It’s time for that annual American holiday tradition: awkward political conversation at the Thanksgiving dinner table. With the 2016 presidential primary campaign in full swing and public interest on the rise, the odds are good that relatives will share their thoughts with you about why one candidate will win or how another is going to destroy America. I can’t tell you how to keep your family away from sensitive topics, but here are brief answers to some frequently asked questions about current events and the 2016 race.
With all the reporting and commentary that faulted President Obama for not displaying more anger at his news conference Monday on the Paris attacks, it almost seemed as if people hoped he would bring back Luther, the satirical “anger translator” played by Keegan-Michael Key who appeared alongside him at the White House Correspondents Dinner in April.
Displays of emotion have become an expected ritual in the age of the televised presidency, but President Obama has often been reluctant to reveal how he feels after major events. This pattern goes back to the very beginning of his time in office.
Until last week, the threat from terrorism had received little attention from candidates or voters during the 2016 campaign. In one poll, just 3 percent of Americans rated it the most important problem facing the country.
The horrific attacks that took place Friday in Paris have, at least for the moment, changed that dynamic. CBS quickly moved to increase the emphasis on foreign policy and national security during Saturday night’s Democratic debate. Candidates are scrambling to adjust to the news, which media analysis has suggested might “alter” the character of the race, for instance by helping more experienced candidates like Hillary Rodham Clinton and hurting outsiders like Donald Trump.
How long-lasting an effect will the Paris attacks have on the United States presidential race? Absent further attacks, the suggestion that Paris will prove to be a “game changer” is unlikely to be correct.
For years, activists and scholars have contended that groups who reject the scientific consensus on climate change are employing tactics once used to create doubt about the dangers of smoking.
Now environmentalists are taking a page from tobacco opponents by suggesting oil companies misled investors and the public about the risks of climate change. The first step toward a legal inquiry came Wednesday evening when the New York attorney general subpoenaed records from Exxon Mobil.
While this tactic helped tobacco opponents win over regulators and the public, it may be a less effective approach to addressing political opposition to climate change — an issue on which both elites and the public are deeply divided.
The Democratic presidential candidates covered a lot of ground during their debate Tuesday, but one issue received little attention: their theory of political change. How exactly would Hillary Rodham Clinton or her rivals pass the programs and proposals they advocate?
Sports fans may have more in common with political partisans than you might think — specifically, a home-team bias that shapes what they believe to be true about the world.
As a result, the beliefs of fans — or partisans — who know the most about a particular controversy are often more polarized, not less. It’s true in politics, science and, perhaps surprisingly, sports.
That’s what my colleagues and I found when we examined what the public believes about the ball-deflation controversy that started in last season’s N.F.L. playoffs and that is likely to continue to provoke further debate this week before Sunday night’s game between the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts.
With House Republicans in disarray after John Boehner’s likely successor withdrew from the Speaker’s race Thursday, speculation has grown about potential damage to the party’s chances in the 2016 election. Will voters punish the G.O.P. for the actions of a conservative faction that blocked Kevin McCarthy’s ascension and has been willing to repeatedly risk government shutdowns in confrontations with President Obama?
Recent history suggests that the political costs of turmoil and confrontation for the G.O.P. are likely to be minimal.
Is Hillary Rodham Clinton not presenting her true self to voters? As with candidates like Mitt Romney and Al Gore, claims that she is inauthentic have fueled endless cycles of negative coverage of her campaign.
In reality, all politicians are strategic about the image and behaviors they present to voters. Some just hide the artifice better than others.
Over the last few weeks, a number of Republican presidential candidates have begun to criticize President Obama and the Black Lives Matter protest movement, saying they are encouraging crime. Although there’s little evidence of a crime wave outside of a few major cities where homicides have increased, the political rationale seems obvious: The candidates are playing to the G.O.P. base, a normal part of the primary season.
Another possibility, though, is that Republicans are also still searching for the best angle of attack against Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Democrats, who remain narrow betting market favorites in 2016. Despite recent economic turbulence, the Democrats’ main advantage at this point is a generally positive economic outlook for next year, which requires Republicans to look for other issues they can wield against the incumbent party.
Why is Donald Trump leading the polls in the G.O.P. presidential race? One explanation is his celebrity and the media attention he attracts. But he has also exploited our vulnerability to pleasing fictions about presidential power.
