I am hiring for two full-time pre-doctoral research fellows, to start this coming summer. One fellow will focus on American democracy, while the other will focus on technology, governance, and society. If you are a current or recent undergrad with strong technical skills and no

The majority of Americans think Trump will not concede if he loses (12% of Democrats and 38% of Republicans) BUT belief that Kamala will concede if she loses is also low (86% of Democrats and 43% of Republicans) Likely a lot of expressive responding, but not ideal

Hire Derek! We've been incredibly grateful to have him at PRL. A fantastic, hard-working researcher plus a great colleague and person. Learn more about his work 👇

In our latest Path to 2024 report, we find that Americans are worried about the future of democracy (44%) but less so than 2 years ago (58%). Republicans are more concerned and more resigned to the end of democracy. Yphtach Lelkes Sean Westwood Full report: prlpublic.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/Aug202…

Is a study robust when its findings depend on the inclusion of a single observation? In a new report, Benjamin Guinaudeau and I discuss this question based on the replication of an American Political Science Review article. A thread on our main findings.

APSR: no correction is necessary, because nobody believes these kinds of studies anyway

In his dissertation, my graduate student showed that political endorsements by scientific publications: (1) don't convince anyone about politics; (2) make people less likely to believe scientists when it comes to vaccines, health advisories, etc. nature.com/articles/s4156…

New article in Weekendavisen, where I write on Justin Grimmer, Sean Westwood and Dean Knox recent working paper on the art and science of election forecasting.

Science is mostly government funded. Republicans control the government about half of the time. If scientists can't stop talking about how much they hate Republicans, they will not keep getting funded. You don't have to like it, it's foolish to ignore it.

Yes. Brandon Stewart and I make similar point here: arthurspirling.org/documents/what… People can and should publish explorations; no need (and actually bad) to dress it up as “testing” something

There is a lot to worry about this election, but right now concerns about political violence might be a distraction. nytimes.com/2024/09/22/us/… Also, check out our weekly survey showing how flat support for political violence actually is: americaspoliticalpulse.com/citizens/

🚨New Publication!🚨 Out now ahead of print at Election Law Journal with Justin Grimmer Yphtach Lelkes and Sean Westwood : "Who Are the Election Skeptics? Evidence from the 2022 Midterm Elections" liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.10…

So apparently this recent paper showing that open science practices can help increase replicability was just retracted by Nature Human Behavior. Reason appears to be that authors could not find their preregistration? nature.com/articles/s4156…

New with the amazing Nic Dias and Jake Pearl: American partisans under-estimate the diversity of each party's attitudes, and these diversity perceptions predict out-party hostility. However, we see little evidence that partisans over-estimate out-party extremity.

This retraction saga is such a mess. Setting aside the irony (about how an article championing pregregistration failed to preregister the hypotheses), there are so many other problems. Harassing people for legitimate criticism has no place in science. chronicle.com/article/this-s…