Adam Zelizer
@adamzelizer.bsky.social
Assistant professor of Political Economy at Chicago Harris interested in legislatures, RCTs, and locked room mysteries.
In general, as I don’t know this case, and to bring the 🔥, I don’t find multiverse analyses compelling. If there are 1000 specifications that could make sense, then there probably is no research design or reason to believe the results.
November 30, 2025 at 8:19 PM
In general, as I don’t know this case, and to bring the 🔥, I don’t find multiverse analyses compelling. If there are 1000 specifications that could make sense, then there probably is no research design or reason to believe the results.
It doesn’t make them sloppy or bad researchers. I’m sure everyone has a result that is weaker than it looks. There are top researchers who have real howlers of errors or misleading analyses (good luck to anyone trying to publicize those). And we don’t have to protect our friends from criticism.
November 30, 2025 at 8:19 PM
It doesn’t make them sloppy or bad researchers. I’m sure everyone has a result that is weaker than it looks. There are top researchers who have real howlers of errors or misleading analyses (good luck to anyone trying to publicize those). And we don’t have to protect our friends from criticism.
And just because someone has published something wrong doesn’t mean they have to dig in and fight the replication! We need to normalize saying “maybe the evidence isn’t as strong as presented. I still think it is convincing, but there are, as always, reasons to be skeptical.”
November 30, 2025 at 8:19 PM
And just because someone has published something wrong doesn’t mean they have to dig in and fight the replication! We need to normalize saying “maybe the evidence isn’t as strong as presented. I still think it is convincing, but there are, as always, reasons to be skeptical.”
Am I wrong to read this as "Hey, we spend a bunch of money on agriculture research anyway. Some of it looks at tech, AI, etc, so what the hell, let's make it look like a political win for the administration."
November 7, 2025 at 5:51 PM
Am I wrong to read this as "Hey, we spend a bunch of money on agriculture research anyway. Some of it looks at tech, AI, etc, so what the hell, let's make it look like a political win for the administration."
In 2021, McConnell successfully filibustered a Democratic CR ahead of a government shutdown and forced them to accept a clean one instead. What happened this week - a total cave on a totally partisan long-term funding bill - hasn’t happened in the 20 years I’ve covered Congress.
March 15, 2025 at 3:31 PM
Did Dems ever make meaningful concessions to get Republicans to increase the debt ceiling? I just don’t recall.
March 14, 2025 at 2:10 PM
Did Dems ever make meaningful concessions to get Republicans to increase the debt ceiling? I just don’t recall.
I suppose more of a prediction.
March 4, 2025 at 5:00 AM
I suppose more of a prediction.
Agreed. It was supposed to be Russ Vought, a pretty boring, senate approved bureaucrat hollowing out the state. Instead it’s a billionaire with tons of baggage who loves the spotlight. Doesn’t seem like good politics for team Trump.
February 5, 2025 at 1:44 AM
Agreed. It was supposed to be Russ Vought, a pretty boring, senate approved bureaucrat hollowing out the state. Instead it’s a billionaire with tons of baggage who loves the spotlight. Doesn’t seem like good politics for team Trump.
No one’s arguing there aren’t uninformed voters. I just find it hard to believe uninformed voters are swayable and not partisans for other reasons, and that they all care about inflation and not other issues.
And I don’t see how partisan biases are so relevant to swing voters.
And I don’t see how partisan biases are so relevant to swing voters.
February 2, 2025 at 8:09 PM
No one’s arguing there aren’t uninformed voters. I just find it hard to believe uninformed voters are swayable and not partisans for other reasons, and that they all care about inflation and not other issues.
And I don’t see how partisan biases are so relevant to swing voters.
And I don’t see how partisan biases are so relevant to swing voters.
And there are lots of inattentives not voting based on inflation but on other things. So how many are left for the blind retrospection story? Are 3% of voters inattentive but single minded on inflation? I think it’s more likely they’re focused on more salient attributes like race and gender.
February 2, 2025 at 8:06 PM
And there are lots of inattentives not voting based on inflation but on other things. So how many are left for the blind retrospection story? Are 3% of voters inattentive but single minded on inflation? I think it’s more likely they’re focused on more salient attributes like race and gender.