Podcast appearances and mentions of brian schaffner

Polls missed the 2016 election outcome and did even worse in 2020 on the margin, underestimating Donald Trump again. Should we believe the polls this time? What have pollsters changed? Have they overcorrected? In an era of one percent response rates for phone surveys and opt-in Internet panels, should we even talk about them in the same way? Michael Bailey finds that our theories about random sampling don't really apply anymore. And weighting with larger samples does not solve our non-response biases. Brian Schaffner finds that weighting on several factors has increased, likely helping pollsters avoid undercounting Trump supporters. They both say survey research is important to get right but that the solutions are not obvious.

Expion360 is anindustry leader in premium lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries and accessories for recreationalvehicles and marine applications, with residential and industrial applicationsunder development. On December 19, 2023, the Company announced its entranceinto the home energy storage market with the introduction of two premium LiFePO4 battery storage systems that enableresidential and small business customers to create their own stablemicro-energy grid and lessen the impact of increasing power fluctuations andoutages.

Anyone casually following the 2020 election this year may have noticed a particular pattern in polling trends and election results. That pattern, in key presidential states as well as Senate races, went something like this:  Democrat ahead… Democrat still ahead... Democrat a bit ahead, days away from the election… But then: Republican wins by a fair amount.  How was so much polling inaccuracy possible again in 2020 at nearly all levels? Episode 21 of the Purple Principle, “2020 Polling in Hindsight,” attempts to answer that vexing question by consulting two polling experts – Dr. Natalie Jackson, Director of Research at PRRI and Dr. Brian Schaffner of Tufts University.  Dr. Jackson gives a sense of the technological challenges faced today by pollsters now that few individuals answer their phones, both landline or mobile. On top of that, a sizable number of bright red Republicans are mistrustful of pollsters and unlikely to participate even when contacted. But for indie-minded Purple Principle listeners, Dr. Jackson does confirm that the independent position often predicts which way the American majority will swing.  Dr. Shaffner mentions that in today's polarized environment, some respondents deliberately give dishonest answers to pollsters, often venting ideological views in the process. It also appears a “non-trivial” number of voters split their tickets in 2020, marking the Pro-Biden (or anti-Trump) box up top, but hedging against Democratic control down-ballot as well.    What's a pollster to do in a polarized age with a mistrustful slice of electorate and a shifting political landscape? No simple answers but a lot of helpful insights and information in Episode 21, “2020 Polling in Hindsight (Someone Please Answer the Phone)”.  Original music by Ryan Adair Rooney. For show notes and transcript, please visit our website: www.fluentknowledge.com/shows/the-purple-principle/2020-polling-in-hindsight Source Notes: Changing Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage, Pew Research Center  Increasing Support for Religiously Based Service Refusals, PRRI  National Council on Public Polls Analysis Of Final 2012 Pre-Election Polls Raymond La Raja and Brian Schaffner (2015). Campaign Finance and Political Polarization. University of Michigan Press.  Nick Hatley and Courtney Kennedy. “State Election Polls and Weighting Factors.” Pew Research Center Methods.  Brian F Schaffner, Samantha Luks, Misinformation or Expressive Responding? What an Inauguration Crowd Can Tell Us about the source of Political Misinformation in Surveys, Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 82, Issue 1, Spring 2018, Pages 135–147. Danielle Kurtzelben (11/19/20). “Why Were The Polls Off? Pollsters Have Some Early Theories.” NPR. Lila Harakles (11/9/20). “The 2020 election showed that polls could not anticipate voter turnout.” The Maine Campus.  Parker Richards (11/3/18). “Republican Governors in New England Defy the Blue Wave.” The Atlantic.  Deja Thomas and Juliana Menasce Horowitz (9/16/20). “Black Lives Matter support down since June, still strong among Black adults.” Pew Research Center.  Jasmine Aguilera (11/5/20). “The Complexities of the 2020 'Latino Vote' Were Overlooked, Again.” Time.  Elaine Kamarck and Alexander Podkul (10/23/18). “Political polarization and voters in the 2018 congressional primaries.” Brookings Institute.   Christine Zhang and Courtney Weaver (12/30/20). “Underestimating Trump: the US polling industry under fire.” The Financial Times.  Eli Yokley (1/25/21). “Biden's Initial Approval Rating Is Higher Than Trump's Ever Was.” Morning Consult.  Dhrumil Mehta (6/19/18). “Separating Families At The Border Is Really Unpopular.” FiveThirtyEight. Natalie Jackson (12/5/20). “Trump-Biden polls damaged trust because voters saw them as predictions.” USA Today. 

