Politics and Polls: a podcast with Julian Zelizer

July 1, 2016 by Sam Wang

It’s a new collaboration with Julian Zelizer over in History. The first episode, produced by the Woodrow Wilson school, is posted here, as well as on iTunes. Topics include: is a 1964-like landslide possible this year? Does Brexit teach us anything about the Trump phenomenon? Does The Party Decide on nominees? Is a realignment of the two parties likely this year? (Spoiler: on all four questions, I am not bullish.) Take a listen!


David D. says:

Very excited about this! Is there an RSS feed that I can subscribe to?

538 Refugee says:

To the right of the meta margin. It’s been a while and is client specific so I remember having to play with it for a bit.

Marlene Snyder says:

I just listened to the podcast, and I think you can rest assured that your ‘junkies’ will all love it! I’m definitely one of them, really appreciate the level of discussion–respectful and intellectual–that occurs on this site.

Psychic Octopus says:

Look for the Goldwater-Wallace-Nixon pattern in Deep South states in the 1964 theough 1972 Presidential elections. In South Carolina, there was a Goldwater-Nixon-Nixon pattern because Strom Thurmond became a Republican in 1964 and supported Nixon in 1968. In 1968, Mississippi was Nixon’s worst state. In 1972, Mississippi was Nixon’s best state.

Ché says:

This needs to be in iTunes/Google_Play, or it at least needs to have an RSS feed so people can listen on their favorite podcast apps (as opposed to the clunky Soundcloud app/site).

Jewish Steel says:

I liked it! I’m excited to hear more.
For those looking to subscribe in iTunes, search for Woocast.

CyclicLaw says:

That was good stuff! Hope you guys can get these up on a podcast aggregator of some kind. My usual podcatcher can’t find it to subscribe.

Jay Sheckley says:

Congrats on the great new venue! Also, the site looks better and better every day. In the EV chart caption, you may want to replace the word gray with yellow. But about the show: Exciting! I hope PEC will link to them all. As a neuro guy, can you eventually add a little something of how different mindsets react to campaign ads, disinfo, dog whistles etc. Would any fact checking on late election misrepresentations fit into the show, or izzat too off-topic? Is there any inoffensive way to correct disinfo on say Facebook? This partisan battling is for the birds.
Is the cake baked? I ask because though election predictions are based on polls, arent results more based on turnout by party? Yet people tell me they wont vote this year or will vote for candidates who either are no longer rinning or could not possibly win. How possible izzit that so many who arent crazy about either candidate just wont vote, thereby affecting who wins? Those I spoke to feel safe not voting because they believe that polls fore-ordain the result.

Matt McIrvin says:

Well, the theory is that, while people will do all of these things, what they are likely to do is baked into what they say in the polls as well, so it won’t cause a divergence between polls and actual results. I suppose whether that’s true depends on how hard the polls push undecideds to make a choice, and whether any “likely voter” screens they use are accurate (some pollsters are notorious for building in a partisan bias with their LV screens).

Matt McIrvin says:

Whoa, are the Congressional polls now showing that a Democratic House takeover is more likely than a Democratic Senate takeover? Shocking if true…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *