Benjamin Lauderdale
benlauderdale.bsky.social
Benjamin Lauderdale
@benlauderdale.bsky.social

Professor of Political Science at University College London

Political science 43%
Economics 19%

We have a neutral response category for people who are not sure between the candidates, so it is a 3x3 transition matrix and we don’t do the analysis in exactly those terms. Sorry, you are not getting any numbers out of me on here! You have to read the relevant chapter!

Which issues we present is fully exogenous, while the relationship between the candidate and respondent positions is potentially confounded by different kinds of people having different patterns of positions, so we have discussion of both of these separately.

It depends very strongly on which issues are presented and what positions the candidates are taking relative to the respondent’s own views.

I have recently recorded a podcast about it with my UCL colleague Alan Renwick (@alanrenwick.bsky.social), which you can listen to here: uncoveringpolitics.com/episodes/wha... (10/10)
What Role Do Citizens’ Policy Opinions Play In Their Political Choices? | UCL Uncovering Politics
This week we’re looking at the fundamentals of how people decide which way to vote. To what extent do the policy offers of different political parties shape those choices? And what is the nature of vo...
uncoveringpolitics.com
The book is open access through Oxford University Press, and is available here: doi.org/10.1093/9780... (9/10)
Idiosyncratic Issue Opinion and Political Choice
Abstract. What is the nature of mass opinion on public policies? And what role do citizens’ policy opinions play in their political choices? This book re-e
doi.org

While most of the data we analyse is from the UK, the book is engaged with ongoing debates in the US public opinion literature and from comparative politics more generally. (8/10)

This evidence enables us to give an account of public opinion regarding issues that makes sense of (for us at least) the different perspectives on the extent to which such opinion has much substance and the extent to which it is ideologically structured. (7/10)

We are also able to look at the structure and stability of how citizens choose between candidates, with (what I believe to be) the first panel candidate choice experiment, with respondents picking between the same hypothetical, randomly generated candidates at six month intervals. (6/10)

The core data in the book is from a large three wave UK panel survey at six month intervals, with detailed policy questions and candidate choice experiments. We revisit classic panel data analyses from the US and UK on the structure and stability of issue opinions with old and new methods. (5/10)

Please note: this is very much a book for political scientists and students of political science. Since I suspect that many of the people who are going to see this thread are in that group, let me flag a few highlights in terms of novel data and analysis here… (4/10)

These idiosyncratic issue opinions serve alongside more ideologically organised issue opinions as an important additional basis for citizens’ political choices. However, widespread idiosyncrasy also makes electoral politics more multidimensional, complex and volatile. (3/10)

Instead, we show that people often have issue opinions that we call idiosyncratic. They develop meaningful and stable opinions on varying sets of issues, but the combinations of opinions they form on these issues do not fit conventional ideological patterns of what goes with what. (2/10)
Nick Vivyan, Chris Hanretty (@chanret.bsky.social) and I have a new book out: “Idiosyncratic Issue Opinion and Political Choice”. The core of the book is making the argument that citizens’ views about political issues neither reduce to an ideological orientation nor to a lack of substance. (1/10)

You might as well ask it to precisely tell you a particle’s position and velocity.

Gotta make sure you are not eligible to be a reviewer.

It is published, and it is open access! academic.oup.com/book/61739

The problem is that it only makes sense for the markets to move when things are irredeemable… if markets move and it causes a policy reversal that averts the damage, then the market actors who moved made a mistake.

Like the three year old, I just want the croissant.

Ah yes, the accent is my relative strength too. I carefully plot my one sentence statement/request, and then it all falls apart when they invariably fail to reply to me using only vocabulary and grammar familiar to a native three year old.

I think a very large fraction of the variation is driven by how much you are getting cited, driven by editors using the citations in the manuscript as a list of prospective reviewers. So congratulations on your rising impact on the field!

Inexplicably you can’t get this in the US either.

I think it is fair to say that we would all lose our minds if asked to either do the reviewing on the publishing timescale, or indeed if we had to put up with the academic timescale for the publishing.

It is a window into the awkward joins inherent in academic publishing. On the one side, academics slowly and fitfully arguing with one another, everyone weakly incentivised; on the other, the ruthless industrial efficiency of people with performance targets to hit this week.

True connoisseurs start with a good acronym and work from there towards a research agenda.
Join and help to lead the Constitution Unit!

@uclspp.bsky.social is looking for a Lecturer in British and Comparative Politics who will also join our senior team and contribute to our research and impact activities.

Applicants must have, or be near to finishing, a PhD.

Apply 👇
Job opportunity: Lecturer in British and Comparative Politics
The UCL Department of Political Science and Constitution Unit are seeking to appoint a Lecturer in British and Comparative Politics. The successful candidate will join the senior team at the Unit.
www.ucl.ac.uk

It is also a generational opportunity to squeeze a few hundred million from universities without their best staff fleeing to the US, I guess.

Thanks! I do remember you!

"Oh no... you cut student events to invest in staff recruitment. The students are protesting, and the noise is reducing research productivity."

Apparently I have not fully recovered from being Head of Department yet, as the thought of playing this game made me slightly ill.

There is a fun revisionist argument to be made that when George Washington declined to be a monarch, that was bad actually. And this derived from the original mistake of focusing the Declaration of Independence on George III, who was not really the driver of the things the colonists objected to.