Podcast appearances and mentions of William Howell

On this episode, Dori welcomes some very special guests to talk about a very important film: Cycle.More than five years in the making, Cycle takes an unflinching look at the patterns behind police violence in America through the story of Ty'rese West, an 18-year-old from Racine who was shot and killed by Mount Pleasant police officer Eric Giese in 2019 after being stopped for riding a bicycle without a headlight.Joining the podcast to talk about their film — and their deep connections to it — are directors Laura Dyan Kezman and William Howell, both of whom are from Racine. Uniquely Milwaukee host Kim Shine also sits in for this one as the quartet talk about:Howell's personal connection to West's family and the Racine community, which helped build trust for the deeply personal footage in the film.The challenging process of obtaining public information from authorities.How the death of George Floyd in 2020 reframed their work.Who holds power in the criminal justice system, particularly the District Attorney.The challenges of and potential for filmmaking in Wisconsin.The hope that "Cycle" serves as a catalyst and inspires viewers to push social justice forward.Cinebuds is sponsored by Joe Wilde Co.

The Milwaukee Film Festival returns for another season of inviting film lovers to "enjoy the show." In this episode of Uniquely Milwaukee, we're talking to filmmakers -- including two from Racine -- about stories of resistance and justice.Representing southeastern Wisconsin are Laura Dyan Kezman & William Howell, co-directors of CYCLE, a documentary that explores the narrative of police violence, profiling and accountability through the death of 18-year-old Ty'Rese West of Racine. In June 2019, West was shot two in the head by a Mount Pleasant police officer who stopped him for not having a light on his bicycle.   There was no body camera footage, no witnesses and no charges were filed.Our second conversation is with Elegance Bratton, director of Move Ya Body: The Birth of House, which confronts biased systems and spotlights a movement of freedom, resistance and innovation. The film shares the genres history through the life Vince Lawrence, who in 1984 in Chicago -- along with his friend Jesse Saunders -- recorded what many consider to be the first house song.Episode host: Kim ShineUniquely Milwaukee is sponsored by the Milwaukee Public Library. For more episodes, visit radiomilwaukee.org/ourstories.

In Episode 55, our host Captain Ricky Wheeler, talks with William Howell, the owner and operator of "Drifter", a charter boat based out of the iconic Oregon Inlet Fishing Center in North Carolina. We get into his career as a mate, the amazing Captains he has fished with throughout his sportfishing career, how his boat "Drifter" came to be, and fishing in general with many details based around the Oregon Inlet, NC fishery. There are some great stories and insights in this one!If you would like our host, Ricky Wheeler, to help you sell your boat/yacht or help you with searching for and buying a boat/yacht, please email:RickyWheeler@UnitedYacht.comTo fish with our host, Captain Ricky Wheeler, on EUPHORIA out of Charleston, SC in April- June or Atlantic City, NJ June-November go to:EuphoriaSportfishing.comTo fish with out guest, William Howell, on the "Drifter" out of Oregon Inlet, NC go to:https://www.oregon-inlet.com/drifter/For online fishing courses, go to our website Courses.SaltwaterEuphoria.comSaltwater Euphoria Podcast Sponsors:+AIRLOCK - https://www.airlockusa.com/USE CODE EUPHORIA for $20 off AIRLOCK Products+Saltwater Euphoria - https://www.saltwatereuphoria.com/+Euphoria Sportfishing - https://www.euphoriasportfishing.com/Email podcast@saltwatereuphoria.com if you want to advertise on/become a sponsor The Saltwater PodcastFollow the following on Instagram:CaptainRickyWheeler: @CaptainRickyWheelerSaltwater Euphoria: @SaltwaterEuphoriaEuphoria Sportfishing: @EuphoriaSportfishingAIRLOCK: @AirlockPurifierWilliam Howell/Drifter Sportfishing: @drifterncIf you like this podcast please be sure to click that FOLLOW button and also spread the word by sharing this episode with your friends or whatever social channels you are on and/or leaving a great review  We appreciate your support.

Hello Not Another Politics Podcast Listeners. We took some time off in preparation for the Thanksgiving Holiday but given the incredible political events of the month we wanted to re-share an episode that we think is even more relevant today than when we recorded it. Why is populism on the rise across the globe? One story says this movement is driven by anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment, that they just want to throw the bums out. Another says it's driven by identity politics, an anti-immigrant pro-nativist ideology. Both stories don't leave room for much hope. But what if there was another story that not only gives us some hope but supplies a clear solution.

We talk about it every election cycle…how can we get higher voter turnout? As part of the Center for Effective Government's primer series focusing on the scholarship covering the pros and cons of different government reforms, University of Chicago Policy Professor Christopher Berry examined whether changing the timing of elections can result in higher turnout.But he also explored a much more contentious and complex question. Does higher voter turnout result in better policies? Is it possible that a higher turnout often results in less knowledgeable voters pushing elections in a direction that results in worse outcomes?

Since Biden's debate performance, America's political elite have been engaged in a debate. How much does a President really matter for effective government? If his administration seems to work fine, how much of an affect can a President have? At the same time, we important Supreme Court decisions that seem to be giving more power to Presidents which makes finding answers to these questions even more pressing.Well, there is one famous political scientist who explored these questions long ago in one of the most well-known texts in the field “President Power and the Modern Presidents” by Richard Neustadt. It's a book that sat bedside for several Presidents in the White House. It was meant to inform them about how they ought to exercise power and where they might actually be able to find power in a system that was stacked against them. It's worth taking stock of his argument and trying to make sense of both its elements and the extent to which it speaks to this president political moment.

Have you ever made a 311 call? This is a service provided by many cities that allows citizens to call in things like potholes, graffiti, fallen trees, ect. There is an assumption that many people have that requests made by white and more affluent neighborhoods probably get responded to faster. But is that accurate? In a recent paper, “Unequal Responsiveness in City Service Delivery: Evidence from 24 Million 311 Calls” Stanford Postdoctoral Fellow Derek Holliday uses a large an unique dataset to find some surprising answers. But what are the implications of these findings, and are they positive or concerning results?

If the media is to be believed, the US public has a tenuous at best grasp on accurate political news. They're either consuming disinformation and fake news on social media or following biasedly inaccurate news outlets. Either journalistic truth is as good as dead or we're living in separate informational universes. But is this too alarmist, could the real story be more nuanced?That's what Columbia professor of economics Andrea Prat finds in his recent paper “Is Journalistic Truth Dead? Measuring How Informed Voters Are About Political News”. But what are we to make of these results, and how do we square them with claims of political polarization?

When it comes to our federal bureaucracy, there are two schools of thought. One says that an insulated group of career bureaucrats have created a deep state that corrupts the performance of government. The other says that our bureaucracy is dysfunctional because there is too much turnover or positions left vacant. Both rest on an underlying feature of our democracy: many of the positions in the federal bureaucracy are appointed by the President and approved by Congress. But, could having less politically selected appointments give us a more functional government?In this episode, we're doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with David Lewis from Vanderbilt University who wrote a primer on this question: should we have more politically appointed bureaucrats or less?

There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics involved in elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?In this episode, we're doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar  who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with Sanford Gordon from the Politics Department at NYU who wrote a primer on this question: is it better to elect or appoint judges?

When it comes to passing actual legislation, putting it forward and getting it all the way through the process, it can be difficult to measure exactly which legislators are effective. Not to mention which types of legislators tend to be more effective, moderates or extremists? And does majority-party membership increase effectives?In an innovative new paper, “Effective Lawmaking Across Congressional Eras”, University of Pittsburgh professor of political science Max Goplerud proposes a new measure of legislative effectiveness that may help us to answer some of these complex questions.

When we talk about policy choices around redistribution there is an assumption so obvious that most people never question it. That politicians are more responsive to the desires of the rich, and that policy preferences of the poor don't hold as much sway. But what if that assumption was wrong?In a recent paper by Boston University Economist Raymond Fisman titled “Whose Preference Matter For Redistribution: Cross-Country Evidence” uses cross-sectional data from 93 countries to see how much a government redistributes lines up with how much redistribution citizens of different socioeconomic statuses actually want. The findings are surprising.

Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn't be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we're release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don't make money off this show, it's a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.

The recent crisis in the Israel and Palestine conflict has added fuel to the already heated debate over free speech in our politics and on college campuses. Does the scientific literature having anything to tell us about the health of public discourse in these domains?A recent paper by Harvard Ph.D. candidate Yihong Huang titled “Breaking the Spiral of Silence” holds some answers. It looks at how the attention we pay, or don't pay, to who stays silent in a debate can exacerbate self-censorship.

We’re less than a year out from the 2024 presidential election. And former President Donald Trump is still leading the pack of Republican candidates, by a lot. This has us wondering: What would another Trump presidency mean for the economy? On the show today, William Howell, professor of American politics at the University of Chicago explains how Trump’s plans to weaken the federal bureaucracy could disrupt the economy, how the former president’s proposals on immigration and Obamacare could go over, and what voters see in his economic agenda. Plus, what this could all mean for our democracy. Then, we'll get into a major data breach at the genetic testing company 23andMe. And, Moody’s lowered China’s credit outlook to negative. We’ll unpack what that means for China and what it has to do with political dysfunction in the U.S. Later, thoughts on COP28 and some impressive Spotify Wrapped stats. Plus, what the owner of a gift wrapping service had wrong when she started her business. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Where Donald Trump stands on taxes, the economy” from The Washington Post “The Republican Party's Split on Economics” from The New York Times “Trump’s plans if he returns to the White House include deportation raids, tariffs and mass firings” from AP News “Some Republicans sound alarm after Trump revives focus on Obamacare” from CNN Politics “Why the Supreme Court’s “administrative state” decision matters” from Marketplace “What Trump's Second Term Could Look Like” from The Atlantic “Moody's Cuts China Credit Outlook to Negative on Rising Debt” from Bloomberg “Why invest in gold when the economic outlook isn’t great?” from Marketplace “Data Breach at 23andMe Affects 6.9 Million Profiles, Company Says” from The New York Times “23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9 million users” from TechCrunch If you've got a question, comment or submission for a state drink, send them our way. We're at 508-UB-SMART or email makemesmart@marketplace.org.

We’re less than a year out from the 2024 presidential election. And former President Donald Trump is still leading the pack of Republican candidates, by a lot. This has us wondering: What would another Trump presidency mean for the economy? On the show today, William Howell, professor of American politics at the University of Chicago explains how Trump’s plans to weaken the federal bureaucracy could disrupt the economy, how the former president’s proposals on immigration and Obamacare could go over, and what voters see in his economic agenda. Plus, what this could all mean for our democracy. Then, we'll get into a major data breach at the genetic testing company 23andMe. And, Moody’s lowered China’s credit outlook to negative. We’ll unpack what that means for China and what it has to do with political dysfunction in the U.S. Later, thoughts on COP28 and some impressive Spotify Wrapped stats. Plus, what the owner of a gift wrapping service had wrong when she started her business. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Where Donald Trump stands on taxes, the economy” from The Washington Post “The Republican Party's Split on Economics” from The New York Times “Trump’s plans if he returns to the White House include deportation raids, tariffs and mass firings” from AP News “Some Republicans sound alarm after Trump revives focus on Obamacare” from CNN Politics “Why the Supreme Court’s “administrative state” decision matters” from Marketplace “What Trump's Second Term Could Look Like” from The Atlantic “Moody's Cuts China Credit Outlook to Negative on Rising Debt” from Bloomberg “Why invest in gold when the economic outlook isn’t great?” from Marketplace “Data Breach at 23andMe Affects 6.9 Million Profiles, Company Says” from The New York Times “23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9 million users” from TechCrunch If you've got a question, comment or submission for a state drink, send them our way. We're at 508-UB-SMART or email makemesmart@marketplace.org.

We’re less than a year out from the 2024 presidential election. And former President Donald Trump is still leading the pack of Republican candidates, by a lot. This has us wondering: What would another Trump presidency mean for the economy? On the show today, William Howell, professor of American politics at the University of Chicago explains how Trump’s plans to weaken the federal bureaucracy could disrupt the economy, how the former president’s proposals on immigration and Obamacare could go over, and what voters see in his economic agenda. Plus, what this could all mean for our democracy. Then, we'll get into a major data breach at the genetic testing company 23andMe. And, Moody’s lowered China’s credit outlook to negative. We’ll unpack what that means for China and what it has to do with political dysfunction in the U.S. Later, thoughts on COP28 and some impressive Spotify Wrapped stats. Plus, what the owner of a gift wrapping service had wrong when she started her business. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Where Donald Trump stands on taxes, the economy” from The Washington Post “The Republican Party's Split on Economics” from The New York Times “Trump’s plans if he returns to the White House include deportation raids, tariffs and mass firings” from AP News “Some Republicans sound alarm after Trump revives focus on Obamacare” from CNN Politics “Why the Supreme Court’s “administrative state” decision matters” from Marketplace “What Trump's Second Term Could Look Like” from The Atlantic “Moody's Cuts China Credit Outlook to Negative on Rising Debt” from Bloomberg “Why invest in gold when the economic outlook isn’t great?” from Marketplace “Data Breach at 23andMe Affects 6.9 Million Profiles, Company Says” from The New York Times “23andMe confirms hackers stole ancestry data on 6.9 million users” from TechCrunch If you've got a question, comment or submission for a state drink, send them our way. We're at 508-UB-SMART or email makemesmart@marketplace.org.

There is a political puzzle that has become prominent in the last few decades, especially with the recent turmoil over the Republican led Speaker of the House: how do a small group of extremists manage to get their way despite being a minority of members?In a recent paper, “Organizing at the Extreme: Hardline Strategy and Institutional Design” University of Chicago Political Scientist Ruth Bloch Rubin takes that question head on. Her conclusions could tell us a lot about the bargaining strategies of extremists, when and why they work, and how those strategies may create sticky organization practices and structures.

If there is one thing the right and left seem to agree on it's that money distorts our politics. It allows the rich to shape policy, choose who gets elected, and escape consequences. But what if this common belief isn't as true as you think?On our second live episode, we look back to famous paper in the political science literature, “Why Is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?” by Stephen Ansolabehere, John Figueiredo and James Snyder. Their provocative paper asks an often-overlooked question: if political money is so effective, why isn't there more of it?This episode was recorded live at the University of Chicago Podcast Network Festival.

It's one of the most common refrains in political discourse today: social media is the source of polarization. It's a difficult proposition to empirically study because companies like Meta and X don't share their data publicly. Until now.In a landmark series of papers, three in Science and one in Nature, Princeton political scientists Andy Guess and a massive team of researchers were given unique access by Meta to study how the platform and algorithms affected users' attitudes and behaviors during the 2020 election. The findings are surprising and fascinating, even as the project itself raises intriguing questions about how to conduct research on a company in partnership with that very same company.

There is no political topic that can get people's blood boiling quite like partisan gerrymandering. Many even go so far as to call it an afront to our democracy. But what do we know about how effective it is and what the data shows about its outcomes?In a new paper, “Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, But Reduces Electoral Competition” Princeton political scientist, Kosuke Imai, uses a novel methodological approach to try and document the effect of partisan gerrymandering. What he finds is surprising and may lead people who participate in it to re-think whether it's worth the effort.Link to paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217322120

The assumption in political science has always been that electing challengers can lead to a downturn in performance. It takes time to do all the hiring involved in establishing a new government, and there is always a learning curve about processes and procedures. But a surprising new paper shows the opposite might be true.In “Electoral Turnovers”, Boston University economist Benjamin Marx uses a vast new data set to show that ousting the incumbent always seems to lead to improved performance, especially economic performance.Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4039485

The common refrain in political coverage today says that each side of the isle is living in an information bubble. There is a partisan knowledge gap between the facts Democrats know and the facts Republicans know. May believe this gap could be the downfall of our democracy. But what if that gap isn't as large as we think?In a new paper by independent researcher, Gaurav Sood, titled “A Gap In Our Understanding? Reconsidering the Evidence for Partisan Knowledge Gaps” he finds that the way we study knowledge gaps is flawed, and that differences in factual knowledge may not be as high as supposed.Paper Link: https://www.gsood.com/research/papers/partisan_gap.pdf

Today's guest: - Prof. William Howell, U of C Sidney Stein

As the Supreme Court debates whether to end affirmative action, concerns about the power of implicit racial bias to shape who gets ahead in America are as salient as ever. But what do we know about the extent and power of this racism to drive voting decisions? Is there a scientific way to measure it?In a new paper “Disfavor or Favor? Assessing the Valence of White Americans' Racial Attitudes” political scientist Tim Ryan provides a new framework for how perceived racial attitudes line up with voting. It takes on the faults of our existing racial bias literature and provides striking evidence about how to characterize white American's racial attitudes. Ryan is a professor at The University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill. You can find the paper at this link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3701331 

We've become deeply familiar with stimulus checks in the last few years, but what isn't clear is what affect these transfers may have on elections. Could stimulus checks be enough for citizens to change their votes to the party handing out the money and if so, is this a way for politicians to buy votes?Northwestern Professor of economics Silvia Vannutelli explores these questions in a paper titled “The Political Economy of Stimulus Transfers”. She looks at stimulus payments in Italy in 2014 and uncovers some surprising findings. Not only did these transfers appear to “purchase” some votes, but the effect seem to persist into the future.

DJ WillHis passion for music was born in the artwork of his mother's record collection and eventually drove him to jobs at Metal Blade Records, Capitol Records, KNAC.com, That Metal Show, Total Rock and points in between. William Howell, better-known as DJ Will, joins us to share insightful stories about his career-building involvement with the Goo Goo Dolls and Butthole Surfers, missed opportunities with Pantera and Watchtower, and two bands (new and old) he highly recommends. Interesting dude! You won't wanna miss. Created and Produced by Jared Tuten

William Howell is an American serial killer who was convicted of murder of seven women in 2003. He is one of the most prolific serial killers in Connecticut.

In the runup to the 2020 election, the academic journal Nature made the unprecedented decision to endorse Joe Biden for President. During an era when trust in science has never seemed more crucial, this decision led many to wonder if explicitly political statements increase or decrease public trust in science.Luckily, one PhD graduate from the Stanford School of Business designed a well-crafted experiment to find an answer. Using the Nature endorsement as a test case, Floyd Zhang wrote a paper that helps us explore the effects of public trust when scientific journals make endorsements.

Paper link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3273001

Many apologies to you all for this being published late. Hopefully, this will be the last hiccup and we will be on our regular schedule!William Howell is one of Connecticut's most prolific serial killers and just a real bastard. Like many serial killers before him, William preyed on sex workers thinking no one would miss them. Listen to this week's episode to hear more!Episode written by Jordan H.Join us on Facebook and IG: @HARDCORETRUECRIME Web: www.crimesandconsequences.com--------------->Get ad-free early releases of each episode, plus over 170 exclusive Members Only episodes by going to Patreon.com/tntcrimes or joining our Apple Channel on the Apple Podcast App.SOURCES:1) https://www.inquisitr.com/10007579/connecticut-serial-killer-william-devin-howell-an-examination-o “Connecticut Serial Killer William Devin Howell: An Examination Of His Violent Crimes”2) https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Legacy-of-a-suspected-serial-killer-6268009.php “Legacy of a suspected serial killer”3) https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Seymour-woman-s-remains-apparently-linked-to-6256424.php “Seymour woman's skeleton apparently linked to serial killer”4) https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/outreach/awareness-months/cold-case-joyvaline-martinez/520-bf33c1d9-f67f-40c4-9601-6fb9f8f2d472 “Cold Case: Joyvaline Martinez”5) https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/police-identify-remains-found-in-new-britain-in-2007/1934908/ “Police Identify Remains Found in New Britain in 2007”6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx-C6tfrgg0 YouTube-True Crime Daily: Exclusive: Prison Interview with Connecticut's William Devin Howell7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2tcdQNd8jQ&t=14s Making a Serial Killer - Season 1, Episode 8 - William Devin Howell, the Sick Ripper - Full Episode8) https://www.aetv.com/real-crime/william-devin-howell-connecticut-serial-garden-murders-garden “Connecticut Serial Killer William Devin Howell Describes the Shocking Details of His Crimes”9) https://portal.ct.gov/DOC/Miscellaneous/Cold-Case-Cards#:~:text=The%20Connecticut%20Division%20of%20Criminal,have%20occurred%20throughout%20the%20state. “Cold Case Cards”10) https://www.registercitizen.com/news/article/New-book-claims-serial-killer-murdered-woman-in-13136058.php “New book claims serial killer murdered woman in Torrington”11) https://www.thetrentonline.com/woman-says-this-suspected-serial-killer-was-a-kindhearted-boyfriend-pictured/ “Woman Says This Suspected Serial Killer Was A ‘Kindhearted' Boyfriend (PICTURED)”

Paper link: https://ideas.repec.org/a/now/jnlpip/113.00000063.html 

Tomorrow, voters will choose who will run the city as they cast ballots for mayor and City Council. But aside from candidates' plans and positions, we wanted to know why Chicago's government has looked the same for the last century, with 50 alders representing 50 wards. William Howell is director of the Center for Effective Government at University of Chicago. He talks with host Jacoby Cochran about the trade-offs in our current system and why Chicagoans should care. Check out the center's series with Crain's about Chicago's government “One City, 50 Wards.” Some news: The city treasurer's office is hosting a virtual tax prep conversation at noon today. Want some more City Cast Chicago news? Then make sure to sign up for our Hey Chicago newsletter.  Follow us @citycastchicago You can also text us or leave a voicemail at: 773 780-0246 Interested in advertising with City Cast? Find more info HERE  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this show, we focus a lot on ideological polarization but it's important to remember that politics is about more than ideology or even policy victories. It's about distribution and redistribution of goods and services in return for party support, votes. This view of politics is called clientelism, and it often goes overlooked.One of the landmark papers on clientelism is from Tariq Thatchil, a political scientist at The University of Pennsylvania. It won the award for best paper in the APSR in 2018, and it's called “How Clients Select Brokers, Competition and Choice in India's Slums”. Their investigation prompts a re-thinking of the dynamics of clientelism and perhaps even holds some lessons for how to re-think the ideological view of politics as well.https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5310a4d8e4b05a56d51f81c8/t/5b4cbc711ae6cf1a9051724e/1531755638231/Auerbach_Thachil_APSR.pdf

As we approach the second anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, we wanted to reflect on a few questions that many Americans are asking these days: Is democracy on the brink of the collapse? Why are U.S. politics so polarized? And are we headed for another civil war? These questions seem incredibly daunting, so we wanted to understand what the data really tell us. William Howell, a University of Chicago professor and director of the Center for Effective Government, has been thinking about these questions, along with political scientists across the country. In this episode, Howell explains why claims of another civil war are overexaggerated, and instead, offers some correctives.

As we approach the anniversary of the January 6th attack on the US Capitol, we wanted to reflect on where we are as a country and whether politics are really as polarized as they seem. Our co-host Will Howell recently joined another University of Chicago podcast called Big Brains to discuss these very questions. We're going to share that episode with you this week, we hope you enjoy it, and look forward to being back with a new episode in a few weeks.

We took some time off to enjoy the holiday with our families, but in the wake of the 2024 mid-terms, we're going to re-share this crucial episode and relevant episode. When it comes to polarization, most people in American politics blame the voters. But much of the political science data suggests most voters are actually moderates. So, where are all the moderate politicians? In a new book, “Who Wants To Run?: How The Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization”, Stanford political scientist Andrew Hall argues that the reason we don't have more moderate politicians is actually quite simple…there just aren't any incentives for them to run.

This episode was recorded live at the NASPAA conference in Chicago. With the midterms upon us, we decided to look back at a piece of landmark scholarship that may be able to tell us something about the dynamics of personal interactions between representatives and their constituencies. It's by political scientist Richard Fenno called “U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration”. We often assume that voters cast their ballots based on ideology and policy, but it could it be more personal than that? Fennon took a novel approach to answering that question that he calls “soaking and poking”. We explore what his discoveries can tell us about our current elections and how representatives think about their interactions with their constituents. Paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1960097#metadata_info_tab_contents

One theme on our show is trying to make sense of why elites appear to be so polarized when the larger public is more moderate. We almost always study these trends in the U.S. but could we look to another country for insight? A country like the UK perhaps? In her paper “Has The British Public Depolarized Along with Political Elites?” University of Oxford political scientist Jane Green measures the differences between elite and public polarization during the eighties and nineties when the parties actually depolarized. Did elite depolarization lead to public depolarization, and what lessons do this data hold for the US?

Today's guests: - John Fugelsang, Actor, comedian, and radio host - William Howell, U of C Professor in American Politics at Harris School of Public Policy

There might not be a more controversial political hack than members of Congress being legally allowed to trade stocks. Infamously, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the wealthiest members of Congress, has been regularly accused of insider trading. Recently the House of Representatives has introduced a bill that would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and children, from trading stocks. Although the bill has stalled, it's renewed a really important lingering question: are members of Congress actually advanced investors, and how much are they benefiting from inside information? In a 2014 paper by University of Chicago's Andy Eggers and Stanford University's Jens Hainmueller titled, Political Capital: Corporate Connections and Stock Investments in the U.S. Congress, they look at a wide data set of investments made by hundreds of members of Congress between 2004 and 2008, to see whether or not they're getting an unfair advantage. The results may surprise you.

For years, political scholars and pundits have claimed that primary elections are exacerbating polarization and with the 2022 midterm elections approaching this year has been no different. With many extremist candidates on both sides of the aisle, it certainly feels like this claim should be true, but does the political science back that up? To find an answer we turn to Harvard political scientist James Snyder and his 2010 paper “Primary Elections and Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Congress”. The findings are surprising and may have some key insights for how we should think about primary elections in the U.S.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been an era of misinformation. From social media to cable news, the spread of false or misleading information about COVID vaccines has been rampant. Some social media platforms have moved more aggressively by trying to flag misleading posts with disclaimers. Can fact-checking reduce the spread of misinformation? And perhaps more importantly, can fact-checks change people's minds about getting vaccinated? In a new study, George Washington University political scientist Ethan Porter decided to look at COVID-19 misinformation spanning across ten countries, from Brazil to Nigeria, to the United States. He and his co-authors evaluated factual corrections in these ten countries to see whether or not they changed people's beliefs and whether they got vaccinated.

Sign up for Intelligence Squared Premium here: https://iq2premium.supercast.com/ for ad-free listening, bonus content, early access and much more. See below for details. In this archive debate from 2017 produced in collaboration with the University of Chicago, we asked: has the political establishment failed America? In 2017, the view was that whether they voted for Trump or Sanders or none of the above, millions of Americans felt the answer might be yes – and that the system benefits the elites at the expense of everyone else. While others say that despite its flaws, the political establishment has been a force for unparalleled stability, prosperity and equality – and that it is the only thing standing between America and the abyss. Is it time for the old guard to come to the rescue or to make way for a new political reality? Arguing in favour of the motion were Michael Eric Dyson of Georgetown University and William Howell of UChicago. Arguing against the motion were Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post and Eric Oliver of UChicago. Our host for this event was Mary Ann Ahern, Political Reporter for NBC5 Chicago. … We are incredibly grateful for your support. To become an Intelligence Squared Premium subscriber, follow the link: https://iq2premium.supercast.com/  Here's a reminder of the benefits you'll receive as a subscriber: Ad-free listening, because we know some of you would prefer to listen without interruption  One early episode per week Two bonus episodes per month A 25% discount on IQ2+, our exciting streaming service, where you can watch and take part in events live at home and enjoy watching past events on demand and without ads  A 15% discount and priority access to live, in-person events in London, so you won't miss out on tickets Our premium monthly newsletter  Intelligence Squared Merch Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In our hyper-polarized climate, it is often said that partisans determine their policy positions not based on thought and reason but on opposition to the other party. If I'm a Republican and I hear that Nancy Pelosi supports a particular policy, I'll reflexively take the opposite stance. There is a literature in political science that suggests this is the case, but could it be wrong? In a new paper, “Updating amidst Disagreement: New Experimental Evidence on Partisan Cues”, our very own Will Howell and Anthony Fowler demonstrate that more robust research designs leads to a completely different conclusion. The American public may be more open to deliberative policy positions than we think; they just need to be given the option.

The midterm elections are fast approaching, and with rampant inflation one of the main concerns for Democrats is the state of the economy. It's commonly accepted that some voters cast their ballots solely on the price of gas and bread, but does the science back that up? There is a classic paper by political scientist Gerald Kramer from 1971 that can help us answer that question. It systematically evaluates the relationship between changes in the various dimensions of the economy and two party vote share over the better part of a century. On this episode, we discuss that paper, what it can tell us about the Democrat's chances in the 2022 midterms, and if the possible effects of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Nearly a decade ago, the Supreme Court effectively removed the "preclearance" process in its Shelby County v. Holder decision. That process had been implemented for decades as part of the Voting Rights Act and required places with a history of racial discrimination to get approval from the Justice Department before changing their voting procedures. When the Shelby decision came down, voting rights advocates and mobilization groups panicked. There were widespread fears that this decision would dramatically reduce voter participation in communities of color. Did they? The University of Rochester's Mayya Komisarchik and Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Ariel White sought to answer that question in their recent paper, "Throwing Away the Umbrella: Minority Voting after the Supreme Court's Shelby Decision." In this episode, we speak to Komisarchik about the impacts of the Shelby decision and whether our fears about countermobilization and voter suppression tactics have held true.

Advocates for the striking down of Roe by the Supreme Court say this will improve our politics by allowing people's preferences to be better represented at the State level. But do State and local governments accurately match the preferences of their citizens when responding to their demands? It's a difficult question to answer, but one paper by NYU political scientist Julia Payson, “Locally controlled minimum wages are no closer to public preferences” provides a possible answer by way of locally set minimum wages. When local governments increase their minimum wages, do they accurately match local preferences? The answer is surprising, and has implications for policies beyond just minimum wage.

There's long been a belief that the Supreme Court rarely departs from precedent. But as the court appears to intend to strike down Roe, we're wondering what the data tell us about how consistent the Supreme Court has been at honoring precedent. And, is the Supreme Court more likely to depart from precedent in constitutional cases than other types? To break it all down, we spoke to Washington University law professor Lee Epstein, about her 2015 paper, "The Decision To Depart (or Not) From Constitutional Precedent: An Empirical Study of the Roberts Court", co-authored by William M. Landes and Adam Liptak.