Tatter - Episodes Tagged with “Political Science”

Episode 64: Rogue (Conspiracy Theories, w/ Kelley-Romano & Miller)

Michael Sargent — Wed, 09 Dec 2020 06:00:00 -0500

ABOUT THIS EPISODE
Even though some conspiracy theories are only endorsed by a small fraction of the population, it is likely a mistake to write off all who believe in conspiracy theories, especially since some theories are endorsed more widely, and with substantial effect. I discuss these issues with two conspiracy theory researchers: Stephanie Kelley-Romano of the Bates College Department of Rhetoric, Film, and Screen Studies, and Joanne Miller of the University of Delaware Department of Political Science & International Relations.

LINKS
--Stephanie Kelley-Romano's Bates College web profile
--Joanne Miller's University of Delaware web profile
--"Trust no one: The conspiracy genre on American television," (Stephanie Kelley-Romano, in The Southern Communication Journal)
--"Make American hate again: Donald Trump and th birther conspiracy," (Stephanie Kelley-Romano & Kathryn Carew, in The Journal of Hate Studies)
--"Conspiracy endorsement as motivated reasoning: The moderating roles of political knowledge and trust," (Joanne Miller, Kyle Saunders, & Christina Farhart, in American Journal of Political Science)
--"Gender differences in COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs," (Erin Cassese, Christina Farhart, & Joanne Miller, in Politics & Gender)
--Little A'Le'Inn (Rachel, NV)

Special Guests: Joanne Miller and Stephanie Kelley-Romano.

Episode 62: Hard Knocks (w/ Seth Masket)

Michael Sargent — Sun, 08 Nov 2020 12:00:00 -0500

ABOUT THIS EPISODE
As Democrats were reminded (the hard way) in 2016, elections don't always turn out as we expect them to. When a political party loses an election, especially if it does more poorly than expected, it often has tough, self-reflective conversations about what happened. In so doing, parties try to learn lessons from their losses. University of Denver political scientist has written about these issues in his new book, Learning from Loss: The Democrats, 2016-2020.

LINKS
--Seth Masket's DU profile
--Learning from Loss: The Democrats, 2016-2020 (Amazon)
--"Amid tears and anger, House Democrats promise 'deep dive' on election losses," by Luke Broadwater and Nicholas Fandos (New York Times, 2020, Nov. 5)
--"Susan Collins was never going to lose," by Robert Messenger (New York Times, 2020, Nov. 6)
--Fair Fight (Voting Rights Organization founded by Stacey Abrams)

Special Guest: Seth Masket.

Episode 51: Engaging Power (w/ Eitan Hersh)

Michael Sargent — Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:00:00 -0400

ABOUT THIS EPISODE
Eitan Hersh is a faculty member in the Department of Political Science at Tufts University, and he's the author of the book Politics Is For Power. In his book, he discusses what he calls "political hobbyism," which the host of this podcast all too often engages in when he gets into arguments in comment threads on Facebook. In one demographic respect, Sargent's doing so is not that surprising. But in another respect, it is a bit more unusual. To learn more, listen to the episode. You'll also hear about compelling stories of people who aren't "slacktivists," who aren't mere hobbyists, but who instead engage politics in deep and meaningful ways that actually build power. You should read Hersh's book too.

LINKS
--Eitan Hersh's Tufts University web profile
--Politics Is For Power: How to Move Beyond Political Hobbyism, Take Action, and Make Real Change, by Eitan Hersh
--"How do you change voters' minds? Have a conversation" (New York Times Magazine article about deep canvassing, and Dave Fleischer)
--Changing the Conversation
--Voice of Westmoreland
--Website of U.S. Representative Conor Lamb
--"Bernie Sanders only had eyes for one wing of the Democratic Party" (the New York Times article by Thomas B. Edsall that brought Hersh to my attention)

Special Guest: Eitan Hersh.

Episode 41: Judgment Call (The Impeachment Episode)

Michael Sargent — Thu, 16 May 2019 17:00:00 -0400

ABOUT THIS EPISODE
Julia Azari is a political scientist at Marquette University, as well as a frequent contributor to FiveThirtyEight. Seth Masket is a political scientist at the University of Denver, and a contributor to Vox.com's Mischiefs of Faction. The three of us talked about the prospects of impeaching Donald Trump, the potential aftermath, and why it all matters.

LINKS
--Julia Azari's Marquette University profile
--Seth Masket's University of Denver profile
--"The Trump Era Has Pushed Scholars to the Limits of Our Understanding," by Julia Azari (guest blogger) at Balkinization
--"'Impeachment Will Help Republicans' And Other Myths," by Seth Masket, in Pacific Standard
--A recent chat about impeachment, at FiveThirtyEight (including Azari)

Special Guests: Julia Azari and Seth Masket.

Episode 14: Spoiled

Michael Sargent — Thu, 07 Jun 2018 12:00:00 -0400

In elections with three or more candidates, spoiler effects are thought to occur when one candidate, one with supporters who are ideologically similar to those of another candidate, garners enough support that a third, ideologically dissimilar or even opposite, candidate can win without a majority. For example, in the 2014 Maine gubernatorial general election, Democratic nominee Mike Michaud received 43.4% of the vote, while independent candidate Eliot Cutler received 8.4%. Because Cutler's issue positions (e.g., pro-choice, supportive of marriage equality, pro-union) aligned him more closely with Democrats than the Republican opponent, many have suggested that Cutler's participation in the election drew enough support away from Michaud to prevent what otherwise would have been a Democratic victory. As it was, Republican Paul LePage was elected with 48.2% of the vote, less than a true majority.

Vote-count systems that allow a candidate to win with merely a plurality (i.e., the greatest number of votes, but less than a majority) are vulnerable to spoiler effects. In response to apparent spoiler effects such as this one, and (as some have argued) Ralph Nader's impact on the 2000 U.S. presidential election, some reformers have advocated for the use of ranked-choice voting. In this episode, I talk with political scientists Jason McDaniel and Jack Santucci about the potential rewards--but also risks--associated with ranked-choice voting. The risks include ones that could be detrimental to the interests of low-income citizens, and less educated ones.

EPISODE LINKS
2013 Op-ed from Minnesota (Lawrence Jacobs & Joanne Miller)

2014 Op-ed from Minnesota (Jacobs & Miller redux)

FAQ on ranked-choice voting in Maine

A timeline of actions on ranked choice voting in Maine

William Poundstone's "Gaming The Vote"

Special Guests: Jack Santucci and Jason McDaniel.

Episode 7: Rising Tide

Michael Sargent — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 05:00:00 -0500

Seth Masket is Professor of Political Science at the University of Denver, and Director of DU's Center on American Politics. He contributes to Vox's Mischiefs of Faction, and has contributed to The Monkey Cage, FiveThirtyEight, Politico, and The New York Times.

Click here to read Masket's article about a simple forecasting model that augurs well for Democrats in the midterm elections.

Special Guest: Seth Masket.

Episode 6: 2012

Michael Sargent — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 05:00:00 -0500

Social critic Cornel West has called President Barack Obama a neoliberal (among other things), and he's not meant it as a compliment. West appears to have been frustrated that Obama was not a forceful advocate of left-wing populism. These criticisms led me (your humble podcast host) to wonder if such an Obama would have been a one-term president. Julia Azari, of Marquette University, Christopher Federico, of the University of Minnesota, and Vincent Hutchings, of the University of Michigan, political scientists all, chatted with me about these and related issues. I revised my opinion on the question after talking to them. I wonder if you will too. Give it a listen.

Special Guests: Christopher Federico, Julia Azari, and Vincent Hutchings.