Brendan Nyhan

New NYT: How old is too old for president?

My new Upshot column is on the influence of partisanship on attitudes toward the age of presidential candidates - specifically, how the views of Democrats are likely to change now that Hillary Clinton is the likely older candidate instead of John McCain, Bob Dole, or Ronald Reagan:

Does a candidate’s age matter in presidential elections? It’s less relevant than you might think.

A Pew poll released last week asked voters how likely they would be to support a presidential candidate with various traits or experiences, like being a governor, a Catholic or a woman. Although these might seem like important factors in how people make up their minds, voters often seem to work backward, rationalizing their views of the likely contenders rather than expressing a strong preference for a particular type of candidate.

Read the whole thing for more.

New NYT: Why LBJ/Obama comparisons can mislead

In a new Upshot column for the 50th anniversary of the Great Society speech, I take on the LBJ mythology that plays a central part in the Green Lantern theory of presidential power:

Lyndon Johnson was not known as a great orator, but 50 years ago today he stood before graduates at the University of Michigan and described his vision of “the Great Society” — a more humane society that “demands an end to poverty and racial injustice.” In his efforts to achieve those goals he enacted programs like Medicare, food stamps and the Voting Rights Act, giving Johnson an image of legislative effectiveness that every president since has been measured against.

On the anniversary of the speech, it’s worth taking a closer look at the Johnson presidency and the frequent comparisons invoked by critics of President Obama and analysts in the press.

The implications of Johnson’s administration for Obama are different from what many of these commentators think. What we perceive as presidential leadership (or lack of it) often reflects structural factors that are largely beyond the control of the chief executive himself — a reality of presidential power that critics of Mr. Obama’s speechmaking and relations with Congress often fail to appreciate.

Read the whole thing for more.

New NYT: Jeb Bush's electoral mismatch problem

Why is Jeb Bush struggling to find a message that will resonate in the 2016 invisible primary contest for the GOP presidential nomination? One reason, I argue in a new Upshot column, is the mismatch between the Florida electorate he previously served and the national GOP primary electorate:

The former Florida governor Jeb Bush is a strong potential candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination with one big problem — finding a message that will resonate with the activists, donors and elected officials who dominate the invisible primary process...

It’s true that Mr. Bush’s political skills may be rusty after seven years out of elected office.

But the deeper problem is that the messaging and positions that worked for him in Florida — a swing state with a large Hispanic population — are not necessarily a good fit with the national G.O.P. primary electorate, which is far whiter and more conservative.

Read the whole thing for more.

New NYT: The role of elites in Holocaust denial

In a new Upshot column that was published yesterday, I explore the relationship between domestic elite conflict and misperceptions using new survey data on Holocaust denial. Here's how it begins:

Why do misperceptions become widespread? More often than not, they have been spread by elites seeking political advantage. Many of the most significant myths and false claims in American politics were popularized or promoted by elites like Sarah Palin and Michael Moore, for instance. The same logic often applies internationally.

Read the whole thing for more.

New NYT: Democrats' issue advantage won't save them

In my new Upshot column, I show that the Democrats' current advantage on major issues in the polls is unlikely to allow them to escape what appears to be an unfavorable electoral landscape:

Democrats know they face a difficult midterm campaign landscape, but they can cling to one seeming reason for hope: The public agrees with them more than with Republicans on the issues.

More Americans say they trust Democrats than Republicans on the “main problems the nation faces over the next few years” as well as a number of key policy issues, including the economy, health care and immigration. Members of the public also typically indicate that Democrats are closer to their opinion than Republicans on specific issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and raising the minimum wage.

This apparent political advantage is less important than it might seem, however. For instance, Democrats had greater advantages on several major issues at comparable points in the 1994 and 2010 electoral cycles, which both resulted in Republican landslides.

For more, read the whole thing.

New NYT: The wisdom of partisan crowds

My new Upshot column is on pundit predictions and how the miracle of aggregation can make even a group of individuals with strong partisan biases collectively more accurate than they are individually. Here's how it begins:

Watching pundits and politicos speculate about what will happen in a coming election can feel like an exercise in futility. Most predict that their side will win, so what do we learn? This blather may be more informative than it seems, however.

Read the whole thing for more.

New NYT: Clinton's real problem is Obama fatigue

My new column for The Upshot focuses on a potential threat to Hillary Clinton's presidential prospects that is more significant than Benghazi - Obama fatigue after eight years of Democratic control of the White House. Here's how it begins:

The latest investigation into the Benghazi attack reminds us that the issue isn't going away any time soon. Pundits are already speculating about potential damage to Hillary Clinton's presidential prospects, but don't believe the hype: Scandals rarely matter much in presidential election campaigns.

A far more significant threat to her potential candidacy is Americans' desire for new leadership after eight years of the Obama administration. A Pew Research Center/USA Today poll found this week that 65 percent of Americans would "like to see a president who offers different policies and programs." Only 30 percent said they wanted ones "similar to those of the Obama administration."

Some of those disaffected citizens are presumably Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who will ultimately support the party's nominee in 2016, but the problem that the poll highlights is real. Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist, calls this the "time for change" effect.

Read the whole thing for more.

New NYT: Vaccine skeptics can be immune to education

In a column posted at The Upshot on Thursday, I draw on my research with Jason Reifler, Sean Richey, and Gary Freed to explore the reasons that educational efforts in support of childhood vaccines may sometimes fail:

Vaccines will prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of children born this year over their lifetimes. So why are potentially dangerous numbers of parents in some states opting out of one of the great achievements of modern medicine?

One explanation is that these parents are misinformed, seduced by the false claims like the myth that vaccines cause autism. If so, giving them accurate information might change their minds about protecting their children against communicable diseases like measles — a near-eradicated disease that has flared anew.

That's apparently the assumption behind the educational mandates that some states are creating or considering for parents who want exemptions from vaccine requirements.

But I recently conducted a study with several colleagues in which we found that parents with mixed or negative feelings toward vaccines actually became less likely to say they would vaccinate a future child after receiving information debunking the myth that vaccines cause autism.

For more, read the whole thing.