Podcasts about masket

Step away from the main stage of the Republican National Convention, and there was much to learn about today's Republican party. That is what Seth Masket did. The University of Denver political scientist speaks with us from Milwaukee after interviewing delegates, and discussing their work with local parties. Masket's Substack, Tusk, is a kind of first draft of a book he is working on.

Blizzard prevents Justin from getting to Iowa and/or any campaign events happening... However we still have an interview!Seth Masket discusses his research on the Republican Party and its decision-making process. He conducted a survey of county chairs across the US to understand their thoughts on the Republican presidential contest and the state of the party. Initial findings showed that county chairs were divided in their candidate preferences, with about 50% remaining undecided. However, Trump gained significant support after his indictments, consolidating his position as the frontrunner. Masket explores the reasons behind county chairs' support for Trump, including transactional support from evangelicals. He also draws parallels between evangelicals' support for Trump and black voters' support for Biden. Masket discusses the decline in support for Ron DeSantis and the rise of Nikki Haley as a non-Trump candidate. He also touches on the initial appeal and subsequent decline of other candidates like Vivek Ramaswamy. Masket plans to continue his research and provide updates on the candidates' popularity. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Samuel Masket MD has been a leader in cataract surgery for many years and has published extensively about a wide range of topics from IOL calculations after LASIK to treating negative dysphotopsias to dead bag syndrome. He has been president of the ASCRS and has delivered hundreds of lectures all around the world. Dr Masket was also involved in teaching cataract surgery to the UCLA residents and I'm proud to say that I was the last resident he trained back in 2000. Our discussion was recorded in person and we covered many topics including clinical cases, success in the OR, the future of ophthalmology and the future of practice in the USA. He has incredibly keen insight and I learned so much from our detailed conversation. I am certain you will enjoy it.

This is an audio recoding of Episode 18 of the ESCRS Online Journal Club, hosted by Artemis Matsou (Greece) and  Basak Bostanci (Turkey)  Our experts were Ruth Lapid-Gortzak and Jorge Alio  who discussed the following paper: Diffractive Optic IOL Exchange, Indications and Outcomes, Alsetri, Hassan BS1; Pham, Don BS1; Masket, Samuel MD1,2; Fram, Nicole R MD1,2; Naids, Steven MD1; Lee, Aron BS1,, Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery: September 07, 2021 https://journals.lww.com/jcrs/Abstract/9000/Diffractive_Optic_IOL_Exchange__Indications_and.99414.aspx

In this week’s episode of Politics In Question, Seth Masket joins Julia, Lee, and James to discuss the future of the Democratic Party. Masket is professor of political science and director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver. He is the author of numerous books and articles about political parties, elections, state politics, and, on occasion, Star Wars. He is also the founder of the political science blog, Mischiefs of Faction. His most recent book, Learning From Loss: The Democrats, 2016-2020, examines how Democrats’ perceptions of why they lost in 2016 shaped their behavior in the 2020 presidential election.How did Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Donald Trump influence Democrats’ decision to nominate Joe Biden in 2020? To what extent do broad narratives impact voters’ perceptions of what is at stake in elections? Do those narratives also impact the behavior of elected officials in-between elections? And if election narratives have this kind of power, does that create a feedback loop that inhibits serious change? These are some of the questions that Seth, Julia, Lee, and James discuss in this week’s episode.

