Activism

Expect The Worst? Political Scientists Have a Pessimism Bias, Study Finds

The research, co-authored by UC Berkeley political scientist Andrew T. Little, offers a possible solution: an approach that aggregates experts’ predictions, finds the middle ground, and then reduces the influence of pessimism, leading to the possibility of “remarkably accurate predictions.”

Published

1 year ago

January 6, 2025

Oakland Post

Fears of unknown political outcomes. iStock image.

Political experts surveyed recently were prone to pessimism — and were often wrong, says a study co-authored at UC Berkeley. Still, when their predictions were averaged out, they were ‘remarkably accurate’

By Edward Lempinen, UC Berkeley News

The past decade has seen historic challenges for U.S. democracy and an intense focus by scholars on events that seem to signal democratic decline. But new research released two weeks ago finds that a bias toward pessimism among U.S. political scientists often leads to inaccurate predictions about the future threats to democracy.

The study was released by Bright Line Watch, a consortium of political scientists who focus on issues related to the health of U.S. democracy. It offers provocative insight into political scientists’ predictions for the months ahead, including some that would be seen as alarming risks for democracy.

According to an analysis that Little distilled from a Bright Line Watch survey done after the November election, political scientists generally agreed that incoming Republican President Donald Trump is highly likely to pardon MAGA forces imprisoned for roles in the Jan. 6, 2021 uprising that sought to block the peaceful transfer of power from Trump to Democrat Joe Biden.

The research concluded that it’s less likely, but still probable, that Trump will pardon himself from a series of federal criminal convictions and investigations, and that his allies will open an investigation of Biden.

In understanding the future course of U.S. politics, Little said in an interview, it’s important to listen to the consensus of expert political scientists rather than to individual experts who, sometimes, become media figures based on their dire predictions.

“If we’re worried about being excessively pessimistic,” he explained, “and if we don’t want to conclude that every possible bad thing is going to happen, then we should make sure that we’re mainly worrying about things where there is wider consensus (among political scientists).”

Believe the Consensus, Doubt the Outliers

For example, the raw data from hundreds of survey responses studied by Little and Bright Line researchers showed that more than half of the political scientists also expected Trump to form a board that would explore the removal of generals; deport millions of immigrants; and initiate a mass firing of civil service government employees.

But once the researchers aggregated the scholars’ opinions, determined the average of their expectations and controlled for their pessimism bias, the consensus was that the likelihood of those developments falls well below 50%.

Bright Line Watch, founded in 2016, is based at the Chicago Center on Democracy and is collaboratively run by political scientists at the University of Chicago, Dartmouth College, the University of Michigan and the University of Rochester in New York.

The research collaboration between Little and the Bright Line Watch scholars sprang from a collegial disagreement that emerged last January in the pages of the journal Political Science and Politics.

Little and Anne Meng, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, authored a research paper in that issue positing that there is little empirical, data-based evidence of global democratic decline in the past decade.

At the request of the journal editors, scholars at Bright Line Watch submitted a study to counter the argument made by Meng and Little.

But in subsequent weeks, the two teams came together and, in the study released on Dec. 17, found agreement that raw opinion on the state of democracy skews toward pessimism among the political scientists who have participated in the surveys run by Bright Line Watch.

A Stark Measure of Pessimism (and Error)

Surveys conducted during election seasons in 2020, 2022 and 2024 asked political scientists to provide their forecasts on dozens of scenarios that would be, without doubt, harmful for democracy.

The raw data in the new study showed a high level of inaccuracy in the forecasts: While the political scientists, on average, found a 45% likelihood of the negative events happening, fewer than 25% actually came to pass.

Before last month’s election, Bright Line Watch asked the political scientists to assess dozens of possibilities that seemed to be ripped from the headlines. Would foreign hackers cripple voting systems? Would Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, declare victory before the winner was called by the news media? Would Trump incite political violence again?

Altogether, the political scientists predicted a 44% probability for the list of negative events — but only 10% actually happened.

In the interview, Little defended the focus on possible negative developments by political scientists and others. It’s “very important” to be aware of the potential for harmful developments, he said.

But the focus on worst-case scenarios can also be distracting and destabilizing. The question, then, is why political scientists might develop a bias for pessimism.

To some extent, Little said, it may be a matter of expertise. The data show that scholars who specialize in American politics tend to be the least pessimistic — and the most accurate — forecasters. Political scientists with expertise in international relations, political theory or other areas tend to be more pessimistic and less reliable.

Little offered several other possible explanations. For example, he said, when scholars focus on one narrow area, like threats to democracy, they might see the potential threats with a heightened urgency. Their worry might shape the way they see the wider political world.

“People who study authoritarian politics are probably drawn to that because they think it’s an important problem, and they think it’s a problem that we need to address,” he explained. “If you spend a lot of your time and effort focusing on bad scenarios that might happen, you might end up thinking they’re more likely than they really are.”

And occasionally, he said, scholars may find that raising alarms about imminent dangers to democracy leads to more media invitations.

The Battle for Scholars’ Public Credibility

For the interwoven fields of political science and journalism — and for the wider health of democracy — accuracy is essential. That’s the value of the analytical system described by the authors of the new study. If researchers can find the expert consensus on complex issues and tone down unwarranted alarm, understanding should improve, and democracy should operate more efficiently.

Still, Little cautioned, it would be a mistake to discount or discard the insights offered by expert political scientists.

“You don’t want to say, ‘I’m just going to ignore the experts,’” he advised. “This research shows that that would be a very bad idea. Once you do the adjustments, the experts are very informed, and you can learn a lot from what they say.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Port of Oakland to Host January Meeting for Interfaith Council of Alameda County

Don't Miss

UC Berkeley’s 2024 Winter Commencement: A Day of Reflection, Celebration and Advice

Oakland Post

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: The National Protest Must Be Accompanied with Our Votes

Just as Trump is gathering election data like having the FBI take all the election data in Georgia from the 2020 election, so must we organize in preparation for the coming primary season to have the right people on ballots in each Republican district, so that we can regain control of the House of Representatives and by doing so, restore the separation of powers and balance that our democracy is being deprived of.

Published

16 hours ago

February 10, 2026

Oakland Post

Dr. John E. Warren, Publisher San Diego Voice & Viewpoint Newspaper. File photo..

By Dr. John E. Warren, Publisher San Diego Voice & Viewpoint Newspaper

As thousands of Americans march every week in cities across this great nation, it must be remembered that the protest without the vote is of no concern to Donald Trump and his administration.

In every city, there is a personal connection to the U.S. Congress. In too many cases, the member of Congress representing the people of that city and the congressional district in which it sits, is a Republican. It is the Republicans who are giving silent support to the destructive actions of those persons like the U.S. Attorney General, the Director of Homeland Security, and the National Intelligence Director, who are carrying out the revenge campaign of the President rather than upholding the oath of office each of them took “to Defend The Constitution of the United States.”

In California, the primary comes in June 2026. The congressional races must be a priority just as much as the local election of people has been so important in keeping ICE from acquiring facilities to build more prisons around the country.

“We the People” are winning this battle, even though it might not look like it. Each of us must get involved now, right where we are.

In this Black History month, it is important to remember that all we have accomplished in this nation has been “in spite of” and not “because of.” Frederick Douglas said, “Power concedes nothing without a struggle.”

Today, the struggle is to maintain our very institutions and history. Our strength in this struggle rests in our “collectiveness.” Our newspapers and journalists are at the greatest risk. We must not personally add to the attack by ignoring those who have been our very foundation, our Black press.

Are you spending your dollars this Black History Month with those who salute and honor contributions by supporting those who tell our stories? Remember that silence is the same as consent and support for the opposition. Where do you stand and where will your dollars go?

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Congresswoman Simon Votes Against Department of Homeland Security, ICE Funding

“They need accountability. Republicans already gave these agencies an unprecedented $170 billion for immigration enforcement, funding they have used to conduct raids at schools, separate families, and deploy a masked paramilitary who refuse to identify themselves on American streets. This bill gives them more funding without a single reform to stop unconstitutional, immoral abuses,” she said.

Published

17 hours ago

February 10, 2026

Oakland Post

Congresswoman Lateefah Simon (D-CA-12). File photo.

By Post Staff

Congresswoman Lateefah Simon (D-CA-12) released a statement after voting against legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which supports Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB).

“Today, I voted NO on legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security through Feb. 13, 2026.

“ICE and CBP do not need more funding to terrorize communities or kill more people,” she said in the media release.

“They need accountability. Republicans already gave these agencies an unprecedented $170 billion for immigration enforcement, funding they have used to conduct raids at schools, separate families, and deploy a masked paramilitary who refuse to identify themselves on American streets. This bill gives them more funding without a single reform to stop unconstitutional, immoral abuses,” she said.

“The American people are demanding change. Poll after poll of Americans’ opinions show overwhelming support for requiring ICE agents to wear body cameras and prohibiting them from hiding their faces during enforcement actions. This is the bare minimum transparency standard, and this funding legislation does not even meet this low bar,” Simon said.

“Republicans in Congress are not serious about reining in these lawless agencies. Their refusal to make meaningful changes to the DHS funding bill has consequences that go beyond immigration enforcement. TSA agents who keep our airports safe and FEMA workers who help our communities recover from disasters are stuck in limbo due to Republican inaction.

“The Constitution does not have an exception for immigrants. Every person on American soil has rights, and federal agencies must respect them. The East Bay has made clear at the Alameda County and city level that we will hold the line against a violent ICE force and support our immigrant communities – I will continue to hold the line and our values with my votes in Congress.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Post Newspaper Invites NNPA to Join Nationwide Probate Reform Initiative

The Post’s Probate Reform Group meets the first Thursday of every month via Zoom and invites the public to attend. The Post is making the initiative national and will submit information from its monthly meeting to the NNPA to educate, advocate, and inform its readers.

Published

17 hours ago

February 10, 2026

Oakland Post

iStock.

By Tanya Dennis

The National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) represents the Black press with over 200 newspapers nationwide.

Last night the Post announced that it is actively recruiting the Black press to inform the public that there is a probate “five-alarm fire” occurring in Black communities and invited every Black newspaper starting from the Birmingham Times in Alabama to the Milwaukee Times Weekly in Wisconsin, to join the Post in our “Year of Action” for probate reform.

Reporter Tanya Dennis says, “The adage that ‘When America catches a cold, Black folks catch the flu” is too true in practice; that’s why we’re engaging the Black Press to not only warn, but educate the Black community regarding the criminal actions we see in probate court: Thousands are losing generational wealth to strangers. It’s a travesty that happens daily.”

Venus Gist, a co-host of the reform group, states, “ Unfortunately, people are their own worst enemy when it comes to speaking with loved ones regarding their demise. It’s an uncomfortable subject that most avoid, but they do so at their peril. The courts rely on dissention between family members, so I encourage not only a will and trust [be created] but also videotape the reading of your documents so you can show you’re of sound mind.”

In better times, drafting a will was enough; then a trust was an added requirement to ‘iron-clad’ documents and to assure easy transference of wealth.

No longer.

As the courts became underfunded in the last 20 years, predatory behavior emerged to the extent that criminality is now occurring at alarming rates with no oversight, with courts isolating the conserved, and, I’ve heard, many times killing conservatees for profit. Plundering the assets of estates until beneficiaries are penniless is also common.”

Post Newspaper Publisher Paul Cobb says, “The simple solution is to avoid probate at all costs. If beneficiaries can’t agree, hire a private mediator and attorney to work things out. The moment you walk into court, you are vulnerable to the whims of the court. Your will and trust mean nothing.”

Zakiya Jendayi, a co-host of the Probate Reform Group and a victim herself, says, “In my case, the will and trust were clear that I am the beneficiary of the estate, but the opposing attorney said I used undue influence to make myself beneficiary. He said that without proof, and the judge upheld the attorney’s baseless assertion. In court, the will and trust is easily discounted.”

The Black press reaches out to 47 million Black Americans with one voice. The power of the press has never been so important as it is now in this national movement to save Black generational wealth from predatory attorneys, guardians and judges.

The next probate reform meeting is on March 5, from 7 – 9 p.m. PST. Zoom Details:
Meeting ID: 825 0367 1750
Passcode: 475480

All are welcome.