Not Another Politics Podcast

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!

Jack Lucas, a political scientist at the University of Calgary, dives into the intriguing disconnect between how politicians perceive voter motivations and how voters see themselves. He reveals that politicians often adopt a cynical view, while citizens maintain a more optimistic perspective. The discussion highlights the impact of identity politics, the challenges of understanding voter behavior, and the surprising consistency in politicians' beliefs across democracies. Lucas raises crucial questions about campaign strategies and the future of political engagement.

Curtis Bram, a Political Scientist from UT Dallas and author of "Elitism vs. Populism," dives into the complexities of democratic commitment. He reveals that both politicians and the public often prioritize political gain over democratic principles. Through intriguing experiments, Bram illustrates how anti-democratic tendencies exist on both sides of the aisle. The discussion touches on gerrymandering, electoral reforms, and the surprising similarities in attitudes towards democracy among citizens and elites, urging a collective effort to uphold democratic values.

Giacomo Ponsetto, a political scientist specializing in the interplay between government performance and populism, delves into the surge of populism globally, particularly through Italy's Five Star Movement. He highlights how local governance quality and the educational background of officials can influence populist success. The discussion also examines the impact of politicians' pay on attracting diverse candidates and suggests that improving government effectiveness is key to restoring trust and countering populism.

The return of Trump to the White House sparks a deep dive into the surprising voter shifts and what they reveal about American discontent. The discussion ranges from the impact of inflation on trust in institutions to the nuanced dynamics of immigration and gender in politics. The hosts also analyze Kamala Harris's loss and its implications for populism. With a focus on the changing political landscape, they reflect on how Trump's outsider messaging may influence future elections and international relations.

Political scientist Jamie Druckman from the University of Rochester joins the discussion on the surprising consensus between Democrats and Republicans regarding hate speech censorship. They explore how both parties largely agree on what kinds of speech should be silenced, raising questions about the implications for free speech and authoritarianism. The conversation dives into the complexities of censorship in the digital age, touching on social media dynamics, content moderation challenges, and the nuanced relationship between societal norms and political beliefs.

Justin Grimmer, a political scientist and co-author of "An Evaluation of Fraud Claims from the 2020 Trump Election Contests," exposes the truth behind widespread fraud claims from the 2020 election. He systematically debunks over 1,000 allegations, revealing flaws in data interpretations and clerical errors behind accusations of underage voting in Georgia. Grimmer tackles myths of vote manipulation, analyzes statistical discrepancies, and emphasizes the integrity of U.S. elections, ultimately offering a hopeful perspective on the electoral process.

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?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.

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?

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.