast.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, anthonyfowler, democrats, political, policy, governmentpodcast, wiolettadzuida, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, williamhowell, politics, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>36</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">6103cd11-3fa7-41b2-b76c-57da32ef7f2c</guid>
      <title>To Block Or Not To Block: Obstruction In The Senate</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Does the ability for minority parties to delay and obstruct legislation force the majority party to only pass bills that are more moderate? It’s a question that informs much of our political debate around dilatory tactics like the filibuster.</p> <p>University of Michigan Political Scientist, Christian Fong, has a paper that models this question and argues that these delay and obstruct abiliities lead to policies that are closer to what the median voter may want. We discuss that paper, the filibuster and the possible strategies of Sen. Joe Manchin on this episode.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 5 May 2021 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does the ability for minority parties to delay and obstruct legislation force the majority party to only pass bills that are more moderate? It’s a question that informs much of our political debate around dilatory tactics like the filibuster.</p> <p>University of Michigan Political Scientist, Christian Fong, has a paper that models this question and argues that these delay and obstruct abiliities lead to policies that are closer to what the median voter may want. We discuss that paper, the filibuster and the possible strategies of Sen. Joe Manchin on this episode.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="43725537" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/9c00a0ad-3d4f-43b3-a96b-639da62859c5/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=9c00a0ad-3d4f-43b3-a96b-639da62859c5&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>To Block Or Not To Block: Obstruction In The Senate</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/9c00a0ad-3d4f-43b3-a96b-639da62859c5/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:45:31</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When minority parties delay and obstruct legislation does the majority party end up passing bills that are more moderate? It’s a question that informs much of our political debate around dilatory tactics like the filibuster.

University of Michigan Political Scientist, Christian Fong, has a paper that models this question and argues that these delay and obstruct abiliities lead to policies that are closer to what the median voter may want.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When minority parties delay and obstruct legislation does the majority party end up passing bills that are more moderate? It’s a question that informs much of our political debate around dilatory tactics like the filibuster.

University of Michigan Political Scientist, Christian Fong, has a paper that models this question and argues that these delay and obstruct abiliities lead to policies that are closer to what the median voter may want.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, anthonyfowler, christianfong, democrats, political, policy, governmentpodcast, universityofmichigan, filibuster, wiolettadzuida, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, williamhowell, politics, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>35</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">bf3d1273-dc09-475e-a2f2-2ef3c8929e12</guid>
      <title>What the Data Say About Voter ID Laws</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>There’s a lot of debate in our politics about whether we should have stricter voter ID laws. But both sides are having an argument based almost entirely on assumptions because data on the real effect of these laws are scarce. Not anymore.</p> <p>In a brand new paper, Stanford Political Scientist Justin Grimmer gives us a fresh look at whether stricter voter ID laws decrease turnout during elections. The numbers may surprise you.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There’s a lot of debate in our politics about whether we should have stricter voter ID laws. But both sides are having an argument based almost entirely on assumptions because data on the real effect of these laws are scarce. Not anymore.</p> <p>In a brand new paper, Stanford Political Scientist Justin Grimmer gives us a fresh look at whether stricter voter ID laws decrease turnout during elections. The numbers may surprise you.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="39607079" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/540395a6-2a57-42b3-9512-df27b5d66589/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=540395a6-2a57-42b3-9512-df27b5d66589&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>What the Data Say About Voter ID Laws</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/540395a6-2a57-42b3-9512-df27b5d66589/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:41:13</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>There’s a lot of debate in our politics about whether we should have stricter voter ID laws. But both sides are having an argument based almost entirely on assumptions because data on the real effect of these laws are scarce. Not anymore.

In a brand new paper, Stanford Political Scientist Justin Grimmer gives us a fresh look at whether stricter voter ID laws decrease turnout during elections. The numbers may surprise you.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>There’s a lot of debate in our politics about whether we should have stricter voter ID laws. But both sides are having an argument based almost entirely on assumptions because data on the real effect of these laws are scarce. Not anymore.

In a brand new paper, Stanford Political Scientist Justin Grimmer gives us a fresh look at whether stricter voter ID laws decrease turnout during elections. The numbers may surprise you.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, stanford, voterid, anthonyfowler, democrats, political, policy, governmentpodcast, wiolettadzuida, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, williamhowell, votingrights, politics, americanpolitics, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>34</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">2fe327dc-c7ae-44ce-83e1-9997bc2ccaae</guid>
      <title>Why Democrats Should Move To The Suburbs If They Want To Win More Legislative Seats</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>This year the U.S. will go through its decennial redistricting process, which is resurfacing our national conversation around gerrymandering. But Stanford Professor of Political Science, Jonathan Rodden, says gerrymandering isn't the least of our problems when it comes to the politics of geography.</p> <p>In his book, "Why Cities Lose", Rodden illustrates how we can still end up with minority majority rule, regardless of gerrymandering, due to the urban-rural divide. So, if the Democrats want to win more legislative seats, should they move to the suburbs?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This year the U.S. will go through its decennial redistricting process, which is resurfacing our national conversation around gerrymandering. But Stanford Professor of Political Science, Jonathan Rodden, says gerrymandering isn't the least of our problems when it comes to the politics of geography.</p> <p>In his book, "Why Cities Lose", Rodden illustrates how we can still end up with minority majority rule, regardless of gerrymandering, due to the urban-rural divide. So, if the Democrats want to win more legislative seats, should they move to the suburbs?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="43189114" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/c30d6a5d-fb11-4ac8-b77d-40f100994fb9/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=c30d6a5d-fb11-4ac8-b77d-40f100994fb9&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Why Democrats Should Move To The Suburbs If They Want To Win More Legislative Seats</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/c30d6a5d-fb11-4ac8-b77d-40f100994fb9/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:44:58</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>This year the U.S. will go through its decennial redistricting process, which is resurfacing our national conversation around gerrymandering. But Stanford Professor of Political Science, Jonathan Rodden, says gerrymandering isn&apos;t the least of our problems when it comes to the politics of geography.

In his book, &quot;Why Cities Lose&quot;, Rodden illustrates how we can still end up with minority majority rule, regardless of gerrymandering, due to the urban-rural divide.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>This year the U.S. will go through its decennial redistricting process, which is resurfacing our national conversation around gerrymandering. But Stanford Professor of Political Science, Jonathan Rodden, says gerrymandering isn&apos;t the least of our problems when it comes to the politics of geography.

In his book, &quot;Why Cities Lose&quot;, Rodden illustrates how we can still end up with minority majority rule, regardless of gerrymandering, due to the urban-rural divide.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>stanford, anthonyfowler, democrats, redistricting, political, policy, jonathanrodden, governmentpodcast, wiolettadzuida, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, williamhowell, gerrymandering, politics, americanpolitics, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>33</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">7cd04fb4-4650-42b8-972a-c261202cba6b</guid>
      <title>The Institutional Racism Of Land-Use Regulation</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Are land-use regulations incredibly boring? Not quite. As our guest argues, these seemingly banal policies could be causing modern-day segregation.</p> <p>In a new paper, Jessica Trounstine, chair of the political science department a the University of California Merced, makes a strong case for why land-use policies aren’t as race-neutral as they seem, and why we need to pay more attention to them.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are land-use regulations incredibly boring? Not quite. As our guest argues, these seemingly banal policies could be causing modern-day segregation.</p> <p>In a new paper, Jessica Trounstine, chair of the political science department a the University of California Merced, makes a strong case for why land-use policies aren’t as race-neutral as they seem, and why we need to pay more attention to them.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="39781261" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/ab9a7372-4791-40da-b862-f1daf25b99c9/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=ab9a7372-4791-40da-b862-f1daf25b99c9&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The Institutional Racism Of Land-Use Regulation</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/ab9a7372-4791-40da-b862-f1daf25b99c9/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:41:24</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Is there anything more boring than land-use regulation? Not quite. As our guest today argues, these seemingly banal policies could be causing modern-day segregation.

In a new paper, Jessica Trounstine, chair of the political science department a the University of California Merced, makes a strong case for why land-use policies aren’t as race-neutral as they seem, and why we need to pay more attention to them.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Is there anything more boring than land-use regulation? Not quite. As our guest today argues, these seemingly banal policies could be causing modern-day segregation.

In a new paper, Jessica Trounstine, chair of the political science department a the University of California Merced, makes a strong case for why land-use policies aren’t as race-neutral as they seem, and why we need to pay more attention to them.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>segregation, anthonyfowler, racism, race, political, policy, governmentpodcast, wiolettadzuida, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, williamhowell, politics, americanpolitics, politicspodcast, regulation, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>32</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">a5107b47-6acb-4165-a97b-da2de4028c5b</guid>
      <title>Are Media Echo Chambers As Big As We Think?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>We’re constantly told that we’re trapped in media “echo chambers”, that our media diets mirror our political leanings. But what do the data say? Is it possible that a majority of us have a much more moderate media diet than we assume?</p> <p>A new paper by Andrew Guess, Assistant Professor of Politics at Princeton, provides a completely unique data set that complicates our assumptions about America’s “echo chambers” and media diets.</p> <p>Paper: <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/3rjsnp8k3im7377/AGuess_OMD_AJPS.pdf?dl=0"> https://www.dropbox.com/s/3rjsnp8k3im7377/AGuess_OMD_AJPS.pdf?dl=0</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We’re constantly told that we’re trapped in media “echo chambers”, that our media diets mirror our political leanings. But what do the data say? Is it possible that a majority of us have a much more moderate media diet than we assume?</p> <p>A new paper by Andrew Guess, Assistant Professor of Politics at Princeton, provides a completely unique data set that complicates our assumptions about America’s “echo chambers” and media diets.</p> <p>Paper: <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/3rjsnp8k3im7377/AGuess_OMD_AJPS.pdf?dl=0"> https://www.dropbox.com/s/3rjsnp8k3im7377/AGuess_OMD_AJPS.pdf?dl=0</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="42444451" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/938a8269-f407-41ed-b6cb-8225c8bedbc8/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=938a8269-f407-41ed-b6cb-8225c8bedbc8&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Are Media Echo Chambers As Big As We Think?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/938a8269-f407-41ed-b6cb-8225c8bedbc8/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:44:11</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We’re constantly told that we’re trapped in media “echo chambers”, that our media diets mirror our political leanings. But what do the data say? Is it possible that a majority of us have a much more moderate media diet than we assume?