Seth Masket's new book, Learning from Loss: The Democrats, 2016-2020 (Cambridge UP, 2020) takes the outcome of the 2016 presidential race and Donald Trump's unexpected winning of the presidency as the jumping off point to examine not only what the Democratic Party came to understand about this outcome, but also how it shaped the nomination battle in 2020. Masket, a political scientist and the Director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver, spent the past four years examining the many narratives that have shaped the various understandings of what happened in 2016, and, in this exploration, he has also threaded together the thinking that led to the nomination of Vice President Joe Biden as the Democratic standard bearer. At the outset of the book, it is clear that the original conception in 2015 was that this book would be about the Republican Party, but then Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College on election night in 2016. And the direction and subject matter for the book shifted. In this shift, the often-perennial tension within the Democratic Party between the elusive idea of electability and the ideological commitments of the party and party members became the focus of the research. Masket notes both in the book and in our conversation that his analysis builds on and interrogates recent political science literature that examines each of the many threads woven together in the book. Scholars who analyze the nomination process, like Cohen, Noel, Karol, and Zaller in The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform, provided one framework to examine whether the thesis as to the role of the party in determining the nominee was actually true in the 2020 process as compared to the experiences of both the Democrats and the Republicans in 2016. Political Scientists Julia Azari (author of Delivering the People's Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate) and Philip Klinkner (author of The Losing Parties: Out-Parties National Committees, 1956-1993) also provided frameworks for aspects of Learning from Loss, as their respective work dives into the theorizing about narratives and political outcomes, and how these come to influence and often guide future political activity—both by elites and by grassroots party activists. Masket does impressive work in combining a host of theoretical threads, multiple different kinds of research methodology, and an historical perspective to produce a lively analysis of the four-year process that the Democrats undertook to try to understand Hillary Clinton's disorienting loss and to move forward in a political world that they weren't always sure worked as they had once understood it to work. Masket spent time with political activists and organizers in the early primary states and in Washington, D.C., interviewing them about their experiences during the 2016 election cycle and how that was contributing to the kind of work and decision-making procedures that surrounded the 2020 nomination process. The research also examines campaign finance patterns to determine which of the candidates were receiving donations from traditional, big doners, and which were getting funds in small amounts from broader, more grassroots contributions.  Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015).

