
Insights from recent episode analysis
Audience Interest
Podcast Focus
Publishing Consistency
Platform Reach
Insights are generated by CastFox AI using publicly available data, episode content, and proprietary models.
Most discussed topics
Brands & references
Total monthly reach
Estimated from 33 chart positions in 33 markets.
By chart position
- 🇨🇦CA · Government#28100K to 300K
- 🇺🇸US · Government#6330K to 100K
- 🇫🇷FR · Government#3430K to 100K
- 🇰🇷KR · Government#4730K to 100K
- 🇮🇳IN · Government#4830K to 100K
- Per-Episode Audience
Est. listeners per new episode within ~30 days
153K to 514K🎙 ~2x weekly·157 episodes·Last published 1w ago - Monthly Reach
Unique listeners across all episodes (30 days)
306K to 1.0M🇨🇦29%🇺🇸10%🇫🇷10%+30 more - Active Followers
Loyal subscribers who consistently listen
92K to 308K
Market Insights
Platform Distribution
Reach across major podcast platforms, updated hourly
Total Followers
—
Total Plays
—
Total Reviews
—
* Data sourced directly from platform APIs and aggregated hourly across all major podcast directories.
On the show
From 12 epsHosts
Recent guests
Recent episodes
Is Abortion Policy Out Of Step With Public Opinion?
Jun 11, 2026
53m 19s
The Political Effects of the Opioid Crisis
May 14, 2026
1h 05m 21s
Is the Median Justice Running the Supreme Court?
Apr 24, 2026
1h 09m 57s
Why Does America Pay More For Infrastructure?
Mar 26, 2026
50m 42s
What Binary Questions Get Wrong About Voters
Mar 12, 2026
38m 43s
Social Links & Contact
Official channels & resources
Official Website
Login
RSS Feed
Login
| Date | Episode | Topics | Guests | Brands | Places | Keywords | Sponsor | Length | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6/11/26 | ![]() Is Abortion Policy Out Of Step With Public Opinion?✨ | abortion policypublic opinion+4 | Natalie Hernandez | YaleAsymmetric Representation: Post-Roe Abortion Policy and Public Opinion in the U.S. States | U.S. Statesred states+1 | abortionpublic opinion+5 | — | 53m 19s | |
| 5/14/26 | ![]() The Political Effects of the Opioid Crisis✨ | opioid crisispolitical realignment+3 | Victoria Barone | University of Notre DameNBER+2 | — | opioid epidemicpolitical fallout+5 | — | 1h 05m 21s | |
| 4/24/26 | ![]() Is the Median Justice Running the Supreme Court?✨ | Supreme Courtjudicial decision-making+3 | Jonathan P. Kastellec | Princeton UniversityUniversity of Chicago Podcast Network | — | Supreme Courtmedian justice+3 | — | 1h 09m 57s | |
| 3/26/26 | ![]() Why Does America Pay More For Infrastructure?✨ | infrastructurecost analysis+3 | Leah Brooks | George Washington University | United StatesGermany+1 | infrastructure costshighway construction+3 | — | 50m 42s | |
| 3/12/26 | ![]() What Binary Questions Get Wrong About Voters✨ | voter polarizationpublic opinion+3 | — | University of Chicago Podcast Network | — | voterspolarization+3 | — | 38m 43s | |
| 2/19/26 | ![]() Do Dishonest People Self-Select Into Public Service?✨ | academic dishonestypolitical power+4 | Shaoda Wang | University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy | China | academic dishonestypolitical power+4 | — | 52m 58s | |
| 2/6/26 | ![]() The Future of Empirical Research in the Age of AI✨ | empirical researchAI in politics+3 | Andy HallGraham Straus | StanfordHow Accurately Did Claude Code Replicate and Extend a Published Political Science Paper? | — | empirical auditAI research+3 | — | 47m 27s | |
| 1/22/26 | ![]() Are Primary Elections Responsible for Polarization in Congress?✨ | primary electionscongressional polarization+3 | Anthony | Journal of PoliticsDo Primary Elections Exacerbate Congressional Polarization? | — | primary electionsCongress+7 | — | 37m 34s | |
| 1/1/26 | ![]() What Do Politicians Think Motivates Voters?✨ | voter motivationpolitical assumptions+3 | Jack Lucas | University of CalgaryPoliticians’ Theories of Voting Behavior | — | voterspoliticians+3 | — | 55m 20s | |
| 12/18/25 | ![]() Do Professors Self-Censor On Controversial Topics?✨ | self-censorshipcontroversial topics+4 | Cory Clark | New College of FloridaUniversity of Chicago Podcast Network+1 | — | self-censorshippsychology professors+3 | — | 58m 59s | |
Want analysis for the episodes below?Free for Pro Submit a request, we'll have your selected episodes analyzed within an hour. Free, at no cost to you, for Pro users. | |||||||||
| 11/27/25 | ![]() Is Partisan Gerrymandering As Bad As You Think?✨ | partisan gerrymanderingpolitical science+3 | Kosuke Imai | PrincetonUniversity of Chicago Podcast Network+2 | — | gerrymanderingpolitics+5 | — | 55m 42s | |
| 11/14/25 | ![]() Do Donors Punish Extremist Primary Nominees?✨ | political donationsextremism+3 | Andy Christopher Wayne Myers | Stanford University | — | donorsextremist nominees+3 | — | 59m 29s | |
| 10/30/25 | ![]() The Economic Cost of Populism | More than 25 percent of countries around the world are currently governed by populists, from Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, to Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, and Donald Trump in the United States. Based on these findings, populism is at an all-time high, and taking a significant economic toll, according to a recent paper by Christoph Trebesch and his co-authors. Trebesch is Professor of Economics at Kiel University. He and his co-authors find that populism leads to slower economic growth, undermines democratic institutions, and can leave the country more vulnerable to future populist governments. | — | ||||||
