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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.