This week in Politics and Polls, Julian Zelizer and I discuss how data should inform coverage – but sometimes doesn’t. And also the role of storytelling!
Also, we try our spiffy new sound setup, which involved sticking my head into a canvas box. Thankfully, there is no video of this.
Like what we’re doing? Please upvote us in iTunes! (Open it in iTunes, then click Ratings and Reviews.) Enough votes and we become New and Noteworthy! [WWS] [iTunes] [SoundCloud]
To the question in the thread title? The media does keep interest in the election up. I may deplore their techniques but it does help turnout. I’m not sure this isn’t the reason for polarization though. It’s all about winners and losers.
See David Wasserman’s piece on the role of primaries in driving polarization – made me think.
I tend to agree with, I think, Ezra Klein, who said that in the 20th century polarization was artificially reduced because civil rights/racism was the most divisive issue in the country and it cut across party lines. That is no longer true, so we have moved to a more natural, extreme level of polarization.
I read an article that backs the Wasserman theory. Many Republican candidates want to distance themselves from Trump for the general election but have been told to hold their tongues until after their primaries or they might not make it to the election.
I found the audio levels on this most recent podcast very low. Turning up the volume on my laptop as high as it would go, I could hardly hear you guys.
Dr. Wang, what is the reason that you state that the “snapshot” for your methods would almost always be around 99% for one candidate or the other, while the equivalent 538 “snapshot” varies much more, form the 50’s to the low 90’s? I know it must be a difference in methods, but I can’t figure out what that difference is…
Leave a Reply