We like to pretend that presidents exert vast control over the country, commanding not only the direction of American politics but also the laws and policies of the country and even the state of the economy.
When presidents fail to control events to our liking, critics often suggest that the problem is the chief executive’s failure to try hard enough or act tough enough. I’ve called this pattern the Green Lantern theory of the presidency after the comic book superheroes who wield special rings with powers that are limited only by the hero’s willpower.
Mr. Trump is the purest Green Lantern candidate we’ve seen in recent years.
Is Joe Biden running for president? Effectively yes, even though he is not yet a declared candidate.
Buzz has grown about a potential Biden candidacy this week after The Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that he was considering entering the race, in part because of urging from his son Beau, who died in May.
Media accounts have suggested that the decision will be made during a family vacation in September, but Mr. Biden is functionally already a candidate in the so-called invisible primary, which plays an enormous role in nomination contests. The question now is whether he will receive enough support to decide to make it official.
The onslaught of presidential polls has already begun. You may be tempted to avoid the polling deluge, but the results of these surveys do influence the campaign, including who will get invited to the first G.O.P. debate. That’s why we want to show you how to read (or ignore) the polls like a pro.
Is Hillary Rodham Clinton in trouble? You would think so from the coverage of recent polls showing that her unfavorable ratings have increased nationally and in key states.
Multiple media outlets and pundits have suggested that her personal unpopularity 20 months before the presidential election is a major problem for her. A Washington Post article described the poll numbers as “decidedly sobering for Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects in 2016.”
The underlying theory is, as The Post piece put it, that “presidential politics tends to be dominated by personality” and that Mrs. Clinton “may be hard pressed to win a traditional presidential election in which likability matters most.” Likewise, a Los Angeles Times article approvingly cited the maxim that “it’s often said that elections can boil down to a contest of who would a voter rather have a beer with.”
None of these claims are supported by the data.
The Supreme Court continued a trend Thursday morning toward making seemingly more liberal decisions. In two important cases, the court’s conservative majority was again split, putting liberal justices in the majority on decisions upholding the legality of certain subsidies to help Americans purchase insurance under the Affordable Care Act and offering legal protection against housing discrimination.
Why are conservatives losing more often? While the justices may have changed their views in some instances, it’s also possible that the types of cases the court is deciding have shifted. What seem like liberal decisions may instead represent conservative overreach.
Is Hillary Rodham Clinton running a campaign focused on “secondary, base-ginning issues”?
That’s what Josh Kraushaar of The National Journal argued in a column on Tuesday. He stated that until recently she “has seemed content to energize small slices of the electorate” like blacks and Hispanics with “side issues” like early voting and immigration overhaul while ignoring “an overall message on the economy and national security.” According to Mr. Kraushaar, “she’s getting sidetracked from tackling the central issues that most Americans care about.”
But as John Harwood, a reporter for The New York Times and CNBC, pointed out on Twitter, the idea that Mrs. Clinton is running a “narrow” campaign is rooted in an outdated impression of the nation’s electorate as straight, middle-aged white couples with children (the demographic group of many political journalists).
Hillary Clinton’s campaign took a beating among some pundits this week for telling the truth: She’s going to employ a strategy focused on a narrow set of the most competitive states.
In other words, she’s running as a modern presidential candidate.
Mrs. Clinton’s statement is what’s called a Kinsley gaffe — taking its name from Michael Kinsley, a journalist who said a gaffe is something true that a politician isn’t supposed to say. By conceding the obvious, she revealed the disjunction between the politics we say we want and the kind we actually have.
What is keeping third-party and independent candidates from mounting credible campaigns for the presidency?
According to Level the Playing Field, a nonprofit that is attracting national media coverage, the problem is candidates’ access to televised debates. In a recent ad in The Wall Street Journal, the group blamed the requirement by the Commission on Presidential Debates that candidates have to reach 15 percent in the polls seven weeks before the election to participate: “To break the two-party stranglehold on who becomes president, all they have to do is change one rule, and put an end to the rigged game.”
In reality, changing the debate rules is unlikely to make a third-party or independent candidacy viable, let alone put it on a level playing field with the major party candidates.
The Pacific Rim trade deal making its way through Congress is the latest step in a decades-long trend toward liberalizing trade — a somewhat mysterious development given that many Americans are skeptical of freer trade.
