I never met Gordon Wood, but I have a story about him. In one of my grad school seminars, we read Wood’s Creation of the American Republic. The sheer erudition and evidentiary depth of the book bowled me over. Back then, before kids and before life accelerated to warp speed, I used to call my mother every Sunday to catch up. Lots of times, we ended up talking about what I was reading that week in my grad seminars or for leisure. Mom had an omnivorous mind, and she was always looking for something else to read. She was a true intellectual—curious about almost everything, always eager to integrate new arguments or ideas into her existing schemas of how the world worked or to have those schemas challenged and changed. When we talked that particular Sunday, I think I tried to describe to her part of Wood’s argument about the relationship between the state constitutions during the Articles of Confederation era and the federal Constitution. Maybe I was tired, maybe I didn’t completely understand her questions, but the end result of the conversation was that Mom had questions about Wood’s argument that I didn’t answer satisfactorily. I told her that she should probably just read the book, and we said goodbye. She did eventually read the book, but the next Sunday, Mom started our conversation by saying, “Well, I had a lovely conversation with Gordon Wood this week.” For a split second, I thought she was joking, but then I remembered who I was dealing with. I started to sweat. “How?” I asked. A whole variety of unlikely scenarios in which the foremost historian of the American Revolution and my mother, who lived in Wichita, Kansas, might have met ran through my mind. “Oh, I just looked up his office phone number on Brown’s website and called, and he picked up!” Mom said. I decided I would have to find another profession. As it ended up, Gordon Wood spent about an hour on the phone with my mother answering her questions about the Constitution. Ever since, I’ve had a soft spot for the man when I imagine him picking up the phone in Providence and finding Becky Elder from Wichita on the other end of the line. His generosity in that moment spoke very well of him. Rest in peace, professor.

Early experiments on the persuasive power of AI chat systems raised big hopes in political communication: what could be better than letting AI do the hard work of persuading people? It’s not that simple. Yes, experimental studies show that AI-generated content can convey information and even change opinions. But these studies usually measure persuasion under forced-exposure conditions. They do not show how people feel about being approached by an AI with persuasive intent. Findings from a new study with @OuzhouAdi suggest that AI-mediated political outreach does not necessarily help campaigns and may carry negative consequences. In a preregistered 2x2 experiment in the US and UK (N = 1,800 per country), we test how people react to announced political contact: either from a human campaign volunteer or an AI-mediated system, and in each case with either an informational or persuasive purpose. We find two clear patterns: 🔸 Persuasion penalty: outreach with explicit persuasive intent is rated more negatively than purely informational outreach 🔸 AI penalty: AI-mediated outreach is rated more negatively than human outreach across almost all outcome variables, in both countries Importantly, the negative effects of AI-mediated outreach are especially pronounced when the contact is framed as informational. In other words, the costs of AI appear even in contexts that may initially seem more legitimate or less problematic. The negative reaction also extends beyond the contact itself to the organization behind it, with implications for trust, avoidance, and reputation. Much of the existing research asks: can AI change opinions? We ask: how legitimate and acceptable does AI-mediated political outreach appear to people in the first place? If we focus only on persuasive effectiveness, we risk overlooking the larger costs of deploying such systems. Working Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2603.27413v1

New short paper w @j_kalla! Candidates gain from moderation, but less than many theories expect. Many conclude voters must not care about issues. This is wrong. Small *average* effects mask large effects on specific issues & are consistent with widespread issue-based voting 🧵

There's been a lot of talk in recent weeks about the American right and fractures within today's GOP. What does it mean to be MAGA? Can President Trump’s coalition remain cohesive once he exits the stage? To explore these questions, the @ManhattanInst has conducted one of the most exhaustive surveys to date of the emerging multi-ethnic, working-class GOP: we asked nearly 3,000 voters—including large oversamples of black and Hispanic Republicans and/or 2024 Trump voters—about a wide range of policy issues, as well as identity politics, populism, conspiracy theories, antisemitism, and other forms of racial bias. I break down our findings below. 🧵

RT @RosieDuffield1: This is beyond absurd now. thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/a…

Thread on new working paper with @CSElmendorf & @dbroockman. Feedback appreciated!

If you could build a perfect Democratic candidate in a lab what would they look like? Well we ran a Mad Libs style conjoint test and…we had fun with this one

The data can be found here. I've downloaded the data and have already begun to explore it. Super cool! politicsatwork.org/

Currently in FirstView: In “Odd Profiles in Conjoint Experimental Designs: Effects on Survey-Taking Attention and Behavior,” @KCBansak and Libby Jenke consider how survey-takers respond to odd combinations of conjoint attributes.

Have we lost a shared commitment to self-governance? We need to rebuild the framework to ensure it succeeds. My latest for @NRO out over the weekend:

From Madison’s literary society to today’s campus silencing, we forgot what democracy requires. | @SL_Schaeffer trib.al/Mp5e7Bt

We’re forgetting how to do democracy. That’s the real lesson of 2020, 2024, the lawfare, the war on civil liberties, the insanity that’s engulfed what used to be called public life. A very thoughtful and timely piece c/o @SL_Schaeffer nationalreview.com/2025/06/s…

Great article on our need to learn how to disagree

🚨NEW PAPER: Why are Members of Congress so extreme? We conducted a 4-wave panel of thousands of voters in 27 districts during last year’s primary AND general elections to trace polarization’s roots The results challenge conventional wisdom… and suggest lessons for parties🧵👇

We need limited, #effective government that oversees & manages the most basic functions of society. Our article ran on the Sunday Opinion page in 12 papers across southern CA today, including the @ocregister, @DailyBreezeNews, and @PasStarNews. dailybreeze.com/2025/01/25/t…

Great article about reconnecting with your city from @SL_Schaeffer ... weak ties and connections matter! nationalreview.com/2024/12/s…