A new paper by Andrew Guess, Assistant Professor of Politics at Princeton, provides a completely unique data set that complicates our assumptions about America’s “echo chambers” and media diets.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We’re constantly told that we’re trapped in media “echo chambers”, that our media diets mirror our political leanings. But what do the data say? Is it possible that a majority of us have a much more moderate media diet than we assume?

A new paper by Andrew Guess, Assistant Professor of Politics at Princeton, provides a completely unique data set that complicates our assumptions about America’s “echo chambers” and media diets.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>news, anthonyfowler, political, localnews, governmentpodcast, wiolettadzuida, government, americanmedia, notanotherpoliticspodcast, newsmedia, williamhowell, media, polarization, politics, americanpolitics, politicspodcast, echochambers, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>31</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">51becc6e-05fd-41fc-a81f-ae633c6dd544</guid>
      <title>Nationalized Elections, The End Of Local News, And Government Accountability</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<pre><code>    When was the last time you voted split-ticket in an election? It may not be surprising to hear that our elections have become increasingly nationalized in the last few decades. Most people vote for a single party straight down the ballot. The question is, why?     Daniel Moskowitz, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Harris School of Public Policy, says the answer may be the massive reduction of local news. On this episode, we speak with Moskowitz about why nationalized elections are a problem, the key role of local news, and what we might do to fix things.   Paper: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/local-news-information-and-the-nationalization-of-us-elections/4AEEA64CB7EC2CF384434AB0482E63F4&quot;&gt; https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/local-news-information-and-the-nationalization-of-us-elections/4AEEA64CB7EC2CF384434AB0482E63F4&lt;/a&gt;         
</code></pre><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<pre><code>    When was the last time you voted split-ticket in an election? It may not be surprising to hear that our elections have become increasingly nationalized in the last few decades. Most people vote for a single party straight down the ballot. The question is, why?     Daniel Moskowitz, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Harris School of Public Policy, says the answer may be the massive reduction of local news. On this episode, we speak with Moskowitz about why nationalized elections are a problem, the key role of local news, and what we might do to fix things.   Paper: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/local-news-information-and-the-nationalization-of-us-elections/4AEEA64CB7EC2CF384434AB0482E63F4&quot;&gt; https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/local-news-information-and-the-nationalization-of-us-elections/4AEEA64CB7EC2CF384434AB0482E63F4&lt;/a&gt;         
</code></pre><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45587762" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/8b87d858-4682-468c-84a1-b9b51514af8c/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=8b87d858-4682-468c-84a1-b9b51514af8c&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Nationalized Elections, The End Of Local News, And Government Accountability</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/8b87d858-4682-468c-84a1-b9b51514af8c/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:28</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>When was the last time you voted split-ticket? It may not be surprising to hear that our elections have become increasingly nationalized in the last few decades. The question is, why?  
 
Daniel Moskowitz, Assistant Professor at the Harris School of Public Policy, says the answer may be the massive reduction of local news. We speak with Moskowitz about why nationalized elections are a problem, the key role of local news, and what we might do to fix things.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>When was the last time you voted split-ticket? It may not be surprising to hear that our elections have become increasingly nationalized in the last few decades. The question is, why?  
 
Daniel Moskowitz, Assistant Professor at the Harris School of Public Policy, says the answer may be the massive reduction of local news. We speak with Moskowitz about why nationalized elections are a problem, the key role of local news, and what we might do to fix things.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>politicalscandal, news, anthonyfowler, political, localnews, governmentpodcast, wiolettadzuida, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, newsmedia, williamhowell, media, polarization, politics, voting, willhowell, americanpolitics, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>30</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">9f26f1a4-628c-4819-9192-108948062387</guid>
      <title>A New Theory of Political Scandals</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Political scandal is a historically defining aspect of American politics. But, there’s been very little scholarship on the political incentives that surround the production and consequences of scandals.</p> <p>In a recent paper, “Political Scandal: A Theory”, our very own Will Howell and Wioletta Dziuda create a new model of political scandal that makes these incentives clear. On this episode, we discuss how these incentives should reshape the way we think about political scandals.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Political scandal is a historically defining aspect of American politics. But, there’s been very little scholarship on the political incentives that surround the production and consequences of scandals.</p> <p>In a recent paper, “Political Scandal: A Theory”, our very own Will Howell and Wioletta Dziuda create a new model of political scandal that makes these incentives clear. On this episode, we discuss how these incentives should reshape the way we think about political scandals.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="33823250" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/5cc4a9b5-0e2d-4d79-aa5a-b74ff12599bf/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=5cc4a9b5-0e2d-4d79-aa5a-b74ff12599bf&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>A New Theory of Political Scandals</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/5cc4a9b5-0e2d-4d79-aa5a-b74ff12599bf/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:35:00</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Political scandal is a historically defining aspect of American politics. But, there’s been very little scholarship on the political incentives that surround the production and consequences of scandals.

In a recent paper, “Political Scandal: A Theory”, our very own Will Howell and Wioletta Dziuda create a new model of political scandal that makes these incentives clear. On this episode, we discuss how these incentives should reshape the way we think about political scandals.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Political scandal is a historically defining aspect of American politics. But, there’s been very little scholarship on the political incentives that surround the production and consequences of scandals.

In a recent paper, “Political Scandal: A Theory”, our very own Will Howell and Wioletta Dziuda create a new model of political scandal that makes these incentives clear. On this episode, we discuss how these incentives should reshape the way we think about political scandals.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>politicalscandal, donaldtrump, anthonyfowler, trump, political, governmentpodcast, wiolettadzuida, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, williamhowell, politics, willhowell, americanpolitics, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>29</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">c2f9b8b4-3062-4dc8-a10f-50445fb5aaf5</guid>
      <title>The State of Our Democracy, with James Robinson: Just Another Politics Podcast</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>One of the defining discussions of the Trump presidency centers on the fate of our democracy. In the aftermath of his populist presidency, and as we transition to the Biden era, we’re wondering whether the future is bright or dim.</p> <p>There’s no better scholar to put this question to than the University of Chicago Professor and co-author of “Why Nations Fail”, James Robinson. We look forward and backward with Robinson to diagnose the health of our democracy.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2021 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the defining discussions of the Trump presidency centers on the fate of our democracy. In the aftermath of his populist presidency, and as we transition to the Biden era, we’re wondering whether the future is bright or dim.</p> <p>There’s no better scholar to put this question to than the University of Chicago Professor and co-author of “Why Nations Fail”, James Robinson. We look forward and backward with Robinson to diagnose the health of our democracy.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="33294666" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/6ebe8643-b536-4e7a-9c80-354d7c2169d1/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=6ebe8643-b536-4e7a-9c80-354d7c2169d1&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The State of Our Democracy, with James Robinson: Just Another Politics Podcast</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/6ebe8643-b536-4e7a-9c80-354d7c2169d1/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:34:39</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>One of the defining discussions of the Trump presidency centers on the fate of our democracy. In the aftermath of his populist presidency, and as we transition to the Biden era, we’re wondering whether the future is bright or dim.

There’s no better scholar to put this question to than the University of Chicago Professor and co-author of “Why Nations Fail”, James Robinson. We look forward and backward with Robinson to diagnose the health of our democracy.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>One of the defining discussions of the Trump presidency centers on the fate of our democracy. In the aftermath of his populist presidency, and as we transition to the Biden era, we’re wondering whether the future is bright or dim.

There’s no better scholar to put this question to than the University of Chicago Professor and co-author of “Why Nations Fail”, James Robinson. We look forward and backward with Robinson to diagnose the health of our democracy.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, ucpn, political, americangovernment, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, politics, willhowell, jamesrobinson, democracy, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>28</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">3c455790-fc96-494a-8208-925da352a9e2</guid>
      <title>Do Americans Support Democracy As Much As They Say?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>It’s an extraordinarily distressing time for democracy in America. The storming of the Capitol and the votes by some Republican elected officials questioning the results of the 2020 election have many asking what force could act as a check on these increasing anti-democratic tendencies in American political life?  </p> <p>A paper from Milan Svolik, Prof. of Political Science at Yale, may hold some answers. He investigates whether the American public would act as a check on anti-democratic politicians, and reveals how much we truly value democracy when we’re presented with tradeoffs.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It’s an extraordinarily distressing time for democracy in America. The storming of the Capitol and the votes by some Republican elected officials questioning the results of the 2020 election have many asking what force could act as a check on these increasing anti-democratic tendencies in American political life?  </p> <p>A paper from Milan Svolik, Prof. of Political Science at Yale, may hold some answers. He investigates whether the American public would act as a check on anti-democratic politicians, and reveals how much we truly value democracy when we’re presented with tradeoffs.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="52290734" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/51605d1c-1074-472e-a388-e5f66ce39edb/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=51605d1c-1074-472e-a388-e5f66ce39edb&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Americans Support Democracy As Much As They Say?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/51605d1c-1074-472e-a388-e5f66ce39edb/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:54:25</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>The storming of the Capitol and the votes by some Republican elected officials questioning the results of the 2020 election have many asking what force could act as a check on these increasing anti-democratic tendencies in American political life?  
Milan Svolik, Prof. of Political Science at Yale, may hold some answers. He investigates whether the American public would act as a check on anti-democratic politicians, and reveals how much we truly value democracy when we’re presented with tradeoffs.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>The storming of the Capitol and the votes by some Republican elected officials questioning the results of the 2020 election have many asking what force could act as a check on these increasing anti-democratic tendencies in American political life?  
Milan Svolik, Prof. of Political Science at Yale, may hold some answers. He investigates whether the American public would act as a check on anti-democratic politicians, and reveals how much we truly value democracy when we’re presented with tradeoffs.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, politicalscience, democrat, yale, trump, republican, democratic, political, notanotherpoliticspodcast, politics, capitolriots, willhowell, america, democracy, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>27</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">da340d9d-9e8d-49a0-92e5-5f92643f2c7f</guid>
      <title>Best Of: Are We Really Living In Separate Worlds?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>It’s been an incredibly divisive year, and we’re constantly told we’re more politically divided than ever. But, as our team takes some time with their families for the holidays, we want to re-share a more hopeful conversation with you that sheds some new light on these seemingly unbridgeable divides in our country.</p> <p>We hope you enjoy it, and we’ll be bringing you brand new episodes after the holiday.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2020 16:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It’s been an incredibly divisive year, and we’re constantly told we’re more politically divided than ever. But, as our team takes some time with their families for the holidays, we want to re-share a more hopeful conversation with you that sheds some new light on these seemingly unbridgeable divides in our country.</p> <p>We hope you enjoy it, and we’ll be bringing you brand new episodes after the holiday.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="36511893" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/5513aaf6-8f78-41fd-9660-e7865bb8a8de/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=5513aaf6-8f78-41fd-9660-e7865bb8a8de&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Best Of: Are We Really Living In Separate Worlds?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/5513aaf6-8f78-41fd-9660-e7865bb8a8de/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:38:01</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>It’s been an incredibly divisive year, and we’re constantly told we’re more politically divided than ever. But, as our team takes some time with their families for the holidays, we want to re-share a more hopeful conversation with you that sheds some new light on these seemingly unbridgeable divides in our country. 

