The Gist, September 19, 2025

Episode: Brendan Nyhan: Measuring Political Violence Without Panic
Host: Mike Pesca
Guest: Brendan Nyhan, Professor of Government, Dartmouth College; Co-director, Bright Line Watch

Episode Overview

This episode explores the reality behind alarming statistics on Americans' support for political violence. Host Mike Pesca brings on political scientist Brendan Nyhan to challenge widely cited figures suggesting that a sizable portion of Americans support violent action against political rivals. Together, they discuss how polling methods shape our perceptions of danger, the dangers of misinterpreting data, and whether media and political elites are fueling unnecessary panic and polarization. The conversation highlights the need for measured understanding in a heated era.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Media Hype vs. Real Support for Violence

• Topic: Overblown statistics about political violence
• Discussion:
  • Pesca notes widespread panic over claims that nearly "a quarter to a third of your fellow citizens are pretty eager to execute their rivals."
  • Nyhan quickly debunks alarming statistics (e.g., "39% of Democrats support the use of force to get Trump out of office") as the result of poorly designed survey questions and inattentive responses.
  • Notable Quote ([08:27]):
    • Nyhan:

    "I knew it dramatically overstated the actual support for physical violence... When you screen for people who are paying attention, you make sure they're paying attention and you pin down the meaning of these terms, you find again and again that the percentage of Americans who explicitly endorse physical violence... is well under 10%."

2. How Polls Inflate Violent Sentiment

• Topic: Survey design and interpretation flaws
• Discussion:
  • Nyhan explains that "single item questions" often lead inattentive respondents to click the middle option, artificially inflating support for violence.
  • When following up with clarifying questions, respondents clarify their definition of "force," usually referring to nonviolent actions like protests or arrests, not physical violence.
  • Notable Quote ([09:28]):
    • Nyhan:

    "People who seem to endorse this, when you actually ask them what they mean, they say things like, well, he should be removed from office through protests... arrested. Is that the use of force? Yes, in a vague sense. But... it doesn't mean the people... are actually saying that the president should be shot..."

3. Dangers of Misperception and Media Amplification

• Topic: Effects of misinformation escalation
• Discussion:
  • Both worry that exaggerated numbers drive fear and fuel extremism, as people begin to believe "the other side" is plotting violence, which can encourage preemptive aggression.
  • Nyhan notes that elites (politicians and media) amplify anecdotes, making isolated online posts seem representative.
  • Notable Quote ([13:19]):
    • Pesca:

    "An assassination that dominates news coverage tends to concentrate the mind."

    • Nyhan:

    "There were Facebook posts written by a dozen or so people that seemed to explicitly endorse what happened. And those were all over the news... It's really important to keep [the denominator] in mind..."

4. Aftermath of High-Profile Political Violence

• Topic: Reactions after the Trump assassination attempt
• Discussion:
  • Contrary to expectations, endorsement of political violence decreased—likely because elites condemned it across the spectrum.
  • Broader point: Clear, unified elite rejection of violence reduces public acceptance.
  • Notable Quote ([14:01]):
    • Nyhan:

    "After the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, endorsement of political violence actually went down rather than up... Elites came together and said support for political violence is bad."

5. Authoritarian Responses and Public Tolerance

• Topic: The Trump administration’s crackdown post-assassination attempt
• Discussion:
  • Nyhan compares current U.S. trends to those in authoritarian states, emphasizing that everyday life often continues "normally" even as repressive measures ramp up.
  • The "Kimmel" incident is discussed as an example of state overreach—in this case, the FCC calling for a comedian to be removed over controversial jokes.
  • Notable Quote ([16:54]):
    • Nyhan:

    "Life in authoritarian countries is mostly boring and tolerable... you walk around and it's mostly fine. And people are doing all the same stuff that we're doing here."

6. The Political Effect of Public Crackdowns

• Topic: The impact of government censorship on public perception
• Discussion:
  • Pesca argues that controversies, like the Kimmel situation, allow Trump and allies to dominate attention and benefit politically, regardless of underlying facts.
  • Nyhan cautions against assuming such crackdowns will always backfire or harm their initiators, as control of the narrative is often in Trump's favor.
  • Notable Quote ([20:51]):
    • Nyhan:

    "It's the use of government power to silence speech. That's what's so pernicious... The key element here is the role of the FCC chairman in calling for him to be taken off air... We'll see [how the public perceives that]."

