Brendan Nyhan

My interview with Brooke Gladstone about the prospects for fact-checking in the age of Trump:

(I also did a related interview on fact-checking and Trump with New Hampshire Public Radio.)

From my new Upshot column:

It’s time for that annual American holiday tradition: awkward political conversation at the Thanksgiving dinner table. With the 2016 presidential primary campaign in full swing and public interest on the rise, the odds are good that relatives will share their thoughts with you about why one candidate will win or how another is going to destroy America. I can’t tell you how to keep your family away from sensitive topics, but here are brief answers to some frequently asked questions about current events and the 2016 race.

From my new Upshot column:

With all the reporting and commentary that faulted President Obama for not displaying more anger at his news conference Monday on the Paris attacks, it almost seemed as if people hoped he would bring back Luther, the satirical “anger translator” played by Keegan-Michael Key who appeared alongside him at the White House Correspondents Dinner in April.

Displays of emotion have become an expected ritual in the age of the televised presidency, but President Obama has often been reluctant to reveal how he feels after major events. This pattern goes back to the very beginning of his time in office.

From my new Upshot column:

Until last week, the threat from terrorism had received little attention from candidates or voters during the 2016 campaign. In one poll, just 3 percent of Americans rated it the most important problem facing the country.

The horrific attacks that took place Friday in Paris have, at least for the moment, changed that dynamic. CBS quickly moved to increase the emphasis on foreign policy and national security during Saturday night’s Democratic debate. Candidates are scrambling to adjust to the news, which media analysis has suggested might “alter” the character of the race, for instance by helping more experienced candidates like Hillary Rodham Clinton and hurting outsiders like Donald Trump.

How long-lasting an effect will the Paris attacks have on the United States presidential race? Absent further attacks, the suggestion that Paris will prove to be a “game changer” is unlikely to be correct.

From my new Upshot column:

For years, activists and scholars have contended that groups who reject the scientific consensus on climate change are employing tactics once used to create doubt about the dangers of smoking.

Now environmentalists are taking a page from tobacco opponents by suggesting oil companies misled investors and the public about the risks of climate change. The first step toward a legal inquiry came Wednesday evening when the New York attorney general subpoenaed records from Exxon Mobil.

While this tactic helped tobacco opponents win over regulators and the public, it may be a less effective approach to addressing political opposition to climate change — an issue on which both elites and the public are deeply divided.

From my new Upshot column:

The Democratic presidential candidates covered a lot of ground during their debate Tuesday, but one issue received little attention: their theory of political change. How exactly would Hillary Rodham Clinton or her rivals pass the programs and proposals they advocate?

From my new Upshot column:

Sports fans may have more in common with political partisans than you might think — specifically, a home-team bias that shapes what they believe to be true about the world.

As a result, the beliefs of fans — or partisans — who know the most about a particular controversy are often more polarized, not less. It’s true in politics, science and, perhaps surprisingly, sports.

That’s what my colleagues and I found when we examined what the public believes about the ball-deflation controversy that started in last season’s N.F.L. playoffs and that is likely to continue to provoke further debate this week before Sunday night’s game between the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts.

From my new Upshot column:

With House Republicans in disarray after John Boehner’s likely successor withdrew from the Speaker’s race Thursday, speculation has grown about potential damage to the party’s chances in the 2016 election. Will voters punish the G.O.P. for the actions of a conservative faction that blocked Kevin McCarthy’s ascension and has been willing to repeatedly risk government shutdowns in confrontations with President Obama?

Recent history suggests that the political costs of turmoil and confrontation for the G.O.P. are likely to be minimal.

From my new Upshot column:

Is Hillary Rodham Clinton not presenting her true self to voters? As with candidates like Mitt Romney and Al Gore, claims that she is inauthentic have fueled endless cycles of negative coverage of her campaign.

In reality, all politicians are strategic about the image and behaviors they present to voters. Some just hide the artifice better than others.

From my new Upshot column:

Over the last few weeks, a number of Republican presidential candidates have begun to criticize President Obama and the Black Lives Matter protest movement, saying they are encouraging crime. Although there’s little evidence of a crime wave outside of a few major cities where homicides have increased, the political rationale seems obvious: The candidates are playing to the G.O.P. base, a normal part of the primary season.

Another possibility, though, is that Republicans are also still searching for the best angle of attack against Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Democrats, who remain narrow betting market favorites in 2016. Despite recent economic turbulence, the Democrats’ main advantage at this point is a generally positive economic outlook for next year, which requires Republicans to look for other issues they can wield against the incumbent party.