We hope you enjoy it, and we’ll be bringing you brand new episodes after the holiday.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>It’s been an incredibly divisive year, and we’re constantly told we’re more politically divided than ever. But, as our team takes some time with their families for the holidays, we want to re-share a more hopeful conversation with you that sheds some new light on these seemingly unbridgeable divides in our country. 

We hope you enjoy it, and we’ll be bringing you brand new episodes after the holiday.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>covid19, politicalscience, democrats, covid, yale, political, coronavirus, gregoryhuber, politics, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>26</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">a645e6b0-b782-4fab-bea0-87660d042215</guid>
      <title>Do Government Programs Get People More Involved In Politics?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>It’s long been thought in political science that giving people resources through government programs will get them more involved in politics. But this has always been a difficult question to answer in a controlled environment. That is until the 2008 Medicaid expansion in Oregon.</p> <p>There was an extensive research initiative done on the roll out of that expansion, and our boss and the Dean of the Harris School of Public Policy, Katherine Baicker, was involved. On this episode, we parse through the results with her to see if we can get a new perspective on this question.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2020 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It’s long been thought in political science that giving people resources through government programs will get them more involved in politics. But this has always been a difficult question to answer in a controlled environment. That is until the 2008 Medicaid expansion in Oregon.</p> <p>There was an extensive research initiative done on the roll out of that expansion, and our boss and the Dean of the Harris School of Public Policy, Katherine Baicker, was involved. On this episode, we parse through the results with her to see if we can get a new perspective on this question.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="41907887" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/7d4f3cd1-6e21-4293-b749-817f1d7169d4/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=7d4f3cd1-6e21-4293-b749-817f1d7169d4&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Government Programs Get People More Involved In Politics?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/7d4f3cd1-6e21-4293-b749-817f1d7169d4/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:43:36</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>It’s long been thought that giving people resources through government programs will get them more involved in politics. But this has always been a difficult question to answer in a controlled environment. That is until the 2008 Medicaid expansion in Oregon.

There was a research initiative done on that expansion, and our boss the Dean of the Harris School of Public Policy, Katherine Baicker, was involved. We parse through the results with her to see if we can get a new perspective on this question.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>It’s long been thought that giving people resources through government programs will get them more involved in politics. But this has always been a difficult question to answer in a controlled environment. That is until the 2008 Medicaid expansion in Oregon.

There was a research initiative done on that expansion, and our boss the Dean of the Harris School of Public Policy, Katherine Baicker, was involved. We parse through the results with her to see if we can get a new perspective on this question.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>anthonyfowler, political, notanotherpoliticspodcast, harrisschoolofpublicpolicy, williamhowell, politics, wiolettadziuda, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>25</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">9c3f348b-cc44-4000-89ec-1ae583c408f5</guid>
      <title>Presenting The &quot;Big Brains&quot; Podcast</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>This week, we took some time off for Thanksgiving so we're going to feature another University of Chicago Podcast Network show. It’s called Big Brains. On this episode, they spoke with Professor James Robinson, author of the renowned book Why Nations Fail, about his groundbreaking theories on why certain nations succeed and others fail as well as the future of America’s institutions. We hope you enjoy and we’ll see you soon for a new episode of Not Another Politics Podcast.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 2 Dec 2020 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This week, we took some time off for Thanksgiving so we're going to feature another University of Chicago Podcast Network show. It’s called Big Brains. On this episode, they spoke with Professor James Robinson, author of the renowned book Why Nations Fail, about his groundbreaking theories on why certain nations succeed and others fail as well as the future of America’s institutions. We hope you enjoy and we’ll see you soon for a new episode of Not Another Politics Podcast.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="27738141" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/7dcd2844-ccaf-4067-b510-0180a366e12a/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=7dcd2844-ccaf-4067-b510-0180a366e12a&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Presenting The &quot;Big Brains&quot; Podcast</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/7dcd2844-ccaf-4067-b510-0180a366e12a/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:28:51</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>This week, we took some time off for Thanksgiving so we&apos;re going to feature another University of Chicago Podcast Network show. It’s called Big Brains. On this episode, they spoke with Professor James Robinson, author of the renowned book Why Nations Fail, about his groundbreaking theories on why certain nations succeed and others fail as well as the future of America’s institutions. We hope you enjoy and we’ll see you soon for a new episode of Not Another Politics Podcast.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>This week, we took some time off for Thanksgiving so we&apos;re going to feature another University of Chicago Podcast Network show. It’s called Big Brains. On this episode, they spoke with Professor James Robinson, author of the renowned book Why Nations Fail, about his groundbreaking theories on why certain nations succeed and others fail as well as the future of America’s institutions. We hope you enjoy and we’ll see you soon for a new episode of Not Another Politics Podcast.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>whynationsfail, political, universityofchicagopodcastnetwork, notanotherpoliticspodcast, bigbrains, politics, jamesrobinson, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>24</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">2c484712-97fa-4161-a4f6-9cb00efa5e2a</guid>
      <title>The Politics Of Distraction</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Most of America, and a lot of the world, has been singularly focused on the U.S. presidential election. With so much media attention on this one event, could foreign actors be taking advantage of this moment to do unpopular things?</p> <p>In a new paper, economist Ruben Durante from the University of Pompeu Fabra argues that politicians strategically time controversial actions with major news events, when the United States is most distracted.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most of America, and a lot of the world, has been singularly focused on the U.S. presidential election. With so much media attention on this one event, could foreign actors be taking advantage of this moment to do unpopular things?</p> <p>In a new paper, economist Ruben Durante from the University of Pompeu Fabra argues that politicians strategically time controversial actions with major news events, when the United States is most distracted.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="41927054" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/9f8f643c-807f-4fbc-8893-b38e78a604cc/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=9f8f643c-807f-4fbc-8893-b38e78a604cc&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The Politics Of Distraction</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/9f8f643c-807f-4fbc-8893-b38e78a604cc/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:43:33</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Most of America, and a lot of the world, has been singularly focused on the U.S. presidential election. With so much media attention on this one event, could foreign actors be taking advantage of this moment to do unpopular things?

In a new paper, economist Ruben Durante from the University of Pompeu Fabra argues that politicians strategically time controversial actions with major news events, when the United States is most distracted.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Most of America, and a lot of the world, has been singularly focused on the U.S. presidential election. With so much media attention on this one event, could foreign actors be taking advantage of this moment to do unpopular things?

In a new paper, economist Ruben Durante from the University of Pompeu Fabra argues that politicians strategically time controversial actions with major news events, when the United States is most distracted.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, donaldtrump, news, election, trump, political, elections, presidenttrump, 2020, media, politics, rubendurante, america, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>23</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">809acdae-7e2b-43f6-a86f-069ef429913b</guid>
      <title>What Just Happened?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Last week, the American people elected Joe Biden to be the forty-sixth president of the United States. This was an incredibly contentious and complex election. We decided to get together to try and make sense of what just happened.</p> <p>On this episode, we discuss what message the historic turn out, for both candidates, sends about Trumpism and the increasing left-wing of the Democratic party, why the polls got everything so wrong, again, and what a Biden Presidency will look like given the likelihood of a divided government.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:23:02 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last week, the American people elected Joe Biden to be the forty-sixth president of the United States. This was an incredibly contentious and complex election. We decided to get together to try and make sense of what just happened.</p> <p>On this episode, we discuss what message the historic turn out, for both candidates, sends about Trumpism and the increasing left-wing of the Democratic party, why the polls got everything so wrong, again, and what a Biden Presidency will look like given the likelihood of a divided government.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="40225925" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/7f4090fb-ca60-419c-b85d-b5fa3ae98daa/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=7f4090fb-ca60-419c-b85d-b5fa3ae98daa&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>What Just Happened?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/7f4090fb-ca60-419c-b85d-b5fa3ae98daa/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:41:41</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Last week, the American people elected Joe Biden to be the forty-sixth president of the United States. This was an incredibly contentious and complex election. We decided to get together to try and make sense of what just happened.

We discuss what message the historic turn out, for both candidates, sends about Trumpism and the increasing left-wing of the Democratic party, why the polls got everything so wrong, again, and what a Biden Presidency will look like given the likelihood of a divided government.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Last week, the American people elected Joe Biden to be the forty-sixth president of the United States. This was an incredibly contentious and complex election. We decided to get together to try and make sense of what just happened.