But Americans with higher incomes are not so skeptical. They — along with businesses and interest groups that tend to be affiliated with them — are much more likely to support trade liberalization. Trade is thus one of the best examples of how public policy in the United States is often much more responsive to the preferences of the wealthy than to those of the general public.
For the first time in decades, a consensus is building behind reform of the criminal justice system. But will the 2016 election get in the way?
In February, a dizzyingly wide coalition encompassing the conservativeKoch Industries and the liberal Center for American Progress announced an effort to try to overhaul the system. Several Republican presidential contenders as well as numerous other politicians on both sides of the aisle have spoken of the need forreform. Now Hillary Rodham Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential contender, has joined the chorus, calling on the country to “end the era of mass incarceration.”
It is not clear how much longer this policy debate can continue without dividing along partisan and ideological lines, however.
Saturday’s huge earthquake in Nepal killed at least 5,000 people, injured more than 8,000, and affected millions more. Relief efforts are underway to aid the survivors.
The extent of American aid may be limited, however, by our collective attention span. In the days since the quake, the riots in Baltimore after a man died from injuries suffered while in police custody came to dominate the news cycle. Reporting on events there has pushed news about the earthquake off the front page and attracted extensive cable news coverage. What coverage remains of the aftermath has tended to focus on the fate of a small number of Western climbers on Mount Everest rather than the larger humanitarian crisis.
The events in Baltimore and Nepal are both important and deserve our attention. But foreign news generates far less interest from consumers than domestic events. As a result, a story about a disaster like Nepal’s is more easily pushed off the news agenda.
Fact-checks of politicians’ statements have become increasingly prominent in media coverage of American politics. With dedicated fact-checkers like PolitiFact and recurring features in newspapers like The New York Times and news agencies like The Associated Press, more journalists are trying to assess the accuracy of claims made by public figures than ever before.
The audience for fact-checking is growing as well — on some days during the 2012 presidential campaign, for instance, PolitiFact was getting a million page views a day.
But are people learning about politics from these fact-checks? Or are they just cheering for their side and seeking out reinforcement for what they already believe?
This column draws on new research with Jason Reifler on the long-term effects of fact-checking exposure that we summarized in a new American Press Institute report. Lucas Graves, Jason, and I also released an API report examining the growth of fact-checking within political journalism.
In a number of states, parents are allowed to opt out of legal requirements to have their children vaccinated before entering school by claiming a “personal belief” or “philosophical” exemption. These provisions have raised a great deal of concern since the Disneyland measles outbreak, including in California, where it began. Unfortunately, the blundering approach state legislators there have taken to the issue shows how direct attacks on exemptions can rally the anti-vaccine cause.
It may be called waffling, flip-flopping or evolving, but every four years new presidential candidates find themselves adjusting inconvenient positions that might hinder their bid for the nomination.
What’s striking, though, is how some candidates who make these changes are portrayed as inauthentic by party elites and primary voters, and others — like Scott Walker — aren’t.
Will the fight for the G.O.P. presidential nomination be Hillary Clinton’s secret weapon in the 2016 election? Not according to the best political science research.
It’s often thought that divisive primary fights damage presidential nominees in the general election. People close to Hillary Clinton endorsed this theory in a Politico article Tuesday, which reported that “a core element of Clinton’s plan was to get out of the way and let the dueling wings of the Republican Party savage each other.” In their view, Mrs. Clinton benefits from the Republicans’ “wild and messy primary contest,” which will result in “a bloodied GOP nominee.”
DH: So it sounds like you want to bring actual practice more in line with the deductive ideal in which we test previously stated hypotheses, is that right? Can pre-registration solve these kinds of problems on its own?
BN: Actually, I’m skeptical that preregistration itself — which is starting to come into wider use in development economics as well as experimental political science and psychology — is a solution. As I argued in a white paper for the American Political Science Association Task Force on Public Engagement, it is still too easy for publication bias to creep in to decisions by authors to submit papers to journals as well as evaluations by reviewers and editors after results are known. We’ve seen this problem with clinical trials, where selective and inaccurate reporting persists even though preregistration is mandatory.
I think a better approach is to offer a publishing option in which journals would consider accepting some articles in principle before the results were known based on peer review of the design and analysis plan. Such an approach, which has been formalized by the Registered Reports movement (of which I am a part), would better align author and journal incentives with our goals as scientists.
Has the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account hurt her in the polls?
You might think so if you read a CNN article published Monday night, which reported that “unfavorable views of Hillary Clinton are on the rise” after disclosure of her use of the email account while serving as secretary of state. (The network’s televised coverage of the poll made similar claims.)
This framing suggests that her standing with the public has declined considerably. In fact, the new poll actually seems to be good news for Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner. CNN found that 53 percent of Americans have a favorable view of her, which is somewhat higher than in other recent polls, including those conducted before the controversy.
Although the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s email is unlikely to damage her chances to reach the White House, her use of a private account as secretary of state suggests a larger set of concerns about her management approach. How did her staff not warn her about the political and security risks? And why didn’t they protect her more effectively once those risks became clear?
According to New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait, the imbroglio “revives the larger question of whether Clinton is capable of managing a competent campaign (and thus, in turn, a competent administration).” He cites as evidence the turmoil within Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign, which was widely seen as mismanaged.
But what’s striking about these failures is how different they are. The paradox of Mrs. Clinton’s leadership style is that she often seems to simultaneously have too many advisers and too few.
The report Monday that Hillary Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state raises a number of important questions about government transparency and access to public records.
Unsurprisingly, however, the conversation quickly veered from matters of policy into ominous speculation about the political consequences for Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic Party presidential front-runner, including hyperbolic suggestions that the emails could “shake up the 2016 race,” cause irreparable damage to her, cause her to lose the general election, or even help force her out of the race.
The actual public response to the controversy is likely to be a combination of apathy and partisanship.
When Rudolph Giuliani said that he does “not believe that the president loves America,” he became the latest in a long line of public figures to question the loyalty or allegiance of the country’s first nonwhite president. While these criticisms are ostensibly directed at Barack Obama’s worldview, as Mr. Giuliani later said, they appear to reflect — or exploit — the tendency to associate being American with being white.
Mr. Obama’s loyalty to the United States has been questioned in this way since he reached the national stage. Just as people wrongly doubted that the president was born here, many prominent figures in national politics have smeared him as disloyal, often by suggesting that he is on the side of Islamic extremists (which plays on the related myth that he is Muslim rather than Christian).
For decades, Democrats have been the party that emphasizes concerns about inequality. So why are many top Republicans — including a number of the party’s presidential hopefuls — talking about the issue?
“Issue ownership” theories predict that parties and candidates will emphasize issues on which they have an advantage — specifically, ones in which the public tends to see their party as more competent. For instance, Democrats historically “own” education and health care, while Republicans are typically seen as better on crime and national security. Given that the G.O.P. has prioritized economic growth and opportunity over distributional concerns in recent decades, we would therefore expect concerns about inequality to be voiced primarily by Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, not Republicans.
Yet last week, Jeb Bush gave a speech in Detroit titled “Restoring the Right to Rise in America” — the latest in a series of proposals and statements by top Republicans focusing on the rapid increase of income inequality in this country.
Will a measles outbreak persuade more parents to vaccinate their children?
That’s the question people are asking as concern grows about the outbreak linked to Disneyland that has spread to 67 cases across seven states.
Some doctors have expressed hope that parents will be more likely to get their children immunized. I hope they’re right, but research suggests that the long-term effects of the outbreak could be worse, not better. The social and political conflicts we’ve seen emerge over the outbreak threaten to polarize the issue along political lines and weaken the social consensus in favor of vaccination.
Public service announcement: For now, you should ignore surveys testing potential Democrat/Republican matchups for the 2016 presidential election.
I’m referring to polls like The Washington Post-ABC News survey released last week, which made headlines with the finding that Hillary Clinton enjoys a big lead against Republicans like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. Other media organizations have also been releasing head-to-head polls like this, and more are sure to follow in the coming months.
I realize it’s tempting to believe that these head-to-head polls have at least a little bit of meaningful information in them. Poll numbers are irresistible to political obsessives like me, but it’s just too early for them to be useful in forecasting the general election.
It’s audition time for presidential candidates in the “invisible primary” — the critical period before the state primaries and caucuses in which party elites help choose the eventual nominees.
While Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite on the Democratic side, internal divisions among Republicans are making it hard for pundits — or betting markets — to predict the likely G.O.P. nominee. Endorsements by donors, elected officials and other elites are the best observable indicator of which candidate has the party support needed to win the nomination, but few have been made at this point...
I’ve therefore adopted a different approach to help size up the Republican nomination contest. Taking inspiration from sports analysts who use qualitative and quantitative methods to identify the best comparisons for individual athletes, I’ve identified the historical candidate who I think most resembles each of the top six G.O.P. contenders. I also created a computer algorithm that matched current and former candidates...
State of the Union addresses — like most presidential speeches – rarely produce a bump in job approval ratings or bring around lawmakers of the opposite party. So why does tonight matter?
[T]he issues presidents emphasize in the State of the Union seem to affect which areas are rated most important by the public. In this way, President Obama may be able to help set the issue agenda for his last two years in office and the 2016 election...
But Mr. Obama faces a significant challenge — breaking through the clutter that increasingly hinders presidential efforts to communicate with the public.
When will the improving American economy translate into higher approval ratings for President Obama?
It will take time. But if recent trends continue, Mr. Obama’s political standing is likely to strengthen.
When will we give up on the idea of a leader who will magically bring consensus and unity to our politics?
At election time, candidates seduce us with promises to bring America together, but inevitably fall short while in office and end up leaving office with the country more polarized than when they arrived. After blaming them for their failure to unite us, we turn to the next crop of presidential aspirants, and the cycle of hope and disappointment begins all over again.
Seasonal influenza is responsible for thousands of deaths and billions of dollars of medical costs per year in the United States, but influenza vaccination coverage remains substantially below public health targets. One possible obstacle to greater immunization rates is the false belief that it is possible to contract the flu from the flu vaccine. A nationally representative survey experiment was conducted to assess the extent of this flu vaccine misperception. We find that a substantial portion of the public (43%) believes that the flu vaccine can give you the flu. We also evaluate how an intervention designed to address this concern affects belief in the myth, concerns about flu vaccine safety, and future intent to vaccinate. Corrective information adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website significantly reduced belief in the myth that the flu vaccine can give you the flu as well as concerns about its safety. However, the correction also significantly reduced intent to vaccinate among respondents with high levels of concern about vaccine side effects – a response that was not observed among those with low levels of concern. This result, which is consistent with previous research on misperceptions about the MMR vaccine, suggests that correcting myths about vaccines may not be an effective approach to promoting immunization.
For more, please read the article in Vaccine or check out some of the coverage to date:
-Chris Mooney, Washington Post Wonkblog
-Lindsay Abrams, Salon
-Lenny Bernstein, Washington Post
-Kathryn Doyle, Reuters
-David Shultz, Science Magazine
-Teresa Mull, The Week
-Tara Haelle, NPR
One of the key factors driving the growing scandal surrounding Bill Cosby is shared awareness of the numerous rape allegations against him, which has prompted media companies and his beloved Temple University to distance themselves from him while encouraging new accusers to come forward.
A Rolling Stone article has had a similarly galvanizing effect at the University of Virginia by reporting a pattern of sexual assaults on campus. The attention it drew to the issue prompted Teresa A. Sullivan, the university’s president, to suspend all fraternity activities until January.
Most accounts of sexual assault never reach this level of awareness, however. Few are even reported. One reason is that reporting systems on college campuses and in the criminal justice system are widely regarded as unfriendly to victims. In particular, even though research suggests that many rapists engage in repeated attacks, survivors of sexual assault are rarely aware of other victims or able to come forward together.
Callisto, an online sexual assault reporting system under development by a nonprofit called Sexual Health Innovations, aims to change this and provide better options for victims of sexual assault on college campuses.
From my new Upshot column:
How did Bill Cosby suddenly become radioactive?
On Wednesday, the cable network TV Land pulled reruns of “The Cosby Show” from the air, a development that echoed decisions by NBC to drop a sitcom starring Mr. Cosby and Netflix’s announcement that it would postpone the release of his new comedy special.
What’s surprising is the way that rape allegations against Mr. Cosby, which go back decades, have become so damaging to him now.
According to the research of Ari Adut, a University of Texas sociologist, moral scandals like this one arise when a suspected transgression becomes common knowledge.
Imagine you are President Obama. You have about two more years in office, but your agenda is dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled Congress that takes over in January. What do you do?
One obvious strategy is to search for areas of common ground. However, the prospects for resolving existing stalemates in Washington on issues like immigration reform are unclear...
Instead, Mr. Obama may seek to bring new issues into the conversation. That’s what he did Monday when he called on the Federal Communications Commission to promote “net neutrality”...
[T]he President’s increasingly public embrace of net neutrality (which he has supported since his 2008 campaign) could come at a significant cost. Though Congress is already divided along party lines on the issue, Mr. Obama’s advocacy could strengthen Republican opposition to the issue.
America has again embraced our long history of electoral overreaction. While it’s true that Republicans won a major victory at the polls, the results tell us far less about future elections than some commentary has suggested.
In particular, the widespread Democratic losses weren’t a “repudiation” of Hillary Rodham Clinton (who played a minor role). But despite claims that they actually offer her a useful opportunity to contrast herself with a Republican Congress, she doesn’t face a “great situation” for her prospective 2016 presidential candidacy either.
When the returns from tonight’s election start to become clear, the debate is likely to turn, as it so often does, to why the American people voted the way they did.
That turns out to be a very difficult question to answer, however.
Election Day creates a vast information vacuum — millions of Americans (and hundreds of reporters) are trying to figure out the outcome of an event before it has been decided. With few useful indicators of what is actually happening at the polls, rumors and misinformation can run rampant. Here’s how to avoid getting fooled.
In this polarized age, have citizens retreated into information cocoons of like-minded media sources?
A new Pew Research Center report found that the outlets people name as their main sources of information about news and politics are strongly correlated with their political views....
The Pew study has been widely interpreted to mean that people are living in partisan and ideological echo chambers — a fear that has been frequently expressed as new communication technologies have expanded the media choices of consumers...
But have the predictions of widespread media echo chambers really come true?
After a second case of Ebola was discovered among the staff of a Dallas hospital that treated an infected patient, public concerns are likely to increase about whether the United States health care system can properly respond to an outbreak.
Data from surveys suggest, however, that those views — like so many others — are being shaped by people’s partisan affilations as much as by news about the outbreak itself.
What’s more dangerous — flying on an airplane or driving to the airport? In general, auto accidents are a far greater threat than plane crashes, but we tend to devote more attention to dramatic or novel risks like threats to aviation safety.
The same principle applies to the Ebola virus. Although the outbreak is a substantial threat in West Africa, a region plagued by weak government and failing public health systems, the risk to Americans is currently minimal. By contrast, the seasonal flu kills thousands of people every year but receives relatively little attention.
Who has the edge in November’s congressional elections? According to the fund-raising emails being sent out, no one does.
Instead, both parties claim to be on the brink of defeat. Fund-raising pleas from political figures ranging from the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, to Senator Rand Paul tell voters that the campaign is close but their side is losing...
Why do campaigns keep saying they’re losing? These doom-and-gloom messages seem to be effective at motivating donors. The best evidence to support this claim comes from a new study by the social scientists Todd Rogers of Harvard and Don A. Moore of the University of California, Berkeley.
It’s no surprise that interesting and unusual claims are often the most widely circulated articles on social media. Who wants to share boring stuff?
The problem, however, is that the spread of rumors, misinformation and unverified claims can overwhelm any effort to set the record straight, as we’ve seen during controversies over events like the Boston Marathon bombings and the conspiracy theory that the Obama administration manipulated unemployment statistics.
Everyone knows there is dubious information online, of course, but estimating the magnitude of the problem has been difficult until now.
Remember Unity ’08, Draft Bloomberg or Americans Elect? Most Americans don’t either. The hype built up around these efforts to launch centrist third-party presidential campaigns came to naught.
It’s a result that seems likely to repeat itself during the 2016 election cycle.
I am a Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. I received my Ph.D. from the Department of Political Science at Duke University and served as a RWJ Scholar in Health Policy Research at the University of Michigan before coming to Dartmouth. I also tweet at @BrendanNyhan and serve as a contributor to The Upshot at The New York Times. Previously, I served as a media critic for Columbia Journalism Review, co-edited Spinsanity, a non-partisan watchdog of political spin, and co-authored All the President's Spin. For more, see my Dartmouth website.