It is surprisingly difficult to convince voters of partisan conspiracy theories

The United States is the place to go for conspiracy theories, with older controversies surrounding the assasination of John F. Kennedy and the mood landing giving way to the ‘9/11 was an inside job’ tendency and more recently the supposed deception around Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Here, Joseph Uscinski takes a look at ‘partisan’ conspiracy theories in the United States, and finds that in order to buy into a partisan conspiracy theory, one needs to be both inclined to believe in conspiracy theories and have partisan inclinations that match the logic of the particular conspiracy theory, making it difficult to convince a huge swathe of voters

If Trump’s rhetoric around conspiracy theories follows him to the White House, it could lead to the violation of rights on a massive scale

Even before his increasingly successful presidential run, Donald Trump was well known as being a promoter of conspiracy theories, which began with his accusations that President Obama was not born in the US, and was thus ineligible for the presidency. But how would a conspiracy theorist act if elected to the White House? Joseph E. Uscinski writes that while conspiracy theories resonate the most when they originate with the least powerful and accuse the most powerful, Trump’s conspiracy theories which target vulnerable groups such as refugees, immigrants and Muslim-Americans, could rally violent public support for his views

How playing on conspiracy theories can be key to electoral success

Why are some conspiracy theories more popular than others? Joseph E. Uscinski writes that conspiracy theories which go past partisan rivalry and target a political or economic system, or even a whole class of people, are usually much more attractive to a larger number of people than theories which concern a single event or person. He argues that Donald Trump has taken advantage of this bias towards more general conspiracy theories, and has employed them extensively during the current election campaign to gain voters’ favor

What does Russia’s doping scandal tell us about the nature of political conspiracies?

Russia’s participation in the athletics events at the 2016 Olympic games remains under threat following evidence of doping by Russian athletes in previous competitions. Joseph E. Uscinski writes on what the scandal says about the nature of political conspiracies

Almost 60 percent of Americans believe in conspiracy theories about JFK. Here’s why that might be a problem

November 22nd marks 55 years since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. More than half a century after the event, a majority of Americans believe that more people were involved with the killing than simply Lee Harvey Oswald. Joseph E. Uscinski takes a close look at Kennedy conspiracy theories, arguing that one of the reasons they appeal so much is that there are so many of them. He writes that these beliefs, while appearing to be relatively harmless, have been fueled by the government’s often lack of transparency over the years, which may have helped to further erode trust in public officials

Why are conspiracy theories popular? There’s more to it than paranoia.

Conspiracy theories have long played a part in political debates. Following the recent meeting of the Bilderberg group in Watford, Joseph E. Uscinski assesses why the popularity of conspiracy theories has proven so resilient. He argues that some of the most common explanations, such as the notion that a belief in conspiracy theories reflects psychological defects like paranoia or mental illness, do not stand up to scrutiny. Rather conspiracy theories gain traction simply because many people are predisposed to viewing the world in conspiratorial terms

The continued traction of Kennedy assassination theories shows that our predispositions towards believing in conspiracies are as strong as ever

Friday marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. While nearly five decades have passed since the event, conspiracy theories still abound as to who was behind the killing. Joseph Uscinski and Joseph Parent argue that Kennedy assassination theories have been among the most durable because of the enormous coverage and discussions that have surrounded them since 1963, and the deference that they receive in the mainstream media. They write that as long as people are socialized to be more predisposed to see conspiracies, conspiratorial beliefs will remain with us

Partisanship, history, and people’s predispositions for believing in conspiracies are fuelling fears about Ebola

Recent weeks and months have seen rising fears about the spread of Ebola in the U.S. But the available evidence suggests that this is very unlikely. Why, then to people continue to be concerned? Joseph M. Parent and Joseph E. Uscinski look at the role that conspiratorial beliefs have played in people’s fears about Ebola. They write that for many, the Ebola outbreak is confirmation of conspiracy theories already held – that it is part of an Obama plot to ‘humble U.S. power or cancel elections, or that the pharmaceutical companies are somehow responsible. These beliefs are interacting with people’s partisanship and historical experiences to produce more fear about Ebola among large parts of the population

Unfounded fears about sex trafficking did not begin with QAnon and go far beyond it.

The last two years have witnessed an explosion of headlines and concern over the apparent growth of ‘QAnon’, a far-right conspiracy group that believes President Trump is battling against ‘deep state’ child sex traffickers. Using national survey data, Joseph E. Uscinski and Adam M. Enders find that, far from having widespread support, most Americans view the QAnon movement unfavorably, and that they also wildly overestimate the true extent of child sex trafficking

Why holding a presidential nominating convention in a swing state matters

This week the media’s narrative shifts from Cleveland Ohio, the site of the 2016 Republican National Convention, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where the Democrats are holding their convention. That nominating conventions provide a ‘bump’ in the polls for a party’s candidate is relatively well known – but is there an effect on the states and cities which are holding them? Research from Christopher B. Mann and Joseph E. Uscinski shows that party conventions can swing voters in nearby counties, which can in turn shift the statewide outcome in a close contest. Both parties, they write, get an electoral boost from nearby counties that heavily lean towards them, but can experience a polling backlash in counties which support the other side