@report {1643345,
	title = {The 2020 CES: Duplicate Respondents and Handling Asian and Hispanic Subsamples},
	year = {Working Paper},
	institution = {The Cooperative Election Study},
	abstract = {Pia Deshpande (pia_deshpande@berkeley.edu) and Jeremiah Cha (jeremiahcha@g.harvard.edu)\&nbsp;report that 25\% of the 2020 CES sample took the 2018 CES. They report best practices for conducting analyses of ethnic subgroups and produce tables documenting counts for specific Hispanic (Mexican, Puerto Rican, South American, Spanish, and U.S.-identified Hispanics)\&nbsp;and Asian (Indian, Chinese, Filipino, U.S.-identified Asians) subgroups. The report also compares the 2020 CES sample of Asians and Hispanics to the 2019 5-year American Community Survey and notes where samples differ.},
	author = {Pia Deshpande and Jeremiah Cha}
}
@article {1634163,
	title = {Fuzzy Forests For Feature Selection in High-Dimensional Survey Data: An Application to the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election},
	year = {Working Paper},
	abstract = {An increasingly common methodological issue in the field of social science is high-dimensional and highly correlated datasets that are unamenable to the traditional deductive framework of study. Analysis of candidate choice in the 2020 Presidential Election is one area in which this issue presents itself: in order to test the many theories explaining the outcome of the election, it is necessary to use data such as the 2020 Cooperative Election Study Common Content, with hundreds of highly correlated features. We present the Fuzzy Forests algorithm, a variant of the popular Random Forests ensemble method, as an efficient way to reduce the feature space in such cases with minimal bias, while also maintaining predictive performance on par with common algorithms like Random Forests and logit. Using Fuzzy Forests, we isolate the top correlates of candidate choice and find that partisan polarization was the strongest factor driving the 2020 presidential election.},
	url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.02818},
	author = {Sreemanti Dey and R. Michael Alvarez}
}
@article {1532768,
	title = {Difference-in-Differences for Ordinal Outcomes: Application to the Effect of Mass Shootings on Attitudes toward Gun Control},
	year = {Working Paper},
	abstract = {The difference-in-differences (DID) design is widely used in observational studies to estimate the causal effect of a treatment when repeated observations over time are available. Yet, almost all existing methods assume linearity in the potential outcome (parallel trends assumption) and target the additive effect. In social science research, however, many outcomes of interest are measured on an ordinal scale. This makes the linearity assumption inappropriate because the difference between two ordinal potential outcomes is not well defined. In this paper, I propose a method to draw causal inferences for ordinal outcomes under the DID design. Unlike existing methods, the proposed method utilizes the latent variable framework to handle the non-numeric nature of the outcome, enabling identification and estimation of causal effects based on the assumption on the quantile of the latent continuous variable. The paper also proposes an equivalence-based test to assess the plausibility of the key identification assumption when additional pre-treatment periods are available. The proposed method is applied to a study estimating the causal effect of mass shootings on the public{\textquoteright}s support for gun control. I find little evidence for a uniform shift toward pro-gun control policies as found in the previous study, but find that the effect is concentrated on left-leaning respondents who experienced the shooting for the first time in more than a decade.},
	url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.13404},
	author = {Yamauchi, Soichiro}
}
@article {1514150,
	title = {The Seeds of Ideology: Historical Immigration and Political Preferences in the United States},
	journal = {NBER},
	year = {Working Paper},
	abstract = {We test the relationship between historical immigration to the United Statesand political ideology today. We hypothesize that European immigrants broughtwith them their preferences for the welfare state, and that this had a long-lastingeffect on the political ideology of US born individuals. Our analysis proceedsin three steps. First, we document that the historical presence of Europeanimmigrants is associated with a more liberal political ideology and with strongerpreferences for redistribution among US born individuals today. Next, we showthat this correlation is not driven by the characteristics of the counties whereimmigrants settled or other specific, socioeconomic immigrants{\textquoteright} traits. Finally,we conjecture and provide evidence that immigrants brought with them theirpreferences for the welfare state from their countries of origin. Consistent with thehypothesis that immigration left its footprint on American ideology via culturaltransmission from immigrants to natives, we show that our results are strongerwhen inter-group contact between natives and immigrants, measured with eitherintermarriage or residential integration, was higher. Our findings also indicatethat immigrants influenced American political ideology during one of the largestepisodes of redistribution in US history {\textemdash} the New Deal {\textendash} and that such effectspersisted after the initial shock.},
	url = {https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication\%20Files/20-118_07b833d7-bafc-42dc-855e-dcdf69eb1447.pdf},
	author = {Giuliano, Paola and Marco Tabellini}
}
@article {1814566,
	title = {A rural-urban political divide among whom? Race, ethnicity, and political behavior across place, Politics, Groups, and Identities},
	journal = {Politics, Groups, and Identities},
	year = {2024},
	pages = {1-14},
	abstract = {Over the past 30 years, the United States has developed a rural-urban political divide, as rural voters have become increasingly reliable Republican voters while long-term patterns of Democratic voting in the largest cities have also consolidated in many smaller cities and suburbs as well. Yet, although 1 in 4 rural dwellers now identify as people of color, research on the rural-urban divide has either mostly centered on the behavior and attitudes of non-Hispanic whites, or assumed that nonwhites have exhibited similar behavior to whites. Does this political cleavage exist among people of color? We find that the growing rural-urban divide is driven primarily by white Americans, while rural people of color differ much less, if at all, from their urban counterparts in voting behavior and policy attitudes. In addition to highlighting the need for more research on the politics of rural people of color, our findings raise concerns about the political representation of rural Black Americans and Latinos.},
	url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21565503.2024.2328551},
	author = {Trevor E. Brown and Gisela Pedroza Jauregui and Suzanne Mettler and Marissa Rivera}
}
@article {1686116,
	title = {The Geography of Racially Polarized Voting: Calibrating Surveys at the District Level},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	year = {2023},
	abstract = {
	\&nbsp;