7. Lessons from Previous Election Violence Predictions

• Topic: Forecasting failures and conditional predictions
• Discussion:
  • The media heavily predicted violence after elections, but it did not materialize—though, Nyhan argues, many forecasts were conditional on a Trump loss.
  • The low incidence of violence is consistent with better-conducted polls: most people do not engage in or support violence at all, but a very small group can cause significant disruption.
  • Notable Quotes ([23:28 – 25:01]):
    • Nyhan:

    "The overall expert track record of forecasting is not great... Many forecasts were conditional. You should think of as being essentially conditional on Trump losing and he won... The last time Republicans lost a presidential election, we had January 6th."

    • "Despite millions and millions of Americans endorsing the false claim that the election was stolen from Donald Trump, almost none of them engaged in violence to try to change the outcome... On the other hand, a couple thousand people went to the Capitol... It's not zero."

8. Shifting Narratives and Elite Influence

• Topic: How politicians and elites reframe political violence
• Discussion:
  • Pesca and Nyhan observe that initial bipartisan condemnation of January 6th quickly gave way to partisan revisionism. Trump’s pardoning and reframing of January 6th participants changed Republican attitudes.
  • Notable Quote ([25:31]):
    • Nyhan:

    "January 6th has been, you know, retconned in the jargon into something totally different... So we can, even if most of us don't support political violence, many of us can come to excuse it. And that's worrisome, too."

Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes

• On questioning alarming stats:
  • Nyhan ([08:27]): "I knew it dramatically overstated the actual support for physical violence... well under 10%."
• On consequences of panicked coverage:
  • Nyhan ([12:30]): "People perceive political violence as being widely supported... They may be vulnerable to thinking the other side endorses it widely. And that's very dangerous."
• On Facebook posts and news amplification:
  • Nyhan ([13:24]): "[A dozen] Facebook posts... seemed to explicitly endorse what happened... But you have to think about the denominator."
• On elite cues reducing violence:
  • Nyhan ([14:01]): "Elites came together and said support for political violence is bad. And those cues from elites matter."
• On public apathy under authoritarianism:
  • Nyhan ([16:54]): "Life in authoritarian countries is mostly boring and tolerable... but people are doing all the same stuff that we're doing here."
• On the perils of government censorship:
  • Nyhan ([20:51]): "It's the use of government power to silence speech. That's what's so pernicious about that."
• On shifting perceptions of January 6th:
  • Nyhan ([25:31]): "January 6th has been... retconned... So we can, even if most of us don't support political violence, many of us can come to excuse it."

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:28 — Pesca introduces the episode’s theme: Are rising claims of political violence evidence-based, or panic-driven?
• 08:15 — Conversation with Brendan Nyhan begins
• 08:27 — Nyhan debunks "39% of Democrats support violence" statistic
• 09:28 — Nyhan details survey methodology and flaws
• 12:30 — Discussing dangers of widespread misperception
• 13:19 — The impact of media on perceived violence trends
• 14:01 — Nyhan on elite cues and public attitudes post-assassination attempt
• 16:54 — Life under authoritarianism and public complicity
• 20:51 — The Kimmel incident and government overreach
• 23:28 — Review of failed election violence predictions and their conditions
• 25:31 — Retconning January 6th and the malleability of public opinion
• 26:14 — Interview ends

Tone and Language

• The tone is sharp, skeptical, inquisitive, and occasionally irreverent—true to The Gist’s "responsibly provocative" style.
• Both Pesca and Nyhan speak plainly but precisely, with frequent asides and explanations aimed at a lay audience.
• They emphasize nuance, caution against panic, and stress the importance of rigorous, contextualized interpretation of political data.

Summary Takeaway

While headlines trumpeting a spiraling wave of political violence make for compelling (and panic-inducing) news, the actual underlying support for violent action in America is far lower than most media reports suggest. Brendan Nyhan demonstrates that better polling methods consistently show very modest endorsement of violence—even if a small, not-zero minority can still pose serious risks. Crucially, exaggerated fears can themselves become a danger, inflaming partisanship, undermining trust, and, ironically, increasing the risk of real conflict. The solution? Rigorous skepticism, careful survey design, and a refusal to stoke hysteria for clicks or partisan gain.