Seth Masket's new book, Learning from Loss: The Democrats, 2016-2020 (Cambridge UP, 2020) takes the outcome of the 2016 presidential race and Donald Trump's unexpected winning of the presidency as the jumping off point to examine not only what the Democratic Party came to understand about this outcome, but also how it shaped the nomination battle in 2020. Masket, a political scientist and the Director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver, spent the past four years examining the many narratives that have shaped the various understandings of what happened in 2016, and, in this exploration, he has also threaded together the thinking that led to the nomination of Vice President Joe Biden as the Democratic standard bearer. At the outset of the book, it is clear that the original conception in 2015 was that this book would be about the Republican Party, but then Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College on election night in 2016. And the direction and subject matter for the book shifted. In this shift, the often-perennial tension within the Democratic Party between the elusive idea of electability and the ideological commitments of the party and party members became the focus of the research. Masket notes both in the book and in our conversation that his analysis builds on and interrogates recent political science literature that examines each of the many threads woven together in the book. Scholars who analyze the nomination process, like Cohen, Noel, Karol, and Zaller in The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform, provided one framework to examine whether the thesis as to the role of the party in determining the nominee was actually true in the 2020 process as compared to the experiences of both the Democrats and the Republicans in 2016. Political Scientists Julia Azari (author of Delivering the People's Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate) and Philip Klinkner (author of The Losing Parties: Out-Parties National Committees, 1956-1993) also provided frameworks for aspects of Learning from Loss, as their respective work dives into the theorizing about narratives and political outcomes, and how these come to influence and often guide future political activity—both by elites and by grassroots party activists. Masket does impressive work in combining a host of theoretical threads, multiple different kinds of research methodology, and an historical perspective to produce a lively analysis of the four-year process that the Democrats undertook to try to understand Hillary Clinton's disorienting loss and to move forward in a political world that they weren't always sure worked as they had once understood it to work. Masket spent time with political activists and organizers in the early primary states and in Washington, D.C., interviewing them about their experiences during the 2016 election cycle and how that was contributing to the kind of work and decision-making procedures that surrounded the 2020 nomination process. The research also examines campaign finance patterns to determine which of the candidates were receiving donations from traditional, big doners, and which were getting funds in small amounts from broader, more grassroots contributions.  Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Masket’s new book, Learning from Loss: The Democrats, 2016-2020 (Cambridge UP, 2020) takes the outcome of the 2016 presidential race and Donald Trump’s unexpected winning of the presidency as the jumping off point to examine not only what the Democratic Party came to understand about this outcome, but also how it shaped the nomination battle in 2020. Masket, a political scientist and the Director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver, spent the past four years examining the many narratives that have shaped the various understandings of what happened in 2016, and, in this exploration, he has also threaded together the thinking that led to the nomination of Vice President Joe Biden as the Democratic standard bearer. At the outset of the book, it is clear that the original conception in 2015 was that this book would be about the Republican Party, but then Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College on election night in 2016. And the direction and subject matter for the book shifted. In this shift, the often-perennial tension within the Democratic Party between the elusive idea of electability and the ideological commitments of the party and party members became the focus of the research. Masket notes both in the book and in our conversation that his analysis builds on and interrogates recent political science literature that examines each of the many threads woven together in the book. Scholars who analyze the nomination process, like Cohen, Noel, Karol, and Zaller in The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform, provided one framework to examine whether the thesis as to the role of the party in determining the nominee was actually true in the 2020 process as compared to the experiences of both the Democrats and the Republicans in 2016. Political Scientists Julia Azari (author of Delivering the People's Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate) and Philip Klinkner (author of The Losing Parties: Out-Parties National Committees, 1956-1993) also provided frameworks for aspects of Learning from Loss, as their respective work dives into the theorizing about narratives and political outcomes, and how these come to influence and often guide future political activity—both by elites and by grassroots party activists. Masket does impressive work in combining a host of theoretical threads, multiple different kinds of research methodology, and an historical perspective to produce a lively analysis of the four-year process that the Democrats undertook to try to understand Hillary Clinton’s disorienting loss and to move forward in a political world that they weren’t always sure worked as they had once understood it to work. Masket spent time with political activists and organizers in the early primary states and in Washington, D.C., interviewing them about their experiences during the 2016 election cycle and how that was contributing to the kind of work and decision-making procedures that surrounded the 2020 nomination process. The research also examines campaign finance patterns to determine which of the candidates were receiving donations from traditional, big doners, and which were getting funds in small amounts from broader, more grassroots contributions.  Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Masket’s new book, Learning from Loss: The Democrats, 2016-2020 (Cambridge UP, 2020) takes the outcome of the 2016 presidential race and Donald Trump’s unexpected winning of the presidency as the jumping off point to examine not only what the Democratic Party came to understand about this outcome, but also how it shaped the nomination battle in 2020. Masket, a political scientist and the Director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver, spent the past four years examining the many narratives that have shaped the various understandings of what happened in 2016, and, in this exploration, he has also threaded together the thinking that led to the nomination of Vice President Joe Biden as the Democratic standard bearer. At the outset of the book, it is clear that the original conception in 2015 was that this book would be about the Republican Party, but then Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College on election night in 2016. And the direction and subject matter for the book shifted. In this shift, the often-perennial tension within the Democratic Party between the elusive idea of electability and the ideological commitments of the party and party members became the focus of the research. Masket notes both in the book and in our conversation that his analysis builds on and interrogates recent political science literature that examines each of the many threads woven together in the book. Scholars who analyze the nomination process, like Cohen, Noel, Karol, and Zaller in The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform, provided one framework to examine whether the thesis as to the role of the party in determining the nominee was actually true in the 2020 process as compared to the experiences of both the Democrats and the Republicans in 2016. Political Scientists Julia Azari (author of Delivering the People's Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate) and Philip Klinkner (author of The Losing Parties: Out-Parties National Committees, 1956-1993) also provided frameworks for aspects of Learning from Loss, as their respective work dives into the theorizing about narratives and political outcomes, and how these come to influence and often guide future political activity—both by elites and by grassroots party activists. Masket does impressive work in combining a host of theoretical threads, multiple different kinds of research methodology, and an historical perspective to produce a lively analysis of the four-year process that the Democrats undertook to try to understand Hillary Clinton’s disorienting loss and to move forward in a political world that they weren’t always sure worked as they had once understood it to work. Masket spent time with political activists and organizers in the early primary states and in Washington, D.C., interviewing them about their experiences during the 2016 election cycle and how that was contributing to the kind of work and decision-making procedures that surrounded the 2020 nomination process. The research also examines campaign finance patterns to determine which of the candidates were receiving donations from traditional, big doners, and which were getting funds in small amounts from broader, more grassroots contributions.  Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Masket’s new book, Learning from Loss: The Democrats, 2016-2020 (Cambridge UP, 2020) takes the outcome of the 2016 presidential race and Donald Trump’s unexpected winning of the presidency as the jumping off point to examine not only what the Democratic Party came to understand about this outcome, but also how it shaped the nomination battle in 2020. Masket, a political scientist and the Director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver, spent the past four years examining the many narratives that have shaped the various understandings of what happened in 2016, and, in this exploration, he has also threaded together the thinking that led to the nomination of Vice President Joe Biden as the Democratic standard bearer. At the outset of the book, it is clear that the original conception in 2015 was that this book would be about the Republican Party, but then Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College on election night in 2016. And the direction and subject matter for the book shifted. In this shift, the often-perennial tension within the Democratic Party between the elusive idea of electability and the ideological commitments of the party and party members became the focus of the research. Masket notes both in the book and in our conversation that his analysis builds on and interrogates recent political science literature that examines each of the many threads woven together in the book. Scholars who analyze the nomination process, like Cohen, Noel, Karol, and Zaller in The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform, provided one framework to examine whether the thesis as to the role of the party in determining the nominee was actually true in the 2020 process as compared to the experiences of both the Democrats and the Republicans in 2016. Political Scientists Julia Azari (author of Delivering the People's Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate) and Philip Klinkner (author of The Losing Parties: Out-Parties National Committees, 1956-1993) also provided frameworks for aspects of Learning from Loss, as their respective work dives into the theorizing about narratives and political outcomes, and how these come to influence and often guide future political activity—both by elites and by grassroots party activists. Masket does impressive work in combining a host of theoretical threads, multiple different kinds of research methodology, and an historical perspective to produce a lively analysis of the four-year process that the Democrats undertook to try to understand Hillary Clinton’s disorienting loss and to move forward in a political world that they weren’t always sure worked as they had once understood it to work. Masket spent time with political activists and organizers in the early primary states and in Washington, D.C., interviewing them about their experiences during the 2016 election cycle and how that was contributing to the kind of work and decision-making procedures that surrounded the 2020 nomination process. The research also examines campaign finance patterns to determine which of the candidates were receiving donations from traditional, big doners, and which were getting funds in small amounts from broader, more grassroots contributions.  Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Masket’s new book, Learning from Loss: The Democrats, 2016-2020 (Cambridge UP, 2020) takes the outcome of the 2016 presidential race and Donald Trump’s unexpected winning of the presidency as the jumping off point to examine not only what the Democratic Party came to understand about this outcome, but also how it shaped the nomination battle in 2020. Masket, a political scientist and the Director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver, spent the past four years examining the many narratives that have shaped the various understandings of what happened in 2016, and, in this exploration, he has also threaded together the thinking that led to the nomination of Vice President Joe Biden as the Democratic standard bearer. At the outset of the book, it is clear that the original conception in 2015 was that this book would be about the Republican Party, but then Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College on election night in 2016. And the direction and subject matter for the book shifted. In this shift, the often-perennial tension within the Democratic Party between the elusive idea of electability and the ideological commitments of the party and party members became the focus of the research. Masket notes both in the book and in our conversation that his analysis builds on and interrogates recent political science literature that examines each of the many threads woven together in the book. Scholars who analyze the nomination process, like Cohen, Noel, Karol, and Zaller in The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform, provided one framework to examine whether the thesis as to the role of the party in determining the nominee was actually true in the 2020 process as compared to the experiences of both the Democrats and the Republicans in 2016. Political Scientists Julia Azari (author of Delivering the People's Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate) and Philip Klinkner (author of The Losing Parties: Out-Parties National Committees, 1956-1993) also provided frameworks for aspects of Learning from Loss, as their respective work dives into the theorizing about narratives and political outcomes, and how these come to influence and often guide future political activity—both by elites and by grassroots party activists. Masket does impressive work in combining a host of theoretical threads, multiple different kinds of research methodology, and an historical perspective to produce a lively analysis of the four-year process that the Democrats undertook to try to understand Hillary Clinton’s disorienting loss and to move forward in a political world that they weren’t always sure worked as they had once understood it to work. Masket spent time with political activists and organizers in the early primary states and in Washington, D.C., interviewing them about their experiences during the 2016 election cycle and how that was contributing to the kind of work and decision-making procedures that surrounded the 2020 nomination process. The research also examines campaign finance patterns to determine which of the candidates were receiving donations from traditional, big doners, and which were getting funds in small amounts from broader, more grassroots contributions.  Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Masket (https://www.du.edu/ahss/polisci/facultystaff/masket_seth.html) is Professor of Political Science at the University of Denver, and Director of DU's Center on American Politics (https://www.du.edu/americanpolitics/). He contributes to Vox's Mischiefs of Faction, and has contributed to The Monkey Cage, FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/seth-masket/), Politico, and The New York Times. Click here (https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/2/12/17001984/forecast-good-news-dems) to read Masket's article about a simple forecasting model that augurs well for Democrats in the midterm elections. Special Guest: Seth Masket.

