Not Another Politics Podcast

The Economic Cost of Populism 02.07.2026 1t 16min

While we take a quick summer break, we wanted to re-release an episode that felt timely, given the rise of right-wing populism around the world. More than 25 percent of countries around the world are currently governed by populists, from Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, to 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.

Is Abortion Policy Out Of Step With Public Opinion? 11.06.2026 53min

Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, we've been told a simple story: red states are radically out of step with public opinion. But what if that's not actually the reality? On this episode, we speak with Natalie Hernandez, Yale PhD candidate in Political Science, about her upcoming APSR paper, "Asymmetric Representation: Post-Roe Abortion Policy and Public Opinion in the U.S. States." Using a massive dataset of 155,000 respondents, Hernandez finds policies in Democratic-controlled states are actually furthest from the average voter, and what happens when Democratic lawmakers prioritize wealthy donors and national activists over the median citizen.

The Political Effects of the Opioid Crisis 14.05.2026 1t 5min

In this episode, we speak with Victoria Barone, Assistant Professor at the University of Notre Dame, to discuss her recent NBER paper that examines the possible relationship between the opioid epidemic and the political realignment between the Republican and Democratic parties. While the public health consequences of the crisis are well-documented, Barone’s research uncovers a startling political fallout. We explore how the rise in opioid-related deaths and addiction has altered voting patterns, shifted party leanings, and influenced electoral outcomes in the hardest-hit communities.

Is the Median Justice Running the Supreme Court? 24.04.2026 1t 9min

In debates about the Supreme Court, we tend to focus on the justice who writes the opinion. But what if that’s not where the real power lies? In this episode, we speak to Jonathan P. Kastellec, Professor at Princeton University, about his new paper that challenges how we think about decision-making on the Court. Instead of opinion authors driving the law, Kastellec argues that power often rests with the median justice within the majority coalition—the key vote needed to hold five justices together. So how does bargaining actually work behind the scenes? Why do some precedents erode gradually while others collapse all at once? And what does this tell us about major decisions—from long-standing rulings to sudden reversals?

Why Does America Pay More For Infrastructure? 26.03.2026 50min

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? 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.

What Binary Questions Get Wrong About Voters 12.03.2026 38min

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.

Do Dishonest People Self-Select Into Public Service? 19.02.2026 52min

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?

The Future of Empirical Research in the Age of AI 06.02.2026 47min

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.

Are Primary Elections Responsible for Polarization in Congress? 22.01.2026 37min

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, “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.

What Do Politicians Think Motivates Voters? 01.01.2026 55min

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?

Do Professors Self-Censor On Controversial Topics? 18.12.2025 58min

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," 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.

Is Partisan Gerrymandering As Bad As You Think? 27.11.2025 55min

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'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. Link to paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120

Do Donors Punish Extremist Primary Nominees? 14.11.2025 59min

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.

The Economic Cost of Populism 30.10.2025 1t 16min

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.

Is Political Science Research Underpowered? 16.10.2025 42min

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.

Can Trade Be A Weapon Of Global Power? 02.10.2025 1t 10min

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.

Should Unelected Judges Be Deciding National Policy? 12.09.2025 1t 9min

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.

Do Politicians Really Have A Conservative Bias? 21.08.2025 53min

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?

Do We Understand Members Of The Other Party? 07.08.2025 54min

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.

MechaHitler and The Political Bias of AI Chatbots 24.07.2025 57min

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?