John relates a story about a public radio podcast on the elections which was canceled because, according to the producer:
Unfortunately, we decided not to cover the economics of elections. We were having trouble finding the tension in the piece, because everyone we talked to agreed with you – economics was going to matter in 2010. We were finding it difficult to build 20-25 minutes around the topic.
I’d just like to put a positive spin on this frustrating experience that John had (spending an hour on an interview which never ran).
The negative view is that poli sci research is viewed as boring so nobody hears about it. But consider the upside–and I’m serious here–ideas about the predictability of elections and the importance of the fundamentals have become commonplace. This is a big success of political science! When Bob Erikson, Steven Rosenstone, and others were working on this stuff, 30 years ago, it was packed away in academic monographs and journals. I think it’s a major success of political science that these ideas have become mainstream.
I also think we were mostly (if not always) successful in shooting down the idea that rich people are now liberal Democrats.
In contrast, some other political ideas have not been completely absorbed into the journalistic consciousness, perhaps for good reason. For example, the “median voter theorem” supplies some useful insights into politics but its importance is often overstated, and it requires some context to be understood. In the absence of such context, this “theorem” will and should remain controversial.
My take-home point: If a journalist thinks your ideas are uncontroversial, maybe that’s a good sign!