We discuss what message the historic turn out, for both candidates, sends about Trumpism and the increasing left-wing of the Democratic party, why the polls got everything so wrong, again, and what a Biden Presidency will look like given the likelihood of a divided government.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>22</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">211c6347-0ba5-45c3-bcc6-866e46e3d29d</guid>
      <title>Reining In The Supreme Court</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>The appointment of Amy Coney Barrett would make the Supreme Court more conservative than it has been in decades. Importantly, it also would be more conservative than the majority of the public. But one piece of political science research suggests that an out-of-step Court will not simply have its way in the years ahead.</p> <p>Judges like to present themselves as arbiters of the law, free from the entanglements of politics. But work from Tom Clark, Professor of Political Science at Emory University, calls that idea into question, and shows why our new conservative Court may still follow public opinion.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The appointment of Amy Coney Barrett would make the Supreme Court more conservative than it has been in decades. Importantly, it also would be more conservative than the majority of the public. But one piece of political science research suggests that an out-of-step Court will not simply have its way in the years ahead.</p> <p>Judges like to present themselves as arbiters of the law, free from the entanglements of politics. But work from Tom Clark, Professor of Political Science at Emory University, calls that idea into question, and shows why our new conservative Court may still follow public opinion.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="36349422" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/4f7ffa58-a78a-410e-98b6-c06d63e802aa/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=4f7ffa58-a78a-410e-98b6-c06d63e802aa&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Reining In The Supreme Court</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/4f7ffa58-a78a-410e-98b6-c06d63e802aa/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:37:49</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Amy Coney Barrett&apos;s nomination would make the Supreme Court more conservative than it has been in decades, even more conservative than the majority of the public. But one piece of research suggests that an out-of-step Court will not just have its way.

This paper from Tom Clark, Professor of Political Science at Emory University, shows why our new conservative Court may still follow public opinion.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Amy Coney Barrett&apos;s nomination would make the Supreme Court more conservative than it has been in decades, even more conservative than the majority of the public. But one piece of research suggests that an out-of-step Court will not just have its way.

This paper from Tom Clark, Professor of Political Science at Emory University, shows why our new conservative Court may still follow public opinion.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>politicalscience, tomclark, thesupremecourt, political, emoryuniversity, law, notanotherpoliticspodcast, harrisschoolofpublicpolicy, politics, willhowell, amyconeybarrette, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>21</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">1858d3bb-bb48-4345-b1c3-5efdb5474f80</guid>
      <title>The Vice Presidential Debate: Just Another Politics Podcast</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>On this second edition of the "Just Another Politics Podcast Special", we decide to join our fellow political podcasts in sitting back in our armchairs and sharing our thoughts on the first Presidential debate.</p> <p>The day after the Vice Presidential debate, we recorded a response to what happened and what we think its affect on the 2020 election could be. We think this insightful conversation is worth sharing with you, even if it breaks our usual format.</p> <p>Don't worry, we'll be back next episode with serious-minded research and science that looks at our politics and political system!</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:27:36 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On this second edition of the "Just Another Politics Podcast Special", we decide to join our fellow political podcasts in sitting back in our armchairs and sharing our thoughts on the first Presidential debate.</p> <p>The day after the Vice Presidential debate, we recorded a response to what happened and what we think its affect on the 2020 election could be. We think this insightful conversation is worth sharing with you, even if it breaks our usual format.</p> <p>Don't worry, we'll be back next episode with serious-minded research and science that looks at our politics and political system!</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="35767318" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/757c7b3d-6089-450b-aa5e-58a9180c9646/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=757c7b3d-6089-450b-aa5e-58a9180c9646&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The Vice Presidential Debate: Just Another Politics Podcast</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/757c7b3d-6089-450b-aa5e-58a9180c9646/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:37:07</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>On this second edition of the &quot;Just Another Politics Podcast Special&quot;, we join our fellow political podcasts in sitting back in our armchairs and sharing our thoughts on the Presidential debate.

The day after the Vice Presidential debate, we recorded a response to what happened and what we think its affect on the 2020 election could be.

We&apos;ll be back next episode with serious-minded research and science that looks at our political system!</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>On this second edition of the &quot;Just Another Politics Podcast Special&quot;, we join our fellow political podcasts in sitting back in our armchairs and sharing our thoughts on the Presidential debate.

The day after the Vice Presidential debate, we recorded a response to what happened and what we think its affect on the 2020 election could be.

We&apos;ll be back next episode with serious-minded research and science that looks at our political system!</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, kamalaharris, kamala, trump, electionpodcast, political, biden, vicepresident, 2020election, presidenttrump, notanotherpoliticspodcast, 2020, mikepenace, politics, presidency, penace, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>20</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">35cd1c59-b198-44f0-936e-fdb60e247aa3</guid>
      <title>The Debate: Just Another Politics Podcast</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>On this "Just Another Politics Podcast Special", we decide to join our fellow political podcasts in sitting back in our armchairs and sharing our thoughts on the first Presidential debate.</p> <p>The day after the debate, we recorded a response to what happened and what we think its affect on the 2020 election could be. We think this insightful conversation is worth sharing with you, even if it breaks our usual format.</p> <p>Don't worry, we'll be back next episode with serious-minded research and science that looks at our politics and political system!</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 5 Oct 2020 11:58:31 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On this "Just Another Politics Podcast Special", we decide to join our fellow political podcasts in sitting back in our armchairs and sharing our thoughts on the first Presidential debate.</p> <p>The day after the debate, we recorded a response to what happened and what we think its affect on the 2020 election could be. We think this insightful conversation is worth sharing with you, even if it breaks our usual format.</p> <p>Don't worry, we'll be back next episode with serious-minded research and science that looks at our politics and political system!</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="27698709" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/c090c44b-80b4-4d05-b1e4-5ba9fab70b4d/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=c090c44b-80b4-4d05-b1e4-5ba9fab70b4d&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The Debate: Just Another Politics Podcast</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/c090c44b-80b4-4d05-b1e4-5ba9fab70b4d/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:28:43</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>On this &quot;Just Another Politics Podcast Special&quot;, we join our fellow political podcasts in sitting back in our armchairs and sharing our thoughts on the Presidential debate.

The day after the debate, we recorded a response to what happened and what we think its affect on the 2020 election could be. We think this insightful conversation is worth sharing with you, even if it breaks our usual format.

We&apos;ll be back next episode with serious-minded research and science that looks at our political system!</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>On this &quot;Just Another Politics Podcast Special&quot;, we join our fellow political podcasts in sitting back in our armchairs and sharing our thoughts on the Presidential debate.

The day after the debate, we recorded a response to what happened and what we think its affect on the 2020 election could be. We think this insightful conversation is worth sharing with you, even if it breaks our usual format.

We&apos;ll be back next episode with serious-minded research and science that looks at our political system!</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, democrats, trump, electionpodcast, political, biden, 2020election, joebiden, presidenttrump, notanotherpoliticspodcast, 2020, politics, presidency, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>19</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">28e07e46-4d6d-4dc2-84ac-657bf1f9be88</guid>
      <title>How To Really “Get Out The Vote”</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Every Presidential election, we talk about “getting out the vote”. But what really works and what doesn’t in terms of getting people to go to the polls? And how will the coronavirus pandemic alter those efforts? We speak to one political scientist who has conducted more studies into “get out the vote” campaigns than any other.</p> <p>Professor Donald Green from Columbia University shares his research about what works in terms of getting out the vote, and how we expect things to be different this years due to COVID-19.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Every Presidential election, we talk about “getting out the vote”. But what really works and what doesn’t in terms of getting people to go to the polls? And how will the coronavirus pandemic alter those efforts? We speak to one political scientist who has conducted more studies into “get out the vote” campaigns than any other.</p> <p>Professor Donald Green from Columbia University shares his research about what works in terms of getting out the vote, and how we expect things to be different this years due to COVID-19.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="42617475" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/6546611f-30b8-4438-a8fc-2327d384b3dc/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=6546611f-30b8-4438-a8fc-2327d384b3dc&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>How To Really “Get Out The Vote”</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/6546611f-30b8-4438-a8fc-2327d384b3dc/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:44:21</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Every Presidential election, we talk about “getting out the vote”. But what really works in terms of getting people to go to the polls? And how will the coronavirus pandemic alter those efforts? We speak to one political scientist who has conducted more studies into “get out the vote” campaigns than any other.

Professor Donald Green from Columbia University shares his research about what works in terms of getting out the vote, and how we expect things to be different this years due to COVID-19.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Every Presidential election, we talk about “getting out the vote”. But what really works in terms of getting people to go to the polls? And how will the coronavirus pandemic alter those efforts? We speak to one political scientist who has conducted more studies into “get out the vote” campaigns than any other.

Professor Donald Green from Columbia University shares his research about what works in terms of getting out the vote, and how we expect things to be different this years due to COVID-19.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>covid19, universityofchicago, votes, trump, uchicagopodcastnetwork, political, biden, elections, donaldgreen, 2020election, coronavirus, 2020, harrisschoolofpublicpolicy, williamhowell, politics, voting, getoutthevote, willhowell, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>18</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">04d5b4b4-bb62-41dd-91e8-e8dbfe793c5d</guid>
      <title>October Surprises and the 2020 Election</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>We’re heading into the homestretch of the 2020 election and, as October draws near, we want to take a research focused look at the famed “October Surprise.” It’s a political notion that says, if you want to damage a presidential candidate with a political bombshell you’ve discovered, you should wait until just before the election to release the accusations. But why should candidates wait? What do October Surprises reveal about the politics of scandal? And what can voters can infer from them?</p>       <p>A paper by Gabriele Gratton, a professor at The University of New South Wales in Australia, gives counter intuitive insights into when you should drop a bombshell if you want to cause the maximum amount of damage to your political opponent. We discuss how this research could change the way we view “October surprises” and the 2020 election.</p> <p>Link to paper: <a href="http://www.restud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MS23024manuscript.pdf"> http://www.restud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MS23024manuscript.pdf</a> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:06:42 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We’re heading into the homestretch of the 2020 election and, as October draws near, we want to take a research focused look at the famed “October Surprise.” It’s a political notion that says, if you want to damage a presidential candidate with a political bombshell you’ve discovered, you should wait until just before the election to release the accusations. But why should candidates wait? What do October Surprises reveal about the politics of scandal? And what can voters can infer from them?</p>       <p>A paper by Gabriele Gratton, a professor at The University of New South Wales in Australia, gives counter intuitive insights into when you should drop a bombshell if you want to cause the maximum amount of damage to your political opponent. We discuss how this research could change the way we view “October surprises” and the 2020 election.</p> <p>Link to paper: <a href="http://www.restud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MS23024manuscript.pdf"> http://www.restud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MS23024manuscript.pdf</a> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="40929574" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/111e4ed4-51ca-454d-b1c0-e96b3883cd92/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=111e4ed4-51ca-454d-b1c0-e96b3883cd92&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>October Surprises and the 2020 Election</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/111e4ed4-51ca-454d-b1c0-e96b3883cd92/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:42:34</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>On this episode, we take a research focused look at the famed “October Surprise.” It’s a notion that says, if you want to hurt a candidate with a bombshell you’ve discovered, you should wait until just before the election to release the accusations. But why should candidates wait? 

A paper by Gabriele Gratton, a professor at The University of New South Wales in Australia, gives counter intuitive insights. We discuss how this research could change the way we view “October surprises” and the 20</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>On this episode, we take a research focused look at the famed “October Surprise.” It’s a notion that says, if you want to hurt a candidate with a bombshell you’ve discovered, you should wait until just before the election to release the accusations. But why should candidates wait? 

A paper by Gabriele Gratton, a professor at The University of New South Wales in Australia, gives counter intuitive insights. We discuss how this research could change the way we view “October surprises” and the 20</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>covid19, anthonyfowler, octobersurprises, trump, bombshell, gabrielegratton, political, biden, 2020election, notanotherpoliticspodcast, 2020, research, vaccines, politics, willhowell, wiolettadziuda, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>17</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">26abab38-d588-40c8-b303-9057cd8e2cd1</guid>
      <title>Discrimination: Why Women Outperform Men in Congress</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>In November, Kamala Harris could be elected the first woman to ever serve as president or vice president. Why are women so underrepresented in the highest levels of government? And what does this imply about the women who do reach those levels? </p>  <p>In this episode, we discuss a paper from Professors Christopher Berry at the University of Chicago and Sarah Anzia at UC Berkeley that attempts to indirectly assess discrimination against women in the electoral process by testing whether the women who are elected perform better once in office. </p> <p>We discuss their study, alternative explanations of their findings, and implications for the 2020 presidential election and a potential Biden-Harris administration.</p> <p>Link to paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00512.x</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In November, Kamala Harris could be elected the first woman to ever serve as president or vice president. Why are women so underrepresented in the highest levels of government? And what does this imply about the women who do reach those levels? </p>  <p>In this episode, we discuss a paper from Professors Christopher Berry at the University of Chicago and Sarah Anzia at UC Berkeley that attempts to indirectly assess discrimination against women in the electoral process by testing whether the women who are elected perform better once in office. </p> <p>We discuss their study, alternative explanations of their findings, and implications for the 2020 presidential election and a potential Biden-Harris administration.</p> <p>Link to paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00512.x</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45416510" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/5d592653-042c-4bf7-a33c-c458aad05c1d/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=5d592653-042c-4bf7-a33c-c458aad05c1d&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Discrimination: Why Women Outperform Men in Congress</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/5d592653-042c-4bf7-a33c-c458aad05c1d/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:15</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Kamala Harris could be the first woman to ever serve as president or vice president. Why are women so underrepresented in our government? 

We discuss a paper from Profs. Christopher Berry at the University of Chicago and Sarah Anzia at UC Berkeley that assesses discrimination against women in the electoral process by testing how women perform once in office. 

Link to paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00512.x</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Kamala Harris could be the first woman to ever serve as president or vice president. Why are women so underrepresented in our government? 

We discuss a paper from Profs. Christopher Berry at the University of Chicago and Sarah Anzia at UC Berkeley that assesses discrimination against women in the electoral process by testing how women perform once in office. 

Link to paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00512.x</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, womeninpolitics, stanforduniversity, women, womensissues, kamalaharris, discrimination, political, christopherberry, joebiden, notanotherpoliticspodcast, womeninoffice, politics, sarahanzia, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>16</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">0d74e4ee-3a01-4534-a9ca-3e1634ed4099</guid>
      <title>How The Rich Rule Despite Unpopular Inequality</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>How is it that in a Democracy with massive inequality, where the poor have just as much voting power as the rich, do the wealthy continue to get what they want politically? It’s a question that’s troubled political thinkers for a long time.    Political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have an answer in their new book “Let Them Eat Tweets: How The Right Rules In An Age of Extreme Inequality”. On this episode, we tackle that question and their answer.   Part 1: How did the plutocrats take over the Republican Party: 16:00   Part 2: Are the voters getting duped or do their preferences really align with the wealthy: 20:20   Part 3: Is Donald Trump a natural continuation of Republican strategy?: 34:20</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (Harris School of Public Policy)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How is it that in a Democracy with massive inequality, where the poor have just as much voting power as the rich, do the wealthy continue to get what they want politically? It’s a question that’s troubled political thinkers for a long time.    Political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have an answer in their new book “Let Them Eat Tweets: How The Right Rules In An Age of Extreme Inequality”. On this episode, we tackle that question and their answer.   Part 1: How did the plutocrats take over the Republican Party: 16:00   Part 2: Are the voters getting duped or do their preferences really align with the wealthy: 20:20   Part 3: Is Donald Trump a natural continuation of Republican strategy?: 34:20</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="45785873" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/a136db74-df97-4ab2-95d2-b2a7b6de8a36/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=a136db74-df97-4ab2-95d2-b2a7b6de8a36&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>How The Rich Rule Despite Unpopular Inequality</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>Harris School of Public Policy</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/a136db74-df97-4ab2-95d2-b2a7b6de8a36/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:47:36</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>How is it that in a Democracy with massive inequality, where the poor have just as much voting power as the rich, do the wealthy continue to get what they want politically? It’s a question that’s troubled political thinkers for a long time. 
 
Political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have an answer in their new book “Let Them Eat Tweets: How The Right Rules In An Age of Extreme Inequality”. On this episode, we tackle that question and their answer.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>How is it that in a Democracy with massive inequality, where the poor have just as much voting power as the rich, do the wealthy continue to get what they want politically? It’s a question that’s troubled political thinkers for a long time. 
 
Political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have an answer in their new book “Let Them Eat Tweets: How The Right Rules In An Age of Extreme Inequality”. On this episode, we tackle that question and their answer.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, politicalscience, donaldtrump, uchicago, gop, political, 2020election, paulpierson, notanotherpoliticspodcast, 2020, harrisschoolofpublicpolicy, politics, jacobhacker, inequality, podcast, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>15</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">607f5cf2-06d3-470e-8e45-41a19b1972eb</guid>
      <title>Should We Make It Illegal Not To Vote?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Who shows up to vote in America, and why do they do it? These are two of the most debated and contentious questions in political science. After almost every election, you’ll hear experts and pundits lamenting the lack of voter turnout. But does the research have anything to say about what policies would increase representation?</p> <p>In this episode, our very own Anthony Fowler explains a new <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Br_LIFT_Every_Voice_final.pdf__;!!BpyFHLRN4TMTrA!ttZESU84IlMnhG87XeKdTBoXQalNMZmO6J5shh1whpPvQPYNMKt8cy06A_pwUgWKaxM$" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> that he co-authored in Brookings that argues we will get better representation but instituting compulsory voting in the U.S. But in a country where we can’t even get everyone to wear a mask, what are the odds that compulsory voting would work here, and what would it’s benefits be?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2020 12:49:28 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (Harris School of Public Policy)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who shows up to vote in America, and why do they do it? These are two of the most debated and contentious questions in political science. After almost every election, you’ll hear experts and pundits lamenting the lack of voter turnout. But does the research have anything to say about what policies would increase representation?</p> <p>In this episode, our very own Anthony Fowler explains a new <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Br_LIFT_Every_Voice_final.pdf__;!!BpyFHLRN4TMTrA!ttZESU84IlMnhG87XeKdTBoXQalNMZmO6J5shh1whpPvQPYNMKt8cy06A_pwUgWKaxM$" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> that he co-authored in Brookings that argues we will get better representation but instituting compulsory voting in the U.S. But in a country where we can’t even get everyone to wear a mask, what are the odds that compulsory voting would work here, and what would it’s benefits be?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="35369522" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/fe85bb67-36eb-46cf-9887-b71608aecbc1/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=fe85bb67-36eb-46cf-9887-b71608aecbc1&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Should We Make It Illegal Not To Vote?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>Harris School of Public Policy</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/fe85bb67-36eb-46cf-9887-b71608aecbc1/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:36:47</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>After almost every election, you’ll hear experts and pundits lamenting the lack of voter turnout. But does the research have anything to say about what policies would increase representation?

Our very own Anthony Fowler explains a new report that he co-authored in Brookings that argues we will get better representation but instituting compulsory voting in the U.S. But in a country where we can’t even get everyone to wear a mask, what are the odds that compulsory voting would work here?</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>After almost every election, you’ll hear experts and pundits lamenting the lack of voter turnout. But does the research have anything to say about what policies would increase representation?

Our very own Anthony Fowler explains a new report that he co-authored in Brookings that argues we will get better representation but instituting compulsory voting in the U.S. But in a country where we can’t even get everyone to wear a mask, what are the odds that compulsory voting would work here?</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>political, 2020election, notanotherpoliticspodcast, 2020, brookings, politics, voting, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>14</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">7351758c-0cee-4e0a-928d-a6c7f77a6323</guid>
      <title>Why The Presidency Is Key To Combatting Populism</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>The dramatic rise of populism in America, embodied in President Trump, presents a real threat to democracy. Our very own professor William Howell argues that the root of the problem lies with ineffective government and that the solution may be to give the President agenda setting power.</p> <p>We delve into his new book “<a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo58173644.html">Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy</a>” and explore how giving president’s agenda setting power could break government gridlock and lead us to a more effective government.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (Harris School of Public Policy)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The dramatic rise of populism in America, embodied in President Trump, presents a real threat to democracy. Our very own professor William Howell argues that the root of the problem lies with ineffective government and that the solution may be to give the President agenda setting power.</p> <p>We delve into his new book “<a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo58173644.html">Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy</a>” and explore how giving president’s agenda setting power could break government gridlock and lead us to a more effective government.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="37244906" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/8a8c69e0-7f64-4b51-8a16-59a6b047dd00/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=8a8c69e0-7f64-4b51-8a16-59a6b047dd00&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Why The Presidency Is Key To Combatting Populism</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>Harris School of Public Policy</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/8a8c69e0-7f64-4b51-8a16-59a6b047dd00/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:38:45</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>The dramatic rise of populism in America, embodied in President Trump, presents a real threat to democracy. Our very own professor William Howell argues that the root of the problem lies with ineffective government and that the solution may be to give the President agenda setting power.

We delve into his new book “Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy” and explore how giving president’s agenda setting power could break government gridlock and lead us to a more effective government.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>The dramatic rise of populism in America, embodied in President Trump, presents a real threat to democracy. Our very own professor William Howell argues that the root of the problem lies with ineffective government and that the solution may be to give the President agenda setting power.

We delve into his new book “Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy” and explore how giving president’s agenda setting power could break government gridlock and lead us to a more effective government.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>president, news, trump, political, populism, trumppresidency, politics, presidency, politicsnews, politicalnews, democracy, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>13</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">16912316-cda6-40d0-a8bb-34cbcbc668df</guid>
      <title>Would A Woman Executive Govern Differently Than Men?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>One of the most anticipated developments of the 2020 election is who Democratic Presidential nominee, Joe Biden, will pick to be his running mate. One thing is almost certain though, whoever he picks will be a women. And that person very well could be the first female President of the United States.</p> <p>Does the political science scholarship tell us anything about how a woman executive may govern differently? One intriguing paper, "Queens", from Oeindrila Dube at The University of Chicago sheds some revelatory light on this question.</p> <p>Paper: <a href="http://odube.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Dube_Harish_Queens_Paper.pdf"> http://odube.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Dube_Harish_Queens_Paper.pdf</a> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (Harris School of Public Policy)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the most anticipated developments of the 2020 election is who Democratic Presidential nominee, Joe Biden, will pick to be his running mate. One thing is almost certain though, whoever he picks will be a women. And that person very well could be the first female President of the United States.</p> <p>Does the political science scholarship tell us anything about how a woman executive may govern differently? One intriguing paper, "Queens", from Oeindrila Dube at The University of Chicago sheds some revelatory light on this question.</p> <p>Paper: <a href="http://odube.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Dube_Harish_Queens_Paper.pdf"> http://odube.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Dube_Harish_Queens_Paper.pdf</a> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="26986024" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/2c1bd362-8ab7-4d71-bc2f-83d7c21ecf76/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=2c1bd362-8ab7-4d71-bc2f-83d7c21ecf76&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Would A Woman Executive Govern Differently Than Men?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>Harris School of Public Policy</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/2c1bd362-8ab7-4d71-bc2f-83d7c21ecf76/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:28:04</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>One of the most anticipated developments of the 2020 election is who Democratic Presidential nominee, Joe Biden, will pick to be his running mate. One thing is certain, whoever he picks will be a women. 

Does the political science scholarship tell us anything about how a woman executive may govern differently? One intriguing paper, &quot;Queens&quot;, from Oeindrila Dube at The University of Chicago sheds some revelatory light on this question.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>One of the most anticipated developments of the 2020 election is who Democratic Presidential nominee, Joe Biden, will pick to be his running mate. One thing is certain, whoever he picks will be a women. 

Does the political science scholarship tell us anything about how a woman executive may govern differently? One intriguing paper, &quot;Queens&quot;, from Oeindrila Dube at The University of Chicago sheds some revelatory light on this question.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, president, presidential, electionpodcast, 2020election, joebiden, notanotherpoliticspodcast, 2020, oeindrilladube, queens, williamhowell, politics, willhowell, podcast, politicspodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>12</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">c4023f4d-f72c-4c27-b6b3-9fd6abb5dea7</guid>
      <title>Do Protests Affect Elections?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>In the last few weeks, the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, and many other black people at the hands of police have driven nationwide protests. To be true to the mission of our show, we want to look at this complex moment through the lens of political science research.</p> <p>There’s almost no paper getting more attention at this moment than Princeton Assistant Professor Omar Wasow’s “<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C">Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public Opinion and Voting</a>”. We decided to devote this entire episode to our interview with Omar during which we discuss the substance of the paper, what it can and can’t say about our current moment, and the controversies that have surrounded it.</p> <p>Paper: <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C"> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C</a> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the last few weeks, the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, and many other black people at the hands of police have driven nationwide protests. To be true to the mission of our show, we want to look at this complex moment through the lens of political science research.</p> <p>There’s almost no paper getting more attention at this moment than Princeton Assistant Professor Omar Wasow’s “<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C">Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public Opinion and Voting</a>”. We decided to devote this entire episode to our interview with Omar during which we discuss the substance of the paper, what it can and can’t say about our current moment, and the controversies that have surrounded it.</p> <p>Paper: <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C"> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C</a> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="33395895" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/8f505805-eaf5-4109-aeb9-53e045427430/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=8f505805-eaf5-4109-aeb9-53e045427430&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Protests Affect Elections?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/8f505805-eaf5-4109-aeb9-53e045427430/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:34:45</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>The killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, and many other black people at the hands of police have driven nationwide protests. To be true to our mission, we want to look at this complex moment through the lens of research.

No paper is getting more attention than Princeton Asst. Professor Omar Wasow’s “Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public Opinion and Voting”. On this episode, we discuss the substance of the paper, and the controversies that have surrounde</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>The killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, and many other black people at the hands of police have driven nationwide protests. To be true to our mission, we want to look at this complex moment through the lens of research.

No paper is getting more attention than Princeton Asst. Professor Omar Wasow’s “Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public Opinion and Voting”. On this episode, we discuss the substance of the paper, and the controversies that have surrounde</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>princeton, universityofchicago, protests, politicalscience, racism, race, political, police, harris, notanotherpoliticspodcast, politics, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>11</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">bf2d0df2-2ca7-4c4d-84bf-fded46d315c3</guid>
      <title>Do Politicians Vote With Their Donors When Voters Are Distracted?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>One cause for concern during a pandemic that hasn’t gotten much attention is what else politicians might be doing while we’re focused on the virus. What laws are they passing, what regulations are they getting rid of, and could their actions be more in line with their donors than their voters?</p> <p>Professor Jorg Spenkuch from Northwestern University has a fascinating paper that provides insight into these important questions. The data he provides point in the direction that political accountability takes a big hit during disasters.</p> <p>Paper: <a href="https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/research/researchdetail?guid=b2bcbe3e-f427-11e8-91be-0242ac160003"> Natural Disasters, Moral Hazard, and Special Interests In Congress</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One cause for concern during a pandemic that hasn’t gotten much attention is what else politicians might be doing while we’re focused on the virus. What laws are they passing, what regulations are they getting rid of, and could their actions be more in line with their donors than their voters?</p> <p>Professor Jorg Spenkuch from Northwestern University has a fascinating paper that provides insight into these important questions. The data he provides point in the direction that political accountability takes a big hit during disasters.</p> <p>Paper: <a href="https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/research/researchdetail?guid=b2bcbe3e-f427-11e8-91be-0242ac160003"> Natural Disasters, Moral Hazard, and Special Interests In Congress</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="32047827" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/d77fa817-dd88-4bfb-a28d-bbdcbdcbfd74/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=d77fa817-dd88-4bfb-a28d-bbdcbdcbfd74&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Politicians Vote With Their Donors When Voters Are Distracted?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/d77fa817-dd88-4bfb-a28d-bbdcbdcbfd74/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:33:20</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>One cause for concern during a pandemic that hasn’t gotten much attention is what else politicians might be doing while we’re focused on the virus. What laws are they passing, what regulations are they getting rid of, and could their actions be more in line with their donors than their voters?

Professor Jorg Spenkuch from Northwestern University provides insight into these important questions. The data he provides point in the direction that political accountability takes a big hit during disasters.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>One cause for concern during a pandemic that hasn’t gotten much attention is what else politicians might be doing while we’re focused on the virus. What laws are they passing, what regulations are they getting rid of, and could their actions be more in line with their donors than their voters?

Professor Jorg Spenkuch from Northwestern University provides insight into these important questions. The data he provides point in the direction that political accountability takes a big hit during disasters.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>10</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">0652d2fe-7a43-4dbd-b376-faa3996d514c</guid>
      <title>Does The Media Really Affect Elections?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>It may be hard to believe during coronavirus, but the 2020 election will soon be upon us. As usual, news outlets will play a crucial role informing the public about the candidates. But could their decisions actual swing elections?</p> <p>That’s the argument put forward by Prof. Gregory Martin from Stanford University in a recent paper. The data he’s collected shows that the decisions made by reporters and editors may have surprising effects on who voters support.</p> <p>Paper: <a href="https://web.stanford.edu/~gjmartin/papers/Milestones%20Jan%202020.pdf"> https://web.stanford.edu/~gjmartin/papers/Milestones%20Jan%202020.pdf</a> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2020 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It may be hard to believe during coronavirus, but the 2020 election will soon be upon us. As usual, news outlets will play a crucial role informing the public about the candidates. But could their decisions actual swing elections?</p> <p>That’s the argument put forward by Prof. Gregory Martin from Stanford University in a recent paper. The data he’s collected shows that the decisions made by reporters and editors may have surprising effects on who voters support.</p> <p>Paper: <a href="https://web.stanford.edu/~gjmartin/papers/Milestones%20Jan%202020.pdf"> https://web.stanford.edu/~gjmartin/papers/Milestones%20Jan%202020.pdf</a> </p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="33150928" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/141ee992-35fb-4ab3-bf2c-da61a45e4ec5/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=141ee992-35fb-4ab3-bf2c-da61a45e4ec5&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Does The Media Really Affect Elections?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/141ee992-35fb-4ab3-bf2c-da61a45e4ec5/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:34:29</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>The 2020 election will soon be upon us. As usual, news outlets will play a crucial role informing the public about the candidates. But could their decisions actual swing elections?

That’s the argument put forward by Prof. Gregory Martin from Stanford University in a recent paper. The data he’s collected shows that the decisions made by reporters and editors may have surprising effects on who voters support.

Paper: https://web.stanford.edu/~gjmartin/papers/Milestones%20Jan%202020.pdf </itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>The 2020 election will soon be upon us. As usual, news outlets will play a crucial role informing the public about the candidates. But could their decisions actual swing elections?

That’s the argument put forward by Prof. Gregory Martin from Stanford University in a recent paper. The data he’s collected shows that the decisions made by reporters and editors may have surprising effects on who voters support.

Paper: https://web.stanford.edu/~gjmartin/papers/Milestones%20Jan%202020.pdf </itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>electionspodcast, trump, political, elections, 2020elections, coronavirus, 2020, gregorymartin, politics, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>9</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">b30baf3a-5011-417a-ab90-2ea373d6b6b0</guid>
      <title>The Surprising New Data On Vote-By-Mail</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>One of the increasingly prominent concerns around the coronavirus is how we’ll handle voting in the 2020 election. Democrats have called for a blanket vote-by-mail system, while Trump and the Republicans have said that system would disproportionately favor Democrats. But what does the research and data tell us about vote by mail systems?</p> <p>A recent paper from soon to be Asst. Prof at UCLA, Dan Thompson, provides us with the newest and cleanest data available about the effects of vote-by-mail on turn out and partisans differences in elections. The results are surprising, and should completely change the debate over vote-by-mail.</p> <p>Link to paper: <a href="https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/20-015.pdf"> https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/20-015.pdf</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 6 May 2020 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the increasingly prominent concerns around the coronavirus is how we’ll handle voting in the 2020 election. Democrats have called for a blanket vote-by-mail system, while Trump and the Republicans have said that system would disproportionately favor Democrats. But what does the research and data tell us about vote by mail systems?</p> <p>A recent paper from soon to be Asst. Prof at UCLA, Dan Thompson, provides us with the newest and cleanest data available about the effects of vote-by-mail on turn out and partisans differences in elections. The results are surprising, and should completely change the debate over vote-by-mail.</p> <p>Link to paper: <a href="https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/20-015.pdf"> https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/20-015.pdf</a></p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="40586437" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/4bc66b2a-d6ae-4292-bd96-d320ea3d1654/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=4bc66b2a-d6ae-4292-bd96-d320ea3d1654&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The Surprising New Data On Vote-By-Mail</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/4bc66b2a-d6ae-4292-bd96-d320ea3d1654/3000x3000/napp-ucpn-logo.png?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:42:14</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>One of the concerns of the coronavirus is how we’ll handle voting in the 2020 election. Democrats have called for a blanket vote-by-mail system, while the Republicans have said that system would favor Democrats. But what does the data tell us about vote-by-mail?

A recent paper from soon to be Asst. Prof at UCLA, Dan Thompson, gives us the best data yet on how vote-by-mail effects turn out and partisans differences in elections. The results are surprising, and should change the debate over vote-by-mail.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>One of the concerns of the coronavirus is how we’ll handle voting in the 2020 election. Democrats have called for a blanket vote-by-mail system, while the Republicans have said that system would favor Democrats. But what does the data tell us about vote-by-mail?

A recent paper from soon to be Asst. Prof at UCLA, Dan Thompson, gives us the best data yet on how vote-by-mail effects turn out and partisans differences in elections. The results are surprising, and should change the debate over vote-by-mail.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>universityofchicago, donaldtrump, democrats, trump, political, elections, 2020election, presidenttrump, notanotherpoliticspodcast, harrisschoolofpublicpolicy, politics, voting, votebymail, ucla, democracy, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>8</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">be52f090-ce7e-4ea2-8899-31a245325ba7</guid>
      <title>Are Democrats And Republicans Really Living In Separate Worlds?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>One of the prominent stories of the coronavirus outbreak has been that Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on a shared set of facts about the virus. One believes it is more deadly and dangerous than the other. But groundbreaking research from political scientist Gregory Huber at Yale University call that narrative into question.</p> <p>For years, political scientists have relied on surveys to understand what the American public knows and thinks about what’s happening in politics and the world, like COVID-19 for example. But what if those surveys aren’t actually telling us about people’s true beliefs?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the prominent stories of the coronavirus outbreak has been that Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on a shared set of facts about the virus. One believes it is more deadly and dangerous than the other. But groundbreaking research from political scientist Gregory Huber at Yale University call that narrative into question.</p> <p>For years, political scientists have relied on surveys to understand what the American public knows and thinks about what’s happening in politics and the world, like COVID-19 for example. But what if those surveys aren’t actually telling us about people’s true beliefs?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="36178353" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/560a0148-70d2-4beb-9919-c09cd0a3ed6f/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=560a0148-70d2-4beb-9919-c09cd0a3ed6f&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Are Democrats And Republicans Really Living In Separate Worlds?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/560a0148-70d2-4beb-9919-c09cd0a3ed6f/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:37:37</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>One of the stories of the coronavirus outbreak has been that Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on a shared set of facts about the virus. But groundbreaking research from political scientist Gregory Huber at Yale University call that narrative into question.

For years, political scientists have relied on surveys to understand what the American public thinks about what’s happening in politics and the world, like COVID-19. But what if those surveys aren’t actually telling us about people’s true</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>One of the stories of the coronavirus outbreak has been that Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on a shared set of facts about the virus. But groundbreaking research from political scientist Gregory Huber at Yale University call that narrative into question.

For years, political scientists have relied on surveys to understand what the American public thinks about what’s happening in politics and the world, like COVID-19. But what if those surveys aren’t actually telling us about people’s true</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>covid19, politicalscience, democrats, covid, yale, political, coronavirus, gregoryhuber, politics, politicspodcast, republicans, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>7</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">466c247e-50b4-4133-bcda-1d2760b45f89</guid>
      <title>How A Single Demagogue Can Change A Democracy Forever</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Americans often think of demagogues as a feature of foreign countries with weak or non-existent democracies. But is it possible to still get a demagogue in a functioning and strong democracy? That’s the argument of Mehdi Shadmehr in his paper: “<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj3p9GFsNToAhXtlnIEHVviC0wQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aeaweb.org%2Fconference%2F2020%2Fpreliminary%2Fpaper%2FKe2dns2Z&usg=AOvVaw1raYsfJoZuWABn1jI_x3gi" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Demagogues and the Fragility of Democracy</a>”.</p> <p>One of the scariest features of this research is that once a country elects a single demagogue they can create a political death spiral that can lead the country into financial ruin. With the long running debate around Trump’s demagoguery in the background, and the 2020 election on the horizon, we discuss Shadmehr’s findings.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Americans often think of demagogues as a feature of foreign countries with weak or non-existent democracies. But is it possible to still get a demagogue in a functioning and strong democracy? That’s the argument of Mehdi Shadmehr in his paper: “<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj3p9GFsNToAhXtlnIEHVviC0wQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aeaweb.org%2Fconference%2F2020%2Fpreliminary%2Fpaper%2FKe2dns2Z&usg=AOvVaw1raYsfJoZuWABn1jI_x3gi" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Demagogues and the Fragility of Democracy</a>”.</p> <p>One of the scariest features of this research is that once a country elects a single demagogue they can create a political death spiral that can lead the country into financial ruin. With the long running debate around Trump’s demagoguery in the background, and the 2020 election on the horizon, we discuss Shadmehr’s findings.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="34776052" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/1cb7b812-939a-4286-870e-a41ef98e8448/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=1cb7b812-939a-4286-870e-a41ef98e8448&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>How A Single Demagogue Can Change A Democracy Forever</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/1cb7b812-939a-4286-870e-a41ef98e8448/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:36:10</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Americans often think of demagogues as a feature of foreign countries with weak or non-existent democracies. But is it possible to still get a demagogue in a functioning and strong democracy? That’s the argument of Mehdi Shadmehr in his paper: “Demagogues and the Fragility of Democracy” (https://tinyurl.com/rpdymkz).

One of the scariest features of this research is that once a country elects a single demagogue they can create a political death spiral that can lead the country into financial ruin.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Americans often think of demagogues as a feature of foreign countries with weak or non-existent democracies. But is it possible to still get a demagogue in a functioning and strong democracy? That’s the argument of Mehdi Shadmehr in his paper: “Demagogues and the Fragility of Democracy” (https://tinyurl.com/rpdymkz).

One of the scariest features of this research is that once a country elects a single demagogue they can create a political death spiral that can lead the country into financial ruin.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>donaldtrump, mehdishadmehr, trump, democratic, political, demagogue, demagogues, 2020election, presidenttrump, notanotherpoliticspodcast, trumppresidency, politics, democracy, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>6</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">62d8dd87-0c33-4563-b5a8-d2aee1447fbf</guid>
      <title>Coronavirus And The Politics of Pandemics</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Why don’t we prepare better for crises we know are coming? What effect will the coronavirus pandemic have on Trump’s 2020 chances? Should we even be having an election in the midst of a viral outbreak? On this episode, we turn to the best political science research to answer these questions and more about the politics behind COVID-19.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2020 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why don’t we prepare better for crises we know are coming? What effect will the coronavirus pandemic have on Trump’s 2020 chances? Should we even be having an election in the midst of a viral outbreak? On this episode, we turn to the best political science research to answer these questions and more about the politics behind COVID-19.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="36484886" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/167cca8b-fc54-4eaa-aa2a-c85b224dcfdf/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=167cca8b-fc54-4eaa-aa2a-c85b224dcfdf&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Coronavirus And The Politics of Pandemics</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/167cca8b-fc54-4eaa-aa2a-c85b224dcfdf/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:37:57</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Why don’t we prepare better for crises we know are coming? What effect will the coronavirus pandemic have on Trump’s 2020 chances? Should we even be having an election in the midst of a viral outbreak? On this episode, we turn to the best political science research to answer these questions and more about the politics behind COVID-19.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Why don’t we prepare better for crises we know are coming? What effect will the coronavirus pandemic have on Trump’s 2020 chances? Should we even be having an election in the midst of a viral outbreak? On this episode, we turn to the best political science research to answer these questions and more about the politics behind COVID-19.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>covid19, trumpadministration, covid, trump, political, trump2020, coronavirus, notanotherpoliticspodcast, 2020, harrisschoolofpublicpolicy, pandemic, politics, willhowell, pandemics, politicspodcast, politicalpodcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>5</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">eb4b5e06-a1e9-4171-882b-d970f5601408</guid>
      <title>Is Polarization Pushing Us To Hate Each Other?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>We’re constantly told by journalists and academics that America is too divided. That people no long just oppose members of the opposite party, but actually hate them. That something is broken, not just in our politics but in American life generally.</p> <p>On this episode, we take these issues to one of the leading scholars in the world on polarization, Dr. Shanto Iyengar from Stanford University. We focus specifically on one of his papers, <a href="https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf</a>, that argues that affective polarization really has gotten as bad as the experts say, and we discuss what we can do about it.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We’re constantly told by journalists and academics that America is too divided. That people no long just oppose members of the opposite party, but actually hate them. That something is broken, not just in our politics but in American life generally.</p> <p>On this episode, we take these issues to one of the leading scholars in the world on polarization, Dr. Shanto Iyengar from Stanford University. We focus specifically on one of his papers, <a href="https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf</a>, that argues that affective polarization really has gotten as bad as the experts say, and we discuss what we can do about it.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="26931529" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/a6015540-cecb-409a-b3df-5bc36b69d4a0/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=a6015540-cecb-409a-b3df-5bc36b69d4a0&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Is Polarization Pushing Us To Hate Each Other?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/a6015540-cecb-409a-b3df-5bc36b69d4a0/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:27:58</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>We’re constantly told that America is too divided. That we no long just oppose members of the opposite party, but actually hate them. That something is broken in American life.