Mike Goodman is joined by political scientist and Tottenham fan Brian Schaffner to go back over the season for Tottenham, because that's fun, and then they talk about the use of analytics in another field entirely, with Schaffner's political science / public opinion research.Support the show (http://patreon.com/doublepivot)

How Transparency in Political Donations Could Change American Elections Visit ISPS: https://isps.yale.edu/ The Scholars Stategy Network; https://scholars.org/ Yale University: https://youtu.be/9PHL4kMH1no His research interests include political parties, interest groups, elections, campaign finance, political participation, American state politics, public policy and political reform. He is am co-founder and former co-editor of The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics and He is a member of the Academic Advisory Board of the Campaign Finance Institute. Ray’s most recent book, with Brian Schaffner, is Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail (Univ. of MIchigan Press 2015), which was the winner of the Virginia Gray Best Book Award from the American Political Science Association's State Politics and Policy section. Associate Director of the UMass Poll, which conducts public opinion research in Massachusetts and the United States to inform policymaking. Under current judicial interpretation, the government has very little wiggle room to curb the spending of money for electioneering. Spending money to influence elections is interpreted as integral to first amendment rights. However, the Supreme Court has signaled that governments are able to compel disclosure of political contributions. Disclosure -- publicizing who donors are, who they are giving to, and how much -- is seen as the primary way that governments can mitigate concerns about the role of money in politics. There are a number of disclosure policy proposals out there, and the goal of this panel is to sort through the various ideas for reform. The lawyers on the panel (Gerken and Potter) will talk about the legal foundations and policy proposals. The political scientists (La Raja and Primo) will talk about the empirical evidence of the effects of disclosure laws. Public Access America PublicAccessPod Productions #America #History #Podcast #Education #Not4Profit Footage downloaded and edited by PublicAccessPod Podcast Link Review us Stitcher: http://goo.gl/XpKHWB Review us iTunes: https://goo.gl/soc7KG Subscribe GooglePlay: https://goo.gl/gPEDbf YouTube https://goo.gl/xrKbJb

Alexander Hertel-Fernandez is the author of Politics at Work: How Companies Turn Their Workers into Lobbyists (Oxford University Press, 2018). He is an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. We often think of corporate political power expressed in campaign donations, political advertising, and lobbying. Darrell West, Ray LaRaja and Brian Schaffner, and Erica Fowler have all been on the podcast in the past to talk about this side of money and politics. Hertel-Fernandez is focused elsewhere to discover how companies influence politics. He sets his sights on the internal politicking that companies engage in with their own employees. Through rigorous surveys and interviews, he discovers that a quarter of American employees have experienced some type of political influence from their employer, including encouragements to register to vote and pressure to vote for favored candidates. And once contacted by an employer, many employees feels pressured to act, sometimes out of fear of retribution, docked pay, or dismissal from the job. While this is hardly a brand new corporate tactic, Hertel-Fernandez explains how it has grown since the 1990s and also why this is a worrisome trend for the democracy and employees. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alexander Hertel-Fernandez is the author of Politics at Work: How Companies Turn Their Workers into Lobbyists (Oxford University Press, 2018). He is an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. We often think of corporate political power expressed in campaign donations, political advertising, and lobbying. Darrell West, Ray LaRaja and Brian Schaffner, and Erica Fowler have all been on the podcast in the past to talk about this side of money and politics. Hertel-Fernandez is focused elsewhere to discover how companies influence politics. He sets his sights on the internal politicking that companies engage in with their own employees. Through rigorous surveys and interviews, he discovers that a quarter of American employees have experienced some type of political influence from their employer, including encouragements to register to vote and pressure to vote for favored candidates. And once contacted by an employer, many employees feels pressured to act, sometimes out of fear of retribution, docked pay, or dismissal from the job. While this is hardly a brand new corporate tactic, Hertel-Fernandez explains how it has grown since the 1990s and also why this is a worrisome trend for the democracy and employees. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alexander Hertel-Fernandez is the author of Politics at Work: How Companies Turn Their Workers into Lobbyists (Oxford University Press, 2018). He is an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. We often think of corporate political power expressed in campaign donations, political advertising, and lobbying. Darrell West, Ray LaRaja and Brian Schaffner, and Erica Fowler have all been on the podcast in the past to talk about this side of money and politics. Hertel-Fernandez is focused elsewhere to discover how companies influence politics. He sets his sights on the internal politicking that companies engage in with their own employees. Through rigorous surveys and interviews, he discovers that a quarter of American employees have experienced some type of political influence from their employer, including encouragements to register to vote and pressure to vote for favored candidates. And once contacted by an employer, many employees feels pressured to act, sometimes out of fear of retribution, docked pay, or dismissal from the job. While this is hardly a brand new corporate tactic, Hertel-Fernandez explains how it has grown since the 1990s and also why this is a worrisome trend for the democracy and employees. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alexander Hertel-Fernandez is the author of Politics at Work: How Companies Turn Their Workers into Lobbyists (Oxford University Press, 2018). He is an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. We often think of corporate political power expressed in campaign donations, political advertising, and lobbying. Darrell West, Ray LaRaja and Brian Schaffner, and Erica Fowler have all been on the podcast in the past to talk about this side of money and politics. Hertel-Fernandez is focused elsewhere to discover how companies influence politics. He sets his sights on the internal politicking that companies engage in with their own employees. Through rigorous surveys and interviews, he discovers that a quarter of American employees have experienced some type of political influence from their employer, including encouragements to register to vote and pressure to vote for favored candidates. And once contacted by an employer, many employees feels pressured to act, sometimes out of fear of retribution, docked pay, or dismissal from the job. While this is hardly a brand new corporate tactic, Hertel-Fernandez explains how it has grown since the 1990s and also why this is a worrisome trend for the democracy and employees. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alexander Hertel-Fernandez is the author of Politics at Work: How Companies Turn Their Workers into Lobbyists (Oxford University Press, 2018). He is an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. We often think of corporate political power expressed in campaign donations, political advertising, and lobbying. Darrell West, Ray LaRaja and Brian Schaffner, and Erica Fowler have all been on the podcast in the past to talk about this side of money and politics. Hertel-Fernandez is focused elsewhere to discover how companies influence politics. He sets his sights on the internal politicking that companies engage in with their own employees. Through rigorous surveys and interviews, he discovers that a quarter of American employees have experienced some type of political influence from their employer, including encouragements to register to vote and pressure to vote for favored candidates. And once contacted by an employer, many employees feels pressured to act, sometimes out of fear of retribution, docked pay, or dismissal from the job. While this is hardly a brand new corporate tactic, Hertel-Fernandez explains how it has grown since the 1990s and also why this is a worrisome trend for the democracy and employees. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alexander Hertel-Fernandez is the author of Politics at Work: How Companies Turn Their Workers into Lobbyists (Oxford University Press, 2018). He is an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. We often think of corporate political power expressed in campaign donations, political advertising, and lobbying. Darrell West, Ray LaRaja and Brian Schaffner, and Erica Fowler have all been on the podcast in the past to talk about this side of money and politics. Hertel-Fernandez is focused elsewhere to discover how companies influence politics. He sets his sights on the internal politicking that companies engage in with their own employees. Through rigorous surveys and interviews, he discovers that a quarter of American employees have experienced some type of political influence from their employer, including encouragements to register to vote and pressure to vote for favored candidates. And once contacted by an employer, many employees feels pressured to act, sometimes out of fear of retribution, docked pay, or dismissal from the job. While this is hardly a brand new corporate tactic, Hertel-Fernandez explains how it has grown since the 1990s and also why this is a worrisome trend for the democracy and employees.