A government shutdown doesn’t inspire confidence. Politicians, their parties, and the leaders of those parties all get a hefty amount of blame from the American people. But you know that Winston Churchill quote about democracy being the best system except for all the others? It turns out there’s some truth to that. With today’s guest, we ask where all this gridlock comes from, what we can really do about it, and whether politics really deserves all the blame it gets. In this episode, Thad Kousser reveals some surprising facts about the political game and some useful tips for the American electorate to play it well. Prof. Kousser is the Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego. He is the co-editor of the journal Legislative Studies Quarterly. He is the author of many articles and multiple books, including the most recent edition of The Logic of American Politics. To listen to this episode of Our American Discourse, click the arrow in the player here. Or  download it and subscribe on your favorite podcasting app –search “usc bedrosian.” Follow us on Twitter! @BedrosianCenter, @AnthonyWOrlando, @ThadKousser Related Reading “Boost Turnout in Primaries By Targeting ‘November-Only Voters’” by Seth Hill & Thad Kousser “If You Want a More Powerful President Trump, Impose Term Limits on Congress” by Thad Kousser “Kingmakers or Cheerleaders? Party Power and the Causal Effects of Endorsements” by Thad Kousser, Scott Lucas, Seth E. Masket, & Eric McGhee “Get Out the Vote-by-Mail? A Randomized Field Experiment Testing the Effect of Mobilization in Traditional and Vote-by-Mail Precincts” by Kevin Arceneaux, Thad Kousser, & Megan Mullin “Does Partisan Polarization Lead to Policy Gridlock in California?” by Thad Kousser “#Calexit – Fun Hashtag, Bad Idea” by Thad Kousser

Seth Masket, political scientist and professor at the University of Denver, sees something ominous in the background of the Star Wars Holiday Special. He wrote about the politics of the campy Star Wars program in Mischiefs of Faction, a blog for Vox. The piece is called Amusing Ourselves Into Tyranny, sound familiar?  Before the interview, Swara and Stephen react to news of Disney pulling out of their deal with Netflix and the promise of a Disney streaming service. Is this capitalism run amok or the best thing that's ever happened? Join us for the discussion.    Follow Seth Masket on Twitter @Smotus Swara @SwaraSalih1 Stephen @stephen_kent89 and Beltway Banthas @BeltwayBanthas Get full access to Geeky Stoics at www.geekystoics.com/subscribe

Seth Masket, political scientist and professor at the University of Denver, sees something ominous in the background of the Star Wars Holiday Special. He wrote about the politics of the campy Star Wars program in Mischiefs of Faction, a blog for Vox. The piece is called Amusing Ourselves Into Tyranny, sound familiar?  Before the interview, Swara and Stephen react to news of Disney pulling out of their deal with Netflix and the promise of a Disney streaming service. Is this capitalism run amok or the best thing that's ever happened? Join us for the discussion.    Follow Seth Masket on Twitter @Smotus Swara @SwaraSalih1 Stephen @stephen_kent89 and Beltway Banthas @BeltwayBanthas

The jobs report has been good, the U.S. isn’t in a shooting war, and the economy is booming. So why is Trump still in the high 30s in terms of popularity? Political scientist Seth Masket says it’s because of Trump’s abrasive presence on Twitter. Masket recently made the case for why it’s in everyone’s best interest for the president and the social media giant to part ways in the Pacific Standard.    In the Spiel, Kellyanne Conway, the gift that keeps on giving. Join Slate Plus! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today at Slate.com/gistplus. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The jobs report has been good, the U.S. isn’t in a shooting war, and the economy is booming. So why is Trump still in the high 30s in terms of popularity? Political scientist Seth Masket says it’s because of Trump’s abrasive presence on Twitter. Masket recently made the case for why it’s in everyone’s best interest for the president and the social media giant to part ways in the Pacific Standard.    In the Spiel, Kellyanne Conway, the gift that keeps on giving. Join Slate Plus! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today at Slate.com/gistplus. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Masket has written The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail and How they Weaken Democracy (Oxford UP, 2016). Masket is associate professor and chair of the Department of Political Science, University of Denver. In a political season filled with candidate promises to challenge established party players, most have been focused squarely on national politics. The Inevitable Party shifts attention back to the states. Masket shows that state experiments with democratic reforms have often failed. From the nonpartisan legislature to strict campaign finance reform, rarely are the lofty objectives of reformers met in practice. Polarization has gone up in Nebraska’s nonpartisan legislature and enormous sums of money influenced elections after Colorado tightened restrictions on political money. For all listeners, apologies for the somewhat lower audio quality of the interview this week. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Masket has written The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail and How they Weaken Democracy (Oxford UP, 2016). Masket is associate professor and chair of the Department of Political Science, University of Denver. In a political season filled with candidate promises to challenge established party players, most have been focused squarely on national politics. The Inevitable Party shifts attention back to the states. Masket shows that state experiments with democratic reforms have often failed. From the nonpartisan legislature to strict campaign finance reform, rarely are the lofty objectives of reformers met in practice. Polarization has gone up in Nebraska's nonpartisan legislature and enormous sums of money influenced elections after Colorado tightened restrictions on political money. For all listeners, apologies for the somewhat lower audio quality of the interview this week.

Seth Masket has written The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail and How they Weaken Democracy (Oxford UP, 2016). Masket is associate professor and chair of the Department of Political Science, University of Denver. In a political season filled with candidate promises to challenge established party... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Masket has written The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail and How they Weaken Democracy (Oxford UP, 2016). Masket is associate professor and chair of the Department of Political Science, University of Denver. In a political season filled with candidate promises to challenge established party players, most have been focused squarely on national politics. The Inevitable Party shifts attention back to the states. Masket shows that state experiments with democratic reforms have often failed. From the nonpartisan legislature to strict campaign finance reform, rarely are the lofty objectives of reformers met in practice. Polarization has gone up in Nebraska’s nonpartisan legislature and enormous sums of money influenced elections after Colorado tightened restrictions on political money. For all listeners, apologies for the somewhat lower audio quality of the interview this week. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seth Masket has written The Inevitable Party: Why Attempts to Kill the Party System Fail and How they Weaken Democracy (Oxford UP, 2016). Masket is associate professor and chair of the Department of Political Science, University of Denver. In a political season filled with candidate promises to challenge established party players, most have been focused squarely on national politics. The Inevitable Party shifts attention back to the states. Masket shows that state experiments with democratic reforms have often failed. From the nonpartisan legislature to strict campaign finance reform, rarely are the lofty objectives of reformers met in practice. Polarization has gone up in Nebraska’s nonpartisan legislature and enormous sums of money influenced elections after Colorado tightened restrictions on political money. For all listeners, apologies for the somewhat lower audio quality of the interview this week. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices