zalbert.bsky.social
Polisci prof. @ Brandeis U. Research on parties and polarization and elections. Glad there’s finally hockey here. Go Leafs Go!
45 posts
188 followers
299 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Very cool stuff! I find similar results when I look at more traditional forms of engagement (think tank hiring and event participant patterns) in my book. Love the idea of podcasts as data. Looking forward to seeing more!
comment in response to
post
Really cool stuff. Love when there’s a paper to cite for something I’ve long thought to be true
comment in response to
post
Awesome, thanks!
comment in response to
post
Love this idea. Any idea how to implement in R? Wasn’t able to find much with a quick look
comment in response to
post
“No other president would’ve done it” is the truest thing he’s ever said
comment in response to
post
I agree. But also worth noting that it’s actually a large shift in today’s political terrain
comment in response to
post
Really interesting. Is there a paper associated with this?
comment in response to
post
Don’t forget Willy!
comment in response to
post
The obsession with tariffs actually makes a lot more sense if this was the ultimate goal
comment in response to
post
Why can’t we have nice things (planned cap increases that don’t get derailed by pandemics or idiotic policies)?
comment in response to
post
I should say I love working with pro editors and what they do is important. But we need to acknowledge an asymmetry here: while responsible outlets strive for objectivity, others are lying about "$50 million for Gaza condoms" and framing Trump's assault on the Constitution as a normal corrective
comment in response to
post
One thing that came into clearer focus writing this is how the editorial norm of objectivity fits uneasily with this moment. Striving for objectivity is good! But in practice it leads to contrived statements that understate reality (e.g. "clearly illegal" -> "appear to be illegal according to...")
comment in response to
post
You’re right that it’s an awkward marriage of convenience. But in many ways it works… Heritage either already aligned with (e.g. immigration) or has given in on (e.g. trade) the things he actually cares about. And he’s carried their water on a lot of other things simply by appointing their ppl
comment in response to
post
FML
comment in response to
post
The Stanley cup
comment in response to
post
The PhD allows you to realize you don’t know how to do this. Others would just plow ahead!
comment in response to
post
Really cool history. Another reason to love this team
comment in response to
post
This might create incentives for elites to stoke fears about other side. But it could also result in less polarized candidates if otherwise ideological prim voters elevate other considerations. Of course this is all conditional on having a competitive general election & good info about electability
comment in response to
post
We suspect (but don't test) that this helps explain primary dynamics like Biden in 2020. This was the original motivation for the project. Fear and hatred of the other side elevates stakes of election, which in turn elevates importance of electability/elite cues about this trait in nominations
comment in response to
post
Here we show results from 2 conjoints. 1) shows marginal effect of being "likely to win" (vs lose) on vote choice based on out-party ratings, controlling for ideology alignment. 2) shows win vs. toss up, controlling for policy agreement. Electability always matters most for negative partisans
comment in response to
post
3) This speaks to my research with @raylaraja.bsky.social on small donors. They give to high profile races, impulsively and out of emotion. They are not particularly efficient. Their dollars would go a lot farther in the exact types of races they don’t contribute to (local and state)
comment in response to
post
I’m doubling down on Tavares
comment in response to
post
Seems like a topic best studied via participant observation. I volunteer!