We take these issues to one of the leading scholars in the world on polarization, Dr. Shanto Iyengar from Stanford University. And we focus on one of his papers, which argues that affective polarization really has gotten as bad as the experts say, and we discuss what we can do about it.

Paper: https://tinyurl.com/hrywxrl</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>We’re constantly told that America is too divided. That we no long just oppose members of the opposite party, but actually hate them. That something is broken in American life.

We take these issues to one of the leading scholars in the world on polarization, Dr. Shanto Iyengar from Stanford University. And we focus on one of his papers, which argues that affective polarization really has gotten as bad as the experts say, and we discuss what we can do about it.

Paper: https://tinyurl.com/hrywxrl</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>stanforduniversity, stanford, anthonyfowler, political, government, notanotherpoliticspodcast, harrisschoolofpublicpolicy, polarization, politics, politicalpolarization, willhowell, wiolettadziuda, america</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>4</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">10d60462-4f08-4591-9d14-c57d349949aa</guid>
      <title>Do Extremist Voters Dominate Primary Elections?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<pre><code> Do primaries attract more extremist voters who skew elections toward candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump? The common thought has always been that extremist voters, because of their intense passion on issues, are more likely to vote in primaries. But one scholar at UCLA says the real story is far more complicated.   On this episode, we speak with esteemed political scientist Lynn Vavreck about her paper on representation in primary elections, and what her research can tell us about the current democratic primary.   Paper: &lt;a title=&quot;https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/on-the-representativeness-of-primary-electorates/06414B6E17368D52B3F77EC9C3BF1520&quot; href=&quot;https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/on-the-representativeness-of-primary-electorates/06414B6E17368D52B3F77EC9C3BF1520&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;noopener&quot;&gt;https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/on-the-representativeness-of-primary-electorates/06414B6E17368D52B3F77EC9C3BF1520&lt;/a&gt;
</code></pre><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<pre><code> Do primaries attract more extremist voters who skew elections toward candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump? The common thought has always been that extremist voters, because of their intense passion on issues, are more likely to vote in primaries. But one scholar at UCLA says the real story is far more complicated.   On this episode, we speak with esteemed political scientist Lynn Vavreck about her paper on representation in primary elections, and what her research can tell us about the current democratic primary.   Paper: &lt;a title=&quot;https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/on-the-representativeness-of-primary-electorates/06414B6E17368D52B3F77EC9C3BF1520&quot; href=&quot;https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/on-the-representativeness-of-primary-electorates/06414B6E17368D52B3F77EC9C3BF1520&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;noopener&quot;&gt;https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/on-the-representativeness-of-primary-electorates/06414B6E17368D52B3F77EC9C3BF1520&lt;/a&gt;
</code></pre><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="26686715" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/0737db0c-fe03-459b-bd61-2d90b85b959d/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=0737db0c-fe03-459b-bd61-2d90b85b959d&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Extremist Voters Dominate Primary Elections?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/0737db0c-fe03-459b-bd61-2d90b85b959d/3000x3000/05.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:27:44</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Do primaries attract more extremist voters who skew elections toward candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump? The common idea has always been that their extremism makes them more likely to vote in primaries. But political scientist Lynn Vavreck says the real story is far more complicated.

Paper: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/on-the-representativeness-of-primary-electorates/06414B6E17368D52B3F77EC9C3BF1520</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Do primaries attract more extremist voters who skew elections toward candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump? The common idea has always been that their extremism makes them more likely to vote in primaries. But political scientist Lynn Vavreck says the real story is far more complicated.

Paper: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/on-the-representativeness-of-primary-electorates/06414B6E17368D52B3F77EC9C3BF1520</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>vavreck, primaries, not, lynn, trump, political, another, sanders, elections, bernie, politics, primary, ucla, podcast, donald</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>3</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">cbd6c443-323e-4c5d-9cb4-009189921ac4</guid>
      <title>The Troubling Economic Logic of Racially Charged Policies</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Could racially charged policies cause you to act racist, even if you aren’t actually a racist? That’s the story two political scientists, Stephane Wolton and Torun Dewan from the London School of Economics and Political Science, tell in a recent paper: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3397918"> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3397918</a></p> <p>On this episode, we discuss the possibly hidden story behind symbolic policies like the Trump administration’s border wall and Muslim travel ban, or Europe’s burqa bans. Could these racially charged policies really be about economics?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could racially charged policies cause you to act racist, even if you aren’t actually a racist? That’s the story two political scientists, Stephane Wolton and Torun Dewan from the London School of Economics and Political Science, tell in a recent paper: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3397918"> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3397918</a></p> <p>On this episode, we discuss the possibly hidden story behind symbolic policies like the Trump administration’s border wall and Muslim travel ban, or Europe’s burqa bans. Could these racially charged policies really be about economics?</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="26728068" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/5ace1b43-b8bc-4cfb-a661-bf7397f150f6/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=5ace1b43-b8bc-4cfb-a661-bf7397f150f6&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>The Troubling Economic Logic of Racially Charged Policies</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/5ace1b43-b8bc-4cfb-a661-bf7397f150f6/3000x3000/01.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:27:45</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Could racially charged policies cause you to act racist, even if you aren’t actually a racist? That’s the story two scholars, Stephane Wolton and Torun Dewan from the London School of Economics and Political Science, tell in a recent paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3397918

On this episode, we discuss the hidden story behind policies like the Trump administration’s border wall and Muslim travel ban, or Europe’s burqa bans.</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Could racially charged policies cause you to act racist, even if you aren’t actually a racist? That’s the story two scholars, Stephane Wolton and Torun Dewan from the London School of Economics and Political Science, tell in a recent paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3397918

On this episode, we discuss the hidden story behind policies like the Trump administration’s border wall and Muslim travel ban, or Europe’s burqa bans.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>ban, not, trump, muslim, political, administration, boarder, another, travel, government, burqa, politics, wall, podcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>2</itunes:episode>
    </item>
    <item>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">6b74d437-81fe-49f8-a390-56c54f6ca2bf</guid>
      <title>Do Divisive Primaries Actually Affect General Elections?</title>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Do divisive primaries actually affect how candidates will perform in general elections? It's a question political scientist have been trying and failing to untangle, but we found someone who may have an answer.</p> <p>With the 2020 democratic primary getting into full swing, we're kicking off our inaugural episode with prof. Alexander Fouirnaies whose research gives us new insights into the effects of divisive primaries and what we can expect from the 2020 Presidential election.</p> <p>You can find Fouirnaies' paper about primaries <a href="http://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Fouirnaies_Hall_Divisive_Primaries.pdf"> here</a>.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>hodappm@uchicago.edu (University of Chicago Podcast Network)</author>
      <link>http://notanotherpoliticspodcast.libsyn.com/website</link>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do divisive primaries actually affect how candidates will perform in general elections? It's a question political scientist have been trying and failing to untangle, but we found someone who may have an answer.</p> <p>With the 2020 democratic primary getting into full swing, we're kicking off our inaugural episode with prof. Alexander Fouirnaies whose research gives us new insights into the effects of divisive primaries and what we can expect from the 2020 Presidential election.</p> <p>You can find Fouirnaies' paper about primaries <a href="http://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Fouirnaies_Hall_Divisive_Primaries.pdf"> here</a>.</p><br/> <p>Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See <a href="https://pcm.adswizz.com">pcm.adswizz.com</a> for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <enclosure length="25430963" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://afp-920658-injected.calisto.simplecastaudio.com/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/episodes/a1635456-1e51-4603-95c1-fa9303ad61bb/audio/128/default.mp3?aid=rss_feed&amp;awCollectionId=096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718&amp;awEpisodeId=a1635456-1e51-4603-95c1-fa9303ad61bb&amp;feed=rbyWPhvm"/>
      <itunes:title>Do Divisive Primaries Actually Affect General Elections?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:author>University of Chicago Podcast Network</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/096a7b/096a7bc0-3a73-4848-b26d-d5cc0b870718/a1635456-1e51-4603-95c1-fa9303ad61bb/3000x3000/picture1.jpg?aid=rss_feed"/>
      <itunes:duration>00:26:22</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>Do divisive primaries actually affect how candidates perform in general elections? It&apos;s a question political scientist have been trying and failing to untangle, but we found someone who may have an answer.

With the 2020 democratic primary getting into full swing, we sit down with Alexander Fouirnaies whose research tells us a lot about the effects of divisive primaries and what we can expect from the 2020 Presidential election.

http://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Fouirnaies_Hall_Divisive_Primaries.pdf</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>Do divisive primaries actually affect how candidates perform in general elections? It&apos;s a question political scientist have been trying and failing to untangle, but we found someone who may have an answer.

With the 2020 democratic primary getting into full swing, we sit down with Alexander Fouirnaies whose research tells us a lot about the effects of divisive primaries and what we can expect from the 2020 Presidential election.

http://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Fouirnaies_Hall_Divisive_Primaries.pdf</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords>of, american, uchicago, political, us, university, harris, government, politics, chicago, podcast</itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:episode>1</itunes:episode>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>