Not Another Politics Podcast

Kosuke Imai, a political scientist affiliated with Princeton and Harvard, dives into the controversial world of partisan gerrymandering. He shares his innovative simulation methodology, revealing surprising results about its national effects, which largely cancel out but diminish electoral competitiveness. Imai discusses how map-drawing often prioritizes incumbent safety at the expense of competitive districts and explores implications for polarization and potential reforms. His insights challenge common perceptions about the impact of gerrymandering in the political landscape.

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. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Christoph Trebesch, a Professor of Economics at Kiel University, shares his insights on the global rise of populism and its economic repercussions. He highlights how populist governments are linked to slower GDP growth, undermined democratic institutions, and increased vulnerability to future populism. Trebesch contrasts left and right populism, discussing their distinct policy focuses. He also examines the mechanisms behind lower economic performance, such as policy unpredictability and institutional damage, providing a compelling look at populism's complex legacy.

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. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this engaging discussion, David Yang, a Harvard researcher, explores how trade relationships can serve as a tool of power. He explains why countries might prioritize export control over imports for leverage, connecting theoretical models to real-world scenarios like Germany's reliance on Russian oil. David also dives into how the U.S.–China rivalry reflects trade dynamics and how tariffs can influence diplomatic negotiations. Additionally, he warns of potential pitfalls in relying too heavily on trade for leverage, especially when political costs are considered.

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. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this discussion, Adam Zelizer, a political scientist from the University of Chicago, challenges the idea that politicians are biased towards conservatism. He introduces the concept of "midpoint bias," revealing how legislators often misinterpret public opinion due to survey errors. The conversation dives into the complexities of political perceptions, the impact of polling question framing, and the discrepancies between voters' self-perceptions and their true political beliefs. Zelizer's insights shed light on the messy dynamics of democracy and representation.

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. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The discussion tackles whether Supreme Court justices should have term limits, driven by recent controversial rulings. The idea of fixed 18-year terms emerges as a key reform, promising to reshape judicial independence and mitigate extreme ideological divides. Historical contexts and political dynamics reveal the complexities of implementing such reforms. Playfully, alternative selection processes for justices are proposed, highlighting the interaction between political strategy and court composition. Ultimately, how these changes could influence voter behavior and perceptions of justice is explored.