	Debates over racial voting, and over policies to combat vote dilution, turn on the extent to which groups{\textquoteright} voting preferences differ and vary across geography. We present the first study of racial voting patterns in every congressional district (CD) in the United States. Using large-sample surveys combined with aggregate demographic and election data, we find that national-level differences across racial groups explain 60\% of the variation in district-level voting patterns, whereas geography explains 30\%. Black voters consistently choose Democratic candidates across districts, whereas Hispanic and white voters{\textquoteright} preferences vary considerably across geography. Districts with the highest racial polarization are concentrated in the parts of the South and Midwest. Importantly, multiracial coalitions have become the norm: in most CDs, the winning majority requires support from non-white voters. In arriving at these conclusions, we make methodological innovations that improve the precision and accuracy when modeling sparse survey data.



	\&nbsp;

},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423000436},
	author = {Shiro Kuriwaki and Ansolabehere, Stephen and Dagonel, Angelo and Yamauchi, Soichiro}
}
@report {1653298,
	title = {Do Repeat CES Respondents Affect Inferences? A Preliminary Report},
	year = {2022},
	institution = {Cooperative Election Study},
	author = {Brian F. Schaffner}
}
@article {1634165,
	title = {Under the Microscope: Gender and Accountability in the US Congress},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	year = {2021},
	abstract = {
	We study how officeholder gender affects issue accountability and examine whether constituents evaluate women and men legislators differently on the basis of their policy records. Data from 2008 through 2018 show that constituents{\textquoteright} approval ratings and vote choices in US House elections are more responsive to the policy records of women legislators than of men legislators. These patterns are concentrated among politically aware constituents, but we find no evidence that the results are driven disproportionately by either women or men constituents or by issues that are gendered in stereotypical ways. Additional analyses suggest that while constituents penalize women and men legislators at similar rates for policy incongruence, women legislators are rewarded more than men as they are increasingly aligned with their constituents. Our results show that accountability standards are applied differently across legislator gender and suggest a link between the quality of policy representation and the gender composition of American legislatures.

},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421001118},
	author = {Kaslovsky, Jaclyn and Rogowski, Jon C.}
}
@article {1634164,
	title = {Senators at Home: Local Attentiveness and Policy Representation in Congress},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	year = {2021},
	abstract = {Is local attention a substitute for policy representation? Fenno (1978) famously described how legislators develop personal ties with their constituents through periodic visits to their districts and carefully crafted communications. Existing work suggests that such interactions insulate incumbents electorally, creating less need to represent constituents{\textquoteright} policy preferences. Surprisingly, this important argument has never been tested systematically. In this paper, I use data on senator travel and staffing behavior along with survey data from the 2011{\textendash}2018 Cooperative Congressional Election Study to investigate this claim. In addition to showing that areas with important campaign donors are significantly more likely to receive resources, I find that local visits may decrease approval among ideologically opposed constituents. Furthermore, I find inconsistent evidence regarding the effectiveness of local staff. These results suggest that local attention does not always cultivate goodwill in the district. Under polarized politics, home style does not effectively substitute for policy representation.},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421001088[Opens in a new window]},
	author = {Kaslovsky, Jaclyn}
}
@article {1598793,
	title = {Gone For Good: Deindustrialization, White Voter Backlash, and US Presidential Voting},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	volume = {115},
	number = {2},
	year = {2021},
	pages = {550-567},
	abstract = {Globalization and automation have contributed to deindustrialization and the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, yielding important electoral implications across advanced democracies. Coupling insights from economic voting and social identity theory, we consider how different groups in society may construe manufacturing job losses in contrasting ways. We argue that deindustrialization threatens dominant group status, leading some white voters in affected localities to favor candidates they believe will address economic distress and defend racial hierarchy. Examining three US presidential elections, we find white voters were more likely to vote for Republican challengers where manufacturing layoffs were high, whereas Black voters in hard-hit localities were more likely to vote for Democrats. In survey data, white respondents, in contrast to people of color, associated local manufacturing job losses with obstacles to individual upward mobility and with broader American economic decline. Group-based identities help explain divergent political reactions to common economic shocks.},
	url = {https://www.stephenweymouth.com/files/Baccini_Weymouth_APSR_May2021.pdf},
	author = {Baccini, Leonardo and Weymouth, Stephen}
}
@article {1590032,
	title = {Close to Home: Place-Based Mobilization in Racialized Contexts },
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	year = {2021},
	abstract = {
	How do racially concentrated policy changes translate to political action? Using official election returns, the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, and original data on the unprecedented mass closure of schools in segregated, predominantly Black neighborhoods across Chicago, we demonstrate that those living in the communities affected (1) increase their attendance at political meetings; (2) mobilize in support of ballot measures to avert future closings; and (3) increase their participation in the subsequent local election, while decreasing their support for the political official responsible for the policy on the ballot{\textemdash}at a higher rate than every other group. These findings shed light on how groups that previously participated at the lowest rates go on to participate at the highest rates on community issues that matter to them. We develop a theory of place-based mobilization to explain the role of {\textquotedblleft}the community{\textquotedblright} in acting as a site of coidentification and political action for marginalized groups.

},
	author = {Sally A. Nuamah and Thomas K. Ogorzalek}
}
@article {1557445,
	title = {Incongruent Voting or Symbolic Representation? Asymmetrical Representation in Congress, 2008{\textendash}2014},
	journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
	year = {2021},
	abstract = {The electoral connection incentivizes representatives to take positions that please most of their constituents. However, on votes for which we have data, lawmakers vote against majority opinion in their district on one out of every three high-profile roll calls in the U.S. House. This rate of {\textquotedblleft}incongruent voting{\textquotedblright} is much higher for Republican lawmakers, but they do not appear to be punished for it at higher rates than Democrats on Election Day. Why? Research in political psychology shows that citizens hold both policy-specific and identity-based symbolic preferences, that these preferences are weakly correlated, and that incongruous symbolic identity and policy preferences are more common among Republican voters than Democrats. While previous work on representation has treated this fact as a nuisance, we argue that it reflects two real dimensions of political ideology that voters use to evaluate lawmakers. Using four years of CCES data, district-level measures of opinion, and the roll-call record, we find that both dimensions of ideology matter for how lawmakers cast roll calls, and that the operational-symbolic disconnect in public opinion leads to different kinds of representation for each party.},
	author = {Adam Cayton and Ryan Dawkins}
}
@article {1452577,
	title = {Congressional Representation: the Constituent{\textquoteright}s Perspective},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	year = {2021},
	abstract = {The premise that constituents hold representatives accountable for their legislative decisions undergirds political theories of democracy and legal theories of statutory interpretation. But studies of this at the individual level are rare, examine only a handful of issues, and arrive at mixed results. We provide an extensive assessment of issue accountability at the individual level. We trace the congressional rollcall votes on 44 bills across seven Congresses (2006--2018), and link them to constituent{\textquoteright}s perceptions of their representative{\textquoteright}s votes and their evaluation of their representative.\&nbsp; Correlational, instrumental variables, and experimental approaches all show that constituents hold representatives accountable. A one-standard deviation increase in a constituent{\textquoteright}s perceived issue agreement with their representative can improve net approval by 35 percentage points.\&nbsp; Congressional districts, however, are heterogeneous. Consequently, the effect of issue agreement on vote is much smaller at the district-level, resolving an apparent discrepancy between micro and macro studies.},
	url = {https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/zuskq},
	author = {Ansolabehere, Stephen and Shiro Kuriwaki}
}
@book {1587431,
	title = {Target Estimation and Adjustment Weighting for Survey Nonresponse and Sampling Bias},
	year = {2020},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	organization = {Cambridge University Press},
	abstract = {We elaborate a general workflow of weighting-based survey inference, decomposing it into two main tasks. The first is the estimation of population targets from one or more sources of auxiliary information. The second is the construction of weights that calibrate the survey sample to the population targets. We emphasize that these tasks are predicated on models of the measurement, sampling, and nonresponse process whose assumptions cannot be fully tested. After describing this workflow in abstract terms, we then describe in detail how it can be applied to the analysis of historical and contemporary opinion polls. We also discuss extensions of the basic workflow, particularly inference for causal quantities and multilevel regression and poststratification.},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108879217},
	author = {Caughey, Devin and Adam J. Berinsky and Sara Chatfield and Erin Hartman and Eric Schickler and Jasjeet S. Sekhon}
}
@article {1577606,
	title = {Labor Unions and White Racial Politics},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	year = {2020},
	abstract = {Scholars and political observers point to declining labor unions, on the one hand, and rising white identity politics, on the other, as profound changes in American politics. However, there has been little attention given to the potential feedback between these forces. In this article, we investigate the role of union membership in shaping white racial attitudes. We draw upon research in history and American political development to generate a theory of interracial labor politics, in which union membership reduces racial resentment. Cross-sectional analyses consistently show that white union members have lower racial resentment and greater support for policies that benefit African Americans. More importantly, our panel analysis suggests that gaining union membership between 2010 and 2016 reduced racial resentment among white workers. The findings highlight the important role of labor unions in mass politics and, more broadly, the importance of organizational membership for political attitudes and behavior.},
	author = {Paul Frymer and Jake Grumbach}
}
@article {1567276,
	title = {Ideology, Not Affect: What Americans Want from Political Representation},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	year = {2020},
	abstract = {
	
		How do citizens want to be represented by elected officials in an era of affective polarization? Contemporary narratives about American politics argue that people embrace elite expressions of negative partisanship, above and beyond representation on policy. Using three conjoint experiments, I examine how individuals weigh the relative value of substantive representation on issues, constituency service, and partisan affect. The findings challenge the notion that Americans are primarily motivated by their affective, partisan identities and demonstrate the value of policy congruence and service responsiveness in terms of perceptions of political representation. The implication is that people evaluate elected officials in ways that we would expect them to in a healthy, functioning representative democracy, rather than one characterized by partisan animus. Even if polarization is driven by {\textquotedblleft}affect, not ideology,{\textquotedblright} citizens prioritize representational styles centered around the issues that matter to\&nbsp;them.
	



	
		\&nbsp;
	

},
	author = {Mia Costa}
}
@article {1531727,
	title = {Active Matrix Factorization for Surveys},
	journal = {Annals of Applied Statistics},
	volume = {14},
	number = {3},
	year = {2020},
	pages = {1182-1206},
	abstract = {Amid historically low response rates, survey researchers seek ways to reduce respondent burden while measuring desired concepts with precision. We propose to ask fewer questions of respondents and impute missing responses via probabilistic matrix factorization. A variance-minimizing active learning criterion chooses the most informative questions per respondent. In simulations of our matrix sampling procedure on real-world surveys as well as a Facebook survey experiment, we find active question selection achieves efficiency gains over baselines. The reduction in imputation error is heterogeneous across questions and depends on the latent concepts they capture. Modeling responses with the ordered logit likelihood improves imputations and yields an adaptive question order. We find for the Facebook survey that potential biases from order effects are likely to be small. With our method, survey researchers obtain principled suggestions of questions to retain and, if desired, can automate the design of shorter instruments.},
	author = {Chelsea Zhang and Sean J. Taylor and Curtiss Cobb and Jasjeet Sekhon}
}
@article {1514151,
	title = {Frontier Culture: The Roots and Persistence of{\textquotedblleft}Rugged Individualism{\textquotedblright} in the United States},
	journal = {Econometrica},
	year = {2020},
	abstract = {The presence of a westward-moving frontier of settlement shaped early U.S. history. In 1893, the historian Frederick Jackson Turner famously argued that the American frontier fostered individualism. We investigate the {\textquotedblleft}frontier thesis{\textquotedblright} and identify its long-run implications for culture and politics. We track the frontier throughout the 1790{\textendash}1890 period and construct a novel, county-level measure of total frontier experience (TFE). Historically, frontier locations had distinctive demographics and greater individualism. Long after the closing of the frontier, counties with greater TFE exhibit more pervasive individualism and opposition to redistribution. This pattern cuts across known divides in the United States, including urban{\textendash}rural and north{\textendash}south. We provide evidence on the roots of frontier culture, identifying both selective migration and a causal effect of frontier exposure on individualism. Overall, our findings shed new light on the frontier{\textquoteright}s persistent legacy of rugged individualism.},
	url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/ECTA16484},
	author = {Samuel Bazzi and Fiszbein, Martin and Mesay Gebresilasse}
}
@article {1510000,
	title = {The White Working Class and the 2016 Election},
	journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
	year = {2020},
	abstract = {Academics and political pundits alike attribute rising support for right-wing political options across advanced democracies to the working classes. In the United States, authors claim that the white working class offered unprecedented and crucial support for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. But what is the evidence for this claim? We examine all of the available academic survey data gathered around the election, along with a number of surveys from prior elections. We test four common claims about the white working class in 2016: (1) that most Trump voters were white working-class Americans; (2) that most white working-class voters supported Trump; (3) that unusually large numbers of white working-class voters switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016; and (4) that white working-class voters were pivotal to Trump{\textquoteright}s victory in several swing states. We find that three of the four are not supported by the available data, and the other lacks crucial context that casts doubt on the idea that Trump uniquely appealed to working-class Americans. White working-class Americans have been supporting Republican presidential candidates at higher rates in recent elections, but that process long predates 2016, and narratives that center on Trump{\textquoteright}s alleged appeal obscure this important long-term trend.},
	author = {Carnes, Nicholas and Lupu, Noam}
}
@article {1487649,
	title = {Incumbency status and candidate responsiveness to voters in two-stage elections beginning with a primary},
	journal = { Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties },
	year = {2020},
	abstract = {Theories of representation suggest that candidates should respond ideologically to their constituency. Two-stage elections like those in the U.S. force candidates to decide which parts of their constituency they should respond to: citizens who are active enough to participate in primaries or those who only participate in general elections. We posit that non-incumbent candidates should mostly focus on the preferences of primary voters while incumbents should be largely unmoved by the preferences of either set of voters. We test these expectations using data from U.S. House and Senate contests and find support for our theory. Our results suggest that scholars should pay closer attention to the two-stage nature of U.S. elections when evaluating electoral responsiveness.},
	author = {Kevin K. Banda and Thomas M. Carsey and John Curiel}
}
@article {1487452,
	title = {The Elusive Likely Voter: Improving Electoral Predictions With More Informed Vote-Propensity Models},
	journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
	year = {2020},
	abstract = {Political commentators have offered evidence that the {\textquotedblleft}polling misses{\textquotedblright} of 2016 were caused by a number of factors. This project focuses on one explanation: that likely-voter models{\textemdash}tools used by preelection pollsters to predict which survey respondents are most likely to make up the electorate and, thus, whose responses should be used to calculate election predictions{\textemdash}were flawed. While models employed by different pollsters vary widely, it is difficult to systematically study them because they are often considered part of pollsters{\textquoteright} methodological black box. In this study, we use Cooperative Congressional Election Study surveys since 2008 to build a probabilistic likely-voter model that takes into account not only the stated intentions of respondents to vote, but also other demographic variables that are consistently strong predictors of both turnout and overreporting. This model, which we term the Perry-Gallup and Demographics (PGaD) approach, shows that the bias and error created by likely-voter models can be reduced to a negligible amount. This likely-voter approach uses variables that pollsters already collect for weighting purposes and thus should be relatively easy to implement in future elections.},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz052},
	author = {Anthony Rentsch and Brian F. Schaffner and Justin H. Gross}
}
@newspaperarticle {1482510,
	title = {What Do Swing Voters Think? Meet @American__Voter},
	journal = {New York Times},
	number = {Jan. 20, 2020},
	year = {2020},
	abstract = {Imagine you{\textquoteright}ve scooted into a red booth in an unfussy local diner somewhere in Michigan, not unlike those portrayed in the numerous articles reporters have dispatched from the Midwest since the 2016 election. One booth over, you{\textquoteright}re overhearing a middle-aged white man talk about his politics with a buddy of his.You find out over the course of your meal that he{\textquoteright}s a moderate Democrat who wants to keep Obamacare protections in place and opposes concealed-carry, but who also supports mandatory minimum sentencing and favors deporting illegal immigrants. He also happens to mention that he voted for Donald Trump.This sort of conflicted, {\textquotedblleft}cross-pressured{\textquotedblright} voter often appears in vigorous debates over swing voters in quasi-hypothetical terms. However, we know from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (C.C.E.S.), a nationwide scientific survey, that this aforementioned voter in Michigan is a very real, living, breathing man, who was among the roughly 65,000 Americans asked about their identities, policy preferences and voting behavior by the study.},
	url = {https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/opinion/twitter-democratic-debate.html},
	author = {Alexander Agadjanian and G. Elliott Morris}
}
@article {1482509,
	title = {Estimating Individuals{\textquoteright} Political Perceptions While Adjusting for Differential Item Functioning},
	journal = {Political Analysis},
	year = {2020},
	abstract = {\&nbsp;Questions about people{\textquoteright}s perceptions of politicians or other political actors are of central interest in a wide variety of research areas. But measuring these perceptions is difficult in part because respondents may use survey response scales in different ways. In a classic article, Aldrich and McKelvey (1977) introduce a method adjusting for such differential item functioning by assuming that all respondents perceive political stimuli identically. I propose a modeling approach built on the Aldrich and McKelvey framework but incorporating anchoring vignettes. This approach allows for scale use adjustments without assuming that all respondents perceive a given politician identically. I apply this model to data on Americans{\textquoteright} perceptions of parties, elected officials, and other political actors, showing that, contrary to previous arguments, most variation in ideology ratings is due not to differing scale use, but to differences in underlying perceptions. Specifically, while perceptions of Republican politicians and the Republican party show no significant differences by respondent partisanship, Democratic and Republican respondents differ strongly in their perceptions of the ideology of Democratic political actors as well as the Supreme Court.},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.47},
	author = {Jessee, Stephen}
}
@article {1487545,
	title = {Perceived Ideological Distance and Trust in Congress},
	journal = {Social Science Quarterly},
	volume = {100},
	number = {5},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {1810-1827},
	abstract = {We evaluate whether citizens{\textquoteright} trust in Congress is influenced by perceptions of ideological distance between themselves and their representatives. We argue that citizens view members as the {\textquotedblleft}face{\textquotedblright} of Congress, and thus trust the institution more when the face of that institution is more ideologically proximal to themselves. We test our hypotheses using responses to survey questions regarding both trust in Congress and perceptions of ideological distance between respondents and members of Congress in the 2008 and 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. We then pair these observational survey data with a survey experiment administered by Qualtrics in 2016. Ordinal logistic regressions from our survey data evince strong empirical support for our arguments, showing that as perceived ideological distance between a respondent and her member of Congress increases, trust in Congress as a whole declines. These observational analyses are corroborated by our survey experiment, which again shows that as perceptions of ideological distance increase, trust in legislatures declines. Our results suggest that a lack of faith in legislative institutions is often the result of a failure of representation. One way to restore Americans{\textquoteright} trust in Congress is for members to demonstrate more fidelity to the ideological leanings of their constituents.},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12659},
	author = {Kirkland, Justin H. and Kevin K. Banda}
}
@article {1482511,
	title = {The silent near-majority - If everyone had voted, Hillary Clinton would probably be president},
	journal = {The Economist},
	number = {Jul 6th 2019 edition},
	year = {2019},
	abstract = {CLOSE OBSERVERS of America know that the rules of its democracy often favour Republicans. But the party{\textquoteright}s biggest advantage may be one that is rarely discussed: turnout is just 60\%, low for a rich country. Polls show that non-voters{\textemdash}both people uninterested in voting and those blocked by legal or economic hurdles{\textemdash}mainly belong to groups that tend to back Democrats.What would change if America became the 22nd country to make voting mandatory? To estimate non-voters{\textquoteright} views, The Economist used the Co-operative Congressional Election Study (CCES), a 64,600-person poll led by Harvard University. The survey includes demographic data such as race and age, as well as participants{\textquoteright} recollections of whom they voted for and verified records of whether they voted. In general, voters and non-voters from similar backgrounds had similar opinions. Using a method called {\textquotedblleft}multilevel regression and post-stratification{\textquotedblright}, the relationships between demography and vote choices can be used to project state-level election results{\textemdash}and to estimate what might have happened in the past under different rules.\&nbsp;},
	url = {https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/07/06/if-everyone-had-voted-hillary-clinton-would-probably-be-president}
}
@article {1477409,
	title = {No Republican, No Vote: Undervoting and Consequences of the Top-Two Primary System},
	journal = { State Politics \& Policy Quarterly},
	year = {2019},
	abstract = {Washington and California adopted the Top-Two Primary in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Under this new system, all candidates regardless of party affiliation run against each other, narrowing the field down to the top two for the general election. In some jurisdictions, the general election features two candidates from the same party. Ten percent of California voters chose not to vote in the 2016 U.S. Senate election which featured two Democrats. Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (2012{\textendash}2016), I find that among those who vote in the national November elections, orphans, or voters without a copartisan candidate on the ballot are more likely to undervote, opting out of voting in their congressional race. Levels of undervoting are nearly 20 percentage points higher for orphaned voters compared to non-orphaned voters. Additionally, voters who abstain perceive more ideological distance between themselves and the candidates compared to voters who cast a vote. These findings support a multi-step framework for vote decisions in same-party matchups: voters are more likely to undervote if they are unable to vote for a candidate from their party (partisan model), but all voters are more likely to vote for a candidate when they perceive ideological proximity (ideological model).},
	url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532440019893688},
	author = {Colin A. Fisk}
}
@article {1473946,
	title = {The Party or the Purse? Unequal Representation in the US Senate},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	volume = {113},
	number = {4},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {917-940},
	abstract = {Recent work on US policymaking argues that responsiveness to public opinion is distorted bymoney, in that the preferences of the rich matter much more than those of lower-income Americans. A second distortion{\textemdash}partisan biases in responsiveness{\textemdash}has been less well studied and is oftenignored or downplayed in the literature on affluent influence. We are the first to evaluate, in tandem, these two potential distortions in representation. We do so using 49 Senate roll-call votes from 2001 to 2015. We find that affluent influence is overstated and itselfcontingenton partisanship{\textemdash}party trumps the purse when senators have to take sides. The poor getwhatthey wantmore often fromDemocrats. The rich getwhatthey wantmoreoftenfromRepublicans, butonly ifRepublican constituents side with the rich. Thus,partisanship induces, shapes, and constrains affluent influenc},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000315},
	author = {Lax, Jeffrey and Phillips, Justin and Zelizer, Adam}
}
@article {1469766,
	title = {The Differential Effects of Economic Conditions and Racial Attitudes in the Election of Donald Trump},
	journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
	volume = {17},
	number = {2},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {358-379},
	abstract = {Debates over the extent to which racial attitudes and economic distress explain voting behavior in the 2016 election have tended to be limited in scope, focusing on the extent to which each factor explains white voters{\textquoteright} two-party vote choice. This limited scope obscures important ways in which these factors could have been related to voting behavior among other racial sub-groups of the electorate, as well as participation in the two-party contest in the first place. Using the vote-validated 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, merged with economic data at the ZIP code and county levels, we find that racial attitudes strongly explain two-party vote choice among white voters{\textemdash}in line with a growing body of literature. However, we also find that local economic distress was strongly associated with non-voting among people of color, complicating direct comparisons between racial and economic explanations of the 2016 election and cautioning against generalizations regarding causal emphasis.},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592718003365},
	author = {Jon Green and Sean McElwee}
}
@article {1469765,
	title = {The Muted Consequences of Correct Information about Immigration},
	journal = {The Journal of Politics},
	volume = {81},
	number = {1},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {315-320},
	abstract = {Previous research shows that people commonly exaggerate the size of minority populations. Theories of intergroup threat predict that the larger people perceive minority groups to be, the less favorably they feel toward them. We investigate whether correcting Americans{\textquoteright} misperceptions about one such population{\textemdash}immigrants{\textemdash}affects related attitudes. We confirm that non-Hispanic Americans overestimate the percentage of the population that is foreign-born or in the United States without authorization. However, in seven separate survey experiments over 11 years, we find that providing accurate information does little to affect attitudes toward immigration, even though it does reduce the perceived size of the foreign-born population. This is true even when people{\textquoteright}s misperceptions are explicitly corrected. These results call into question a potential cognitive mechanism that could underpin intergroup threat theory. Misperceptions about the size of minority groups may be a consequence, rather than a cause, of attitudes toward those groups.},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1086/699914},
	author = {Daniel J. Hopkins and Sides, John and Citrin, Jack}
}
@article {1452755,
	title = {Yea or Nay: Do Legislators Benefit by Voting Against Their Party?},
	journal = {Legislative Studies Quarterly},
	volume = {44},
	number = {3},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {421-453},
	abstract = {This article asks whether legislators are able to reap electoral benefits from opposing their party on one or more high-profile issues. Using data from a national survey in which citizens are asked their own positions on seven high-profile issues voted on by the U.S. Senate, as well as how they believe their state{\textquoteright}s two senators have voted on these issues, I find that senators generally do not benefit from voting against their party. Specifically, when a senator deviates from her party, the vast majority of out-partisans nonetheless persist in believing that the senator voted with her party anyhow; and while the small minority of out-partisans who\&nbsp;are\&nbsp;aware of her deviation are indeed more likely to approve of and vote for such a senator, there are simply too few of these correctly informed citizens for it to make a meaningful difference for the senator{\textquoteright}s overall support.},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12233},
	author = {Christopher P. Donnelly}
}
@article {1452578,
	title = {Validating Self-reported Turnout by Linking Public Opinion Surveys with Administrative Records},
	journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
	volume = {83},
	number = {4},
	year = {2019},
	month = {2019},
	pages = {723-748},
	abstract = {Although it is widely known that the self-reported turnout rates obtained from public opinion surveys tend to substantially overestimate the actual turnout rates, scholars sharply disagree on what causes this bias. Some blame overreporting due to social desirability, whereas others attribute it to non-response bias and the accuracy of turnout validation. While we can validate self-reported turnout by directly linking surveys with administrative records, most existing studies rely on proprietary merging algorithms with little scientific transparency and report conflicting results. To shed a light on this debate, we apply a probabilistic record linkage model, implemented via the open-source software package fastLink, to merge two major election studies {\textendash} the American National Election Studies and the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey {\textendash} with a national voter file of over 180 million records. For both studies, fastLink successfully produces validated turnout rates close to the actual turnout rates, leading to public-use validated turnout data for the two studies. Using these merged data sets, we find that the bias of self-reported turnout originates primarily from overreporting rather than non-response. Our findings suggest that those who are educated and interested in politics are more likely to overreport turnout. Finally, we show that fastLink performs as well as a proprietary algorithm.},
	author = {Ted Enamorado and Kosuke Imai}
}
@article {1448952,
	title = {Not Dead Yet: Political Learning from Newspapers in a Changing Media Landscape},
	journal = {Political Behavior},
	year = {2019},
	abstract = {Shrinking audiences and political coverage cutbacks threaten newspapers{\textquoteright} ability to inform the public about politics. Despite substantial theorizing and widespread concern, it remains unclear how much the public can learn from these struggling news sources. I link measures of the newspaper-produced information environment with large-scale surveys that capture the public{\textquoteright}s awareness of their member of Con- gress. This shows the contemporary effects of newspapers on representative-specific awareness are one-half to one-third estimates from earlier eras. Despite this decline newspapers remain an important contributor to political awareness in a changing media landscape, even for those with limited political interest. These results estab- lish broader scope conditions under which the public can learn from the media environment.},
	author = {Erik Peterson}
}
@article {bonica2019donation,
	title = {Are Donation-Based Measures of Ideology Valid Predictors of Individual-Level Policy Preferences?},
	journal = {The Journal of Politics},
	volume = {81},
	number = {1},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {327{\textendash}333},
	publisher = {University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL},
	abstract = {This article validates donation-based measures of ideology against a rich battery of policy items from the Congressional Campaign Election Study. Donation-based measures are powerful predictors of policy preferences for a wide range of issues and successfully discriminate between donors from the same party. The overall predictive accuracy and relative improvement over party are comparable to what is achieved by scaling roll call votes in legislatures. The results add to an existing body of evidence on the internal validity and reliability of donation-based measures. They also resolve a standing debate in the literature over whether political donations are a valid indicator of donors{\textquoteright} policy preferences.\&nbsp;},
	author = {Bonica, Adam}
}
@article {QJPS-18029,
	title = {Reevaluating Competition and Turnout in U.S. House Elections},
	journal = {Quarterly Journal of Political Science},
	volume = {14},
	number = {2},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {191-223},
	abstract = {Does electoral competitiveness boost turnout in U.S. House elections? Using an individual panel of turnout records compiled from the voter files of all 50 states, we exploit variation in district competitiveness induced by the 2012 redistricting cycle to provide credible estimates of the effect of competitiveness on turnout. When tracking the same voters across time under differing levels of competitiveness, we precisely estimate the effect on turnout to be near zero. Although past cross-sectional research reports a link between competitiveness and turnout in House elections, we demonstrate that residents in competitive districts differ markedly from those in uncompetitive districts along a number of observable characteristics correlated with turnout, and we argue that this induces bias in most cross-sectional estimates. Secondary evidence tracking voter perceptions of competitiveness and campaign behavior provides support for our finding. Voters have scant awareness of competitiveness in House elections, and, while campaign spending is strongly related to competitiveness, it is directed into avenues that do not appreciably increase turnout. Our findings have important implications for the competitiveness--turnout relationship in other electoral settings with geographically compact, single-member districts.},
	issn = {1554-0626},
	doi = {10.1561/100.00018029},
	author = {Daniel J. Moskowitz and Benjamin Schneer}
}
@article {1603101,
	title = {All Male Panels? Representation and Democratic Legitimacy },
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	volume = {63},
	number = {1},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {113-129},
	abstract = {
	
