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.
--------
42:49
--------
42:49
Can Trade Be A Weapon Of Global Power?
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.
--------
1:10:17
--------
1:10:17
Should Unelected Judges Be Deciding National Policy?
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.
--------
1:09:52
--------
1:09:52
Do Politicians Really Have A Conservative Bias?
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? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
--------
53:41
--------
53:41
Do We Understand Members Of The Other Party?
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.
With all the noise created by a 24/7 news cycle, it can be hard to really grasp what'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.
México