For much of the last 50 years, there has been a consensus that restrictions on political money would improve politics and government. Federal and state campaign finance reforms aimed to do just that. In their recent book Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail (University of Michigan Press, 2015), Raymond La Raja and Brian Schaffner reach a surprising and contradictory conclusion. Examining state-level data over several decades, they find that restrictions on campaign finance are associated with a more polarized legislatures and more money steered to groups outside mainstream politics. Restrictions empower the purists and weaken the pragmatists. Instead, the authors suggest that political parties might be strengthened if certain campaign finance restrictions were loosened, and party pragmatists could then provide the moderating influence on politics that they have in the past. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For much of the last 50 years, there has been a consensus that restrictions on political money would improve politics and government. Federal and state campaign finance reforms aimed to do just that. In their recent book Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail (University of Michigan Press, 2015), Raymond La Raja and Brian Schaffner reach a surprising and contradictory conclusion. Examining state-level data over several decades, they find that restrictions on campaign finance are associated with a more polarized legislatures and more money steered to groups outside mainstream politics. Restrictions empower the purists and weaken the pragmatists. Instead, the authors suggest that political parties might be strengthened if certain campaign finance restrictions were loosened, and party pragmatists could then provide the moderating influence on politics that they have in the past. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For much of the last 50 years, there has been a consensus that restrictions on political money would improve politics and government. Federal and state campaign finance reforms aimed to do just that. In their recent book Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail (University of Michigan Press, 2015), Raymond La Raja and Brian Schaffner reach a surprising and contradictory conclusion. Examining state-level data over several decades, they find that restrictions on campaign finance are associated with a more polarized legislatures and more money steered to groups outside mainstream politics. Restrictions empower the purists and weaken the pragmatists. Instead, the authors suggest that political parties might be strengthened if certain campaign finance restrictions were loosened, and party pragmatists could then provide the moderating influence on politics that they have in the past. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices