Primaries, general elections, delegate math, campaign finance, field experiments, debate rules, voter behavior, and the gap between what elections are supposed to do and what they actually do.
Rick Perry’s campaign seems to be a little strapped for cash. But, his super PACs have plenty of money. What gives? Is this just bad management, or possibly a systemic regularity tied to the hot mess that is the race for the GOP presidential nomination? It’s no secret that super PACs have changed the nature of the (early) election … Read more
FOX News just announced the 10 candidates who will participate in the first primetime Republican presidential primary debate on August 6, 2015. The top 10 were decided by these procedures. Given that FOX is arguably playing a huge role in the free-for-all-for-the-GOP’s-Soul that is that race for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, it is important to consider whether, and to what … Read more
The rise of mega-donors has been an important storyline in the unfolding drama of the 2016 presidential election (for example, see here). The presence of these donors in the political game (or at least their visibility) is partially the result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. But more interesting is whether the rise of these mega-donors has caused the … Read more
The recent events in Montana have sparked a broad debate about the ethics of field experiments (I’ve written once and twice about it, and other recent posts include this letter from Dan Carpenter, this Upshot post by Derek Willis, and this Monkey Cage post by Dan Drezner). I wanted to continue a point that I … Read more
Nothing gets political scientists as excited as elections. In this previous post, I discussed the Montana field experiment controversy. In that post, I pointed out that the ethics of field experiments in elections—e.g., in which some people are given additional information and others are not—are complicated. In the majority of the post, I was attempting to … Read more
Three political scientists have recently attracted a great deal of attention because they sent mailers to 100,000 Montana voters. The basics of the story are available elsewhere (see the link above), so I’ll move along to my points. The researchers’ study is being criticized on at least three grounds, and I’ll respond to two of these, setting the third … Read more
Yesterday, while actively following the events in Ferguson, I was asked the following by @GenXMedia: White Suburban America seems riddled with apathy, excuses and disconnect about #Ferguson. Any ideas why? Upon further prompting, it became clear that @GenXMedia wanted a response to each of the three things that White Suburban America is riddled with: apathy, excuses, and disconnect. It is important … Read more
Like many people, especially here in St. Louis, the ongoing events in Ferguson have consumed my attention and, frankly, really shaken me. After much thought, I have possibly come up with a manageable take on one angle of “the math of” the situation. It is important to distinguish protest from rebellion. Protest is distinguished from rebellion on the basis … Read more
In this post on Mischiefs of Faction, Seth Masket discusses the recent debate about whether (super-)rich are overly influential in American politics. I’ve already said a bit about the recent Gilens and Page piece that provides evidence that rich interests might have more pull than those of the average American. In a nutshell, I don’t believe that … Read more
In this post, Larry Bartels provocatively claims that Rich People Rule! In a nutshell, Bartels argues (correctly) that more and more political scientists are producing multiple and smart independent analyses of the determinants of public policy, one of which, by Kalla and Broockman, I have already opined on (“Donation Discrimination Denotes Deliverance of Democracy“). Bartel’s motivation … Read more