| 10/16/25 | ![]() Is Political Science Research Underpowered? | What if most political science studies are too weak to find the effects they’re looking for? In this episode, we dig into a new paper by Vincent Arel-Bundock and colleagues that reveals a striking truth: quantitative political science is greatly underpowered. With thousands of tests analyzed, the authors show that many studies have only a one-in-ten chance of detecting real effects — and that even experts vastly overestimate the field’s strength. Arel-Bundock is Professor of Political Science at the Université de Montréal. In his new paper, he concludes that methodologists greatly overestimate the statistical power of political science research. | — | ||||||
| 10/2/25 | ![]() Can Trade Be A Weapon Of Global Power? | For decades, free trade was treated as an unquestioned good—an engine of prosperity and cooperation. But today, leaders from Washington to Beijing are rethinking trade as something very different: a tool of power. In this episode, we dive into new research with Harvard’s David Yang that asks: how do trade relationships actually give countries leverage over one another? Why might exports matter more than imports when it comes to power? And how do tariffs, subsidies, and industrial policy reshape not just economies, but the global order itself? We explore what this means for U.S.–China rivalry, Trump’s tariffs, Germany’s dependence on Russian oil, and why trade power may sometimes matter as much as military power. | — | ||||||
| 9/12/25 | ![]() Should Unelected Judges Be Deciding National Policy? | Every week, headlines tell us that a single federal judge has blocked a presidential order—sometimes halting major policies for years. But should that be possible? Is it democratic? In this episode, we dig into the rise and fall of universal injunctions—a little-known legal tool that allowed one judge to freeze nationwide policy. With a recent Supreme Court decision, those injunctions are now off the table, but the ruling raises bigger questions: Has the Court consolidated power for itself? What does this mean for the balance between the executive branch, lower courts, and the justices in Washington? We talk with Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General and Harvard Law professor, to unpack the legal mechanics, political stakes, and the hidden negotiations between the Supreme Court and the presidency. The result is a story about law, politics, and power that goes far beyond the headlines. | — | ||||||
| 8/21/25 | ![]() Do Politicians Really Have A Conservative Bias? | Political scientists have long argued that legislators believe the public is more conservative than it really is—potentially shaping policies that don’t align with what voters actually want. But what if that story is incomplete? In this episode, we talk with University of Chicago political scientist Adam Zelizer, who challenges the conventional wisdom. His new research suggests that politicians may not be systematically biased to the right, but rather exhibit something he calls “midpoint bias”. We unpack why this matters: How do politicians perceive their constituents? Are surveys of public opinion misleading policymakers—or are policymakers just inattentive? And what does this all reveal about the messy relationship between democracy, representation, and what voters actually want? | — | ||||||
| 8/7/25 | ![]() Do We Understand Members Of The Other Party? | Do Democrats and Republicans really misunderstand each other as much as we think? This week, we dive into a surprising new experiment that puts that idea to the test — literally. Psychologist and researcher Adam Mastriani created a kind of “political Turing test,” asking people to write persuasive statements from the perspective of the opposite political party. Then, he tested whether others could tell the real from the fake. The results? Most people couldn’t. We unpack what this means for our understanding of polarization, partisan animosity, and political identity. Is the problem really misunderstanding — or something deeper? Are partisans more empathetic than we give them credit for? Or are they just really good at writing what they think others want to hear? We also explore the experiment’s implications for political science research, theory-building, and the broader sociology of science. | — | ||||||
| 7/24/25 | ![]() MechaHitler and The Political Bias of AI Chatbots | When you ask ChatGPT or Gemini a question about politics, whose opinions are you really hearing? In this episode, we dive into a provocative new study from political scientist Justin Grimmer and his colleagues, which finds that nearly every major large language model—from ChatGPT to Grok—is perceived by Americans as having a left-leaning bias. But why is that? Is it the training data? The guardrails? The Silicon Valley engineers? Or something deeper about the culture of the internet itself? The hosts grapple with everything from “Mecha Hitler” incidents on Grok to the way terms like “unhoused” sneak into AI-generated text—and what that might mean for students, voters, and future regulation. Should the government step in to ensure “political neutrality”? Will AI reshape how people learn about history or policy? Or are we just projecting our own echo chambers onto machines? | — | ||||||
| 7/10/25 | ![]() Does The Supreme Court Need Term Limits? | We're taking some time off to regroup over the summer, but we’re not just dusting off this older episode for no reason. When we first released it, we were grappling with what Supreme Court reform might look like—specifically, whether we should rethink lifetime appointments and move toward term limits. Now? The stakes feel even higher. In just the last few weeks, we’ve seen the Court issue decisions that fundamentally reshape presidential power—often in ways that don’t reflect where the broader public seems to be. Once again, the question has come roaring back: should nine unelected justices hold this much sway for life? In this episode, we dive into a proposal that’s gaining more traction: fixed 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices. It’s a reform that President Biden’s commission studied—and one that could change the balance of power in U.S. politics for decades. Whether you’re a reform skeptic or a true believer, this conversation is more relevant than ever. Let’s get into it and we’ll be back in two weeks with brand new episodes. | — | ||||||
| 6/27/25 | ![]() Are We Really Hopelessly Divided? | Before we get into today’s episode, we wanted to let you know this is a re-release as we take some time to regroup over the summer. But we’re not just dusting it off for no reason. If anything, this episode feels even more relevant now than when we first aired it.It raises a big question: Are voters really thinking for themselves? Or are they just reflexively rejecting anything the other side says? In this episode, we dig into that question with new experimental research that challenges the conventional wisdom. Are Americans hopelessly divided? Or are they actually more open-minded than we give them credit for—if we present information in the right way? We’re re-releasing this one because it gives us a more hopeful, evidence-based look at polarization—and how the way we talk about politics might be part of the problem. And if you’re exhausted by the headlines, this episode just might change how you see American voters. | — | ||||||
| 6/12/25 | ![]() The Surprising Political Consequences Of Emigration? | Migration policies shape not only the economies of countries but also their politics. In this episode, we dive deep into how letting people leave—or restricting their exit—can have surprising ripple effects on collective action and political reform in their home countries. Yale political scientist Emily Sellars reveals why migration might weaken the power of ordinary people to organize and push for change—and why even those who leave might ultimately lose out. Could closing borders paradoxically strengthen democracy abroad? We unpack a provocative new model that challenges our assumptions about emigration and its role in global politics. Papers discussed: “Emigration And Collective Action”: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/704697?journalCode=jop | — | ||||||
| 5/28/25 | ![]() Is Trump Copying Obama’s Playbook on Universities? | What if the recent crackdown on elite universities didn’t start with Trump—but with Obama? In this episode, we trace a surprising through-line connecting Obama’s Title IX enforcement to Trump’s Title VI threats. Harvard Law Professor Jacob Gersen joins us to reveal how both presidents used informal bureaucratic tools to reshape higher education—often without Congress. What does this say about presidential power and academic freedom in America? Papers discussed: “The Sex Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143 “The Six Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199652 | — | ||||||
| 5/8/25 | ![]() Is This the Most Unexpected Voter Turnout Strategy Ever? | What if one of the most powerful tools to boost voter turnout isn’t a flashy campaign or a new voting law—but being randomly forced to work the polls? In this episode, we explore a surprising study of women in 1930s Spain who were randomly assigned to serve as poll workers—just after they gained the right to vote. The results? A massive, 30-point increase in future voting behavior. Is this just a historical curiosity—or a window into how habit, exposure, and civic experience shape democracy? We speak with researcher Toni Rodon about his paper Working for Democracy: Poll Officers and the Turnout Gender Gap, and unpack what this unexpected experiment teaches us about gender, political culture, and the power of participation. | — | ||||||
| 4/25/25 | ![]() Should Judges Be Elected Like Politicians? | Hello listeners, we're taking a much-needed spring break here at the podcast, but we want to re-share one of our episodes that has become increasingly salient. One of the defining features of the Trump administration so far is its entanglement with the courts. The legality or illegality of many of its actions are currently being decided by federal judges. Which means that judges suddenly have a lot of say over our politics. Is that good? There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics and elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right? | — | ||||||
Showing 25 of 160
Pitch Fit is a Pro feature
See how bookable this show is for guests, which brands already advertise, the per-episode ad value, and the best-fit guest and sponsor profile. The numbers are blurred on the free plan.
How readily this show books outside guests like you.
How proven this show is for host-read sponsorships.
For Guests
ProFor Advertisers
ProUpgrade to Pro to unlock guest cadence, sponsor categories, fit scores, and per-episode ad value for this show.
Chart Positions
33 placements across 33 markets.
Chart Positions
33 placements across 33 markets.
