Not Another Politics Podcast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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

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

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

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.

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 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.

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?

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. 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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? 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?