Political scientists are obligated to repost news of elections decided by single votes. I'm sorry, but I don't make the rules.

🚨 New paper out at @bjpols.bsky.social with @benlauderdale.bsky.social & @chriswratil.bsky.social! We ask: How does populist rhetoric affect the electoral fortunes of candidates? And is it successful in changing the issue preferences of voters? Three key findings in the 🧵 below:

#OpenAccess from our latest issue - Public Preferences Over Changes to the Composition of Government Tax Revenue - cup.org/3E8Avcx - @lucy-barnes.bsky.social, Julia de Romémont & @benlauderdale.bsky.social

This paper from B&L in APSR First View responds to our study (Fowler et al. 2023). We very much appreciate the dialogue. However, we believe our results are robust to the exercise B&L have undertaken and have produced a series of analyses to support that conclusion. tinyurl.com/5a7x26e7 (1/7)

Just published on APSR First View: ""Moderates"" by David Broockman and Benjamin Lauderdale. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/moderates/4C8917D91FCFD7ECA74E5D2DB5C741FE#r6

Off to Wembley to pass my Tebbit Test.

It is never a good sign when the sector you work in is receiving multiple articles a day in the FT.

It took one term after we were encouraged to do “Continuous Module Dialogue” using Menti (so that everyone in the classroom could see responses in real time) for us to conclude that {open-ended responses; real-time unmoderated; anonymous} is a set where you must choose at most two of three.