If you’re looking for a heavily right- or leftwing podcast, this isn’t for you. Each week’s discussion does not react to the buzzword of the week, nor does it follow a particular woke or MAGA script. Research is incorporated and discussed thoughtfully, but it doesn’t become academic navel gazing. My only complaint is that Wioletta needs a professional mic! It sounds like she’s recording on beat-up Thinkpad from 1996.

This isn’t a show where you will get the normal hot takes and such from the hosts that are recycled during the 24 hours news cycle. It reminds me a lot on how seminars would work in undergrad where everyone would pick and prod at the discussion raised by a certain piece of quantitative (well as much as you can get from this field) research. That might turn off the average Joe, whose looking to see what the leanings of the hosts are, but if that doesn’t interest you, the show is perfect for discussing why we see such trends in the world.

Thought this would have been a discussion with new or different insights. It is not. Analysis seemed shallow & information cited very standard

The discussion by Matthew Levendusky about the Supreme Court was the most superficial banal bit of pablum I’ve heard in a long time. My views on the Court are not based on New York Times reporting. Nor is it based on its partisan ruling on Roe. It’s the fact that for the past few years, this Court twists its argument to fit its predetermined decision. And in many cases they actually twist the “facts” to support their predetermined decision (eg. See Kennedy). They bounce between their interpretation of “originalism” or “textualism” or “history and tradition” to support their partisan position. They have gutted voting rights. They have stalled the trial decisions on Trump. You didn’t even mention the two biggest reasons for the illegitimacy of the Supreme Court. The overt corruption of Alito and Thomas. And the immoral and totally partisan appointment of Gorsuch and Barrett. Your speaker was vapid and your analysis of his paper was shallow. Very disappointing.

I would like to know - is the author a progressive. All of this voter id discussion is bogus. Did they determine these voters who showed without Id do they have a drivers license? So a few voters show up without the requirements to vote. So blacks and Hispanics vote at lower levels than whites. Blacks and Hispanics vote Democrat. So if we lower requirements for these two groups we nay increase Democrat votes. Which the author obviously wants. He is an activist. How many showed up at the liquor store without Id. In my lifetime the most famous case of fraud reported widely was in Chicago and the Nixon Kennedy election. In that case Democrats paid five dollars for each vote and John Kennedy‘s father paid the bill this is viewed to be a decisive move and now we are faced with widespread activist in the Barack Obama tradition across the country under the ruse of black lives matter or antifa that all support the Democratic Party. It is a party built on fraud and they originated through the Ku Klux Klan many anti-racist efforts to keep black people from voting. Now the Democrats want to accuse Republicans that voter ID laws are racist. I am concerned that you never address in this paper or podcast how much fraud or fraud there is and what other voter ID actually stops VoterFraud. You never even mention it to Jay to focus on the bogus notion that voter ID which is a drivers license for heaven sake’s stops black people and Hispanic people from voting. This is not good editorial or academic research this is activism.

This show ignores the deep structural inequality built into America’s political institutions — particularly around race. In a political era shaped by white nationalist politics and converging racial justice movements, the absence of lens that looks at how group hierarchy steers elections and polices is hard to ignore. Feels very ivory tower like, and fails to incorporate the rich political insights present in a diverse metro like Chicago. I listened for about a year. This show feels very exclusive and elitist like a lot of other politics podcasts. I think the hosts could learn a lot by engaging with more black scholars who have the same empirical training, but a much richer appreciation for the role that power plays in American politics.

Has some good insights and discussions, but everything is from a right-leaning perspective and directed to that segment. They have missed acknowledging the experiences of disenfranchised groups. They have also made statements and assumptions that for a different slice of the population would not be true, but they act like it is true for everyone. They have also minimized the threat that the far right extremists are.

When you know the commentators political affiliation within the first 30 seconds of the show, you might want to think for yourself and find a podcast that encourages you to do the same.

Based on several that I’ve listen to, it’s not not another political podcast

More than halfway into an episode on whether Americans really believe in democracy I realized the panelists had not even touched upon the antidemocratic legacy of racism in the U.S. That’s crucial. America has a history of believing that white people, have a right to vote and Blacks don’t. It’s an important part of the conversation that was missing. I couldn’t take the scholars seriously after noticing this absence, not just an elephant in the room but an entire herd of elephants. My apologies if, in the last few minutes of the podcast, the professors noted that, by the way, we didn’t address racism. But it should have been part of the discussion.