		What does women{\textquoteright}s presence in political decision-making bodies signal to citizens? Do these signals differ based on the body{\textquoteright}s policy decisions? And do women and men respond to women{\textquoteright}s presence similarly? Though scholars have demonstrated the substantive and symbolic benefits of women{\textquoteright}s representation, little work has examined how women{\textquoteright}s presence affects citizens{\textquoteright} perceptions of democratic legitimacy. We test the relationship between representation and legitimacy beliefs through survey experiments on a nationally representative sample of U.S. citizens. First, we find that women{\textquoteright}s equal presence legitimizes decisions that go against women{\textquoteright}s interests. We show suggestive evidence that this effect is particularly pronounced among men, who tend to hold less certain views on women{\textquoteright}s rights. Second, across decision outcomes and issue areas, women{\textquoteright}s equal presence legitimizes decision-making processes and confers institutional trust and acquiescence. These findings add new theoretical insights into how, when, and for whom inclusive representation increases perceptions of democratic legitimacy.
	



	
		\&nbsp;
	

},
	author = {Clayton, Amanda and Diana Z. O{\textquoteright}Brien and Jennifer M. Piscopo}
}
@article {1596988,
	title = {Redistricting Out Representation: Democratic Harms in Splitting Zip Codes },
	journal = {Election Law Journal},
	volume = {17},
	number = {4},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {328-353},
	abstract = {
	Redistricting poses a potential harm to American voters in limiting choice and accountability at the polls. Although voters still technically retain their right to contact their congressional representatives in order to seek redress for their concerns, we argue that the confusion created when redistricting divides ZIP Codes confounds the constituent-representative link and leaves a substantive minority of voters in representational limbo. ZIP Codes perform a functional role by organizing groups of residents into easily accessible blocs for mail service. However, congressional districts split the ZIP Codes of over 100 million Americans. Split- ting ZIP Codes across multiple congressional districts leads to constituents being confused about who their member is and greater inefficiencies for representatives to mail to their constituents. Additionally, several members of Congress actively ignore out-of-district mail. We posit that constituents from ZIP Codes split by multiple congressional districts will be less likely to recognize, contact, or ideologically identify with their representative. We conducted a population overlap analysis between ZIP Codes and congressional dis- tricts to determine the impact of splitting ZIP Codes on a battery of items on the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey (CCES) from 2008{\textendash}2016. Our analysis provides evidence that splitting ZIP Codes across multiple congressional districts impairs the constituent-representative link. Finally, we demonstrate the preservation of ZIP Codes in redistricting is feasible and produces a substantive reduction in partisan bias.

},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2018.0528},
	author = {John A. Curiel and Tyler Steelman}
}
@article {1587277,
	title = {Maine ranked-choice voting as a case of electoral-system change},
	journal = {Representation: Journal of Representative Democracy},
	volume = {54},
	number = {3},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {297-311},
	abstract = {
	Ranked-choice voting (RCV) manufactures an electoral majority in a fragmented candidate field. For RCV to pass at referendum, part of a reform coalition must be willing to lose election to the other part of that coalition, typically an out-of-power major party. A common enemy enables this sort of coalition by assuring (a) the out-of-power party of sufficient transfer votes to win and (b) a winner that junior reform partners prefer to the incumbent. I test this logic against the November 2016 adoption of RCV in Maine. First, I show that the most recent, runner-up party overwhelmingly supplied votes to the {\textquoteleft}yes{\textquoteright} side. I also show elite endorsements tending to come from this party, albeit not exclusively. Then I show a drift in the mass of public opinion, such that reform partners could coordinate. RCV is likely to find favour where voter preferences are polarised and lopsided, and where multiple candidates split the larger ideological bloc.

},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2018.1502208},
	author = {Jack Santucci}
}
@article {1587276,
	title = {Obstacles to Estimating Voter ID Laws{\textquoteright} Effect on Turnout},
	journal = {The Journal of Politics},
	volume = {80},
	number = {3},
	year = {2018},
	abstract = {
	Widespread concern that voter identification laws suppress turnout among racial and ethnic minorities has made empirical evaluations of these laws crucial. But problems with administrative records and survey data impede such evaluations. We replicate and extend Hajnal, Lajevardi, and Nielson{\textquoteright}s 2017 article, which concludes that voter ID laws decrease turnout among minorities, using validated turnout data from five national surveys conducted between 2006 and 2014. We show that the results of their article are a product of data inaccuracies, the presented evidence does not support the stated conclusion, and alternative model specifications produce highly variable results. When errors are corrected, one can recover positive, negative, or null estimates of the effect of voter ID laws on turnout, precluding firm conclusions. We highlight more general problems with available data for research on election administration, and we identify more appropriate data sources for research on state voting laws{\textquoteright} effects.



	\&nbsp;

},
	url = {https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/696618},
	author = {Justin Grimmer and Eitan Hersh and Marc Meredith and Jonathan Mummolo and Clayton Nall}
}
@article {1452574,
	title = {Legislative Staff and Representation in Congress },
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	volume = {113},
	number = {1},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {1-18},
	abstract = {Legislative staff link Members of Congress and their constituents, theoretically facilitating democratic representation. Yet, little research has examined whether Congressional staff actually recognize the preferences of their Members{\textquoteright} constituents. Using an original survey of senior US Congressional staffers, we show that staff systematically mis-estimate constituent opinions. We then evaluate the sources of these misperceptions, using observational analyses and two survey experiments. Staffers who rely more heavily on conservative and business interest groups for policy information have more skewed perceptions of constituent opinion. Egocentric biases also shape staff perceptions. Our findings complicate assumptions that Congress represents constituent opinion, and help to explain why Congress often appears so unresponsive to ordinary citizens. We conclude that scholars should focus more closely on legislative aides as key actors in the policymaking process, both in the United States and across other advanced democracies.},
	author = {Hertel-Fernandez,Alexander and Mildenberger, Matto and Leah C. Stokes}
}
@article {1452284,
	title = {Partisanship and Perceptions of Party-Line Voting in Congress},
	journal = {Political Research Quarterly},
	volume = {71},
	number = {1},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {32-45},
	abstract = {This paper explores public perceptions of congressional partisanship in an era of polarized parties. We use data from a module on the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) that asks respondents about the voting behavior of their legislators. Our results show that individuals underestimate the extent to which legislators from their own party vote the party line{\textemdash}even when primed with information about high levels of party-line voting in Congress{\textemdash}while fairly accurately perceiving levels of unity in the opposing party. We also find evidence that this perceptual gap endures, and at times widens, at higher levels of political knowledge and in the presence of elections. Finally, in a separate experiment, we explore how voters respond to differential levels of party-line voting by a hypothetical legislator. The combined results from the experiment and CCES module suggest voters{\textquoteright} perceptions often align with what allows them to have the most favorable impression of their party{\textquoteright}s senators or unfavorable impression of the other party{\textquoteright}s senators. The results suggest that biases in how voters process information about levels of partisanship in Congress may limit accountability in meaningful ways.},
	author = {Logan Dancey and Geoffrey Sheagley}
}
@article {1446612,
	title = {Does the Ideological Proximity Between Candidates and Voters Affect Voting in U. S. House Elections?},
	journal = {Political Behavior},
	volume = {40},
	number = {1},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {223-245},
	author = {Chris Tausanovitch and Chris Warshaw}
}
@article {Sievert2018,
	title = {Nationalization in U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial Elections},
	journal = {American Politics Research},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {1{\textendash}26},
	keywords = {elections, governors, nationalization, presidential vote, senators},
	issn = {15523373},
	doi = {10.1177/1532673X18792694},
	author = {Sievert, Joel and Seth C. McKee}
}
@article {ahler2018delegate,
	title = {The Delegate Paradox: Why Polarized Politicians Can Represent Citizens Best},
	journal = {The Journal of Politics},
	volume = {80},
	number = {4},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {1117{\textendash}1133},
	publisher = {University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL},
	author = {Ahler, Douglas J and David E. Broockman}
}
@article {hall2018punishes,
	title = {Who Punishes Extremist Nominees? Candidate Ideology and Turning Out the Base in US Elections},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	volume = {112},
	number = {3},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {509{\textendash}524},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Andrew B. Hall and Thompson, Daniel M}
}
@article {1334780,
	title = {Statistical Paradises and Paradoxes in Big Data (I): Law of Large Populations, Big Data Paradox, and the 2016 US Presidential Election.},
	journal = {Annals of Applied Statistics},
	volume = {12},
	number = {2},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {685-726},
	abstract = {Statisticians are increasingly posed with thought-provoking and even paradoxical questions, challenging our qualifications for entering the statistical paradises created by Big Data. By developing measures for data quality, this article suggests a framework to address such a question: {\textquotedblleft}Which one should I trust more: a 1\% survey with 60\% response rate or a self-reported administrative dataset covering 80\% of the population?{\textquotedblright} A 5-element Eulerformula-like identity shows that for any dataset of size n, probabilistic or not, the difference between the sample average Xn and the population average XN is the product of three terms: (1) a data quality measure, ρ_{R,X}, the correlation between Xj and the response/recording indicator Rj ; (2) a data quantity measure, √(N - n)/n, where N is the population size; and (3) a problem difficulty measure, σ_{X}, the standard deviation of X. This decomposition provides multiple insights: (I) Probabilistic sampling ensures high data quality by controlling ρ_{R,X} at the level of N-1/2; (II) When we lose this control, the impact of N is no longer canceled by ρ_{R,X}, leading to a Law of Large Populations (LLP), that is, our estimation error, relative to the benchmarking rate 1/ √n, increases with √N; and (III) the {\textquotedblleft}bigness{\textquotedblright} of such Big Data (for population inferences) should be measured by the relative size f = n/N, not the absolute size n; (IV) When combining data sources for population inferences, those relatively tiny but higher quality ones should be given far more weights than suggested by their sizes. Estimates obtained from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) of the 2016 US presidential election suggest a ρ_{R,X} ≈ -0.005 for self-reporting to vote for Donald Trump. Because of LLP, this seemingly minuscule data defect correlation implies that the simple sample proportion of the self-reported voting preference for Trump from 1\% of the US eligible voters, that is, n ≈ 2,300,000, has the same mean squared error as the corresponding sample proportion from a genuine simple random sample of size n ≈ 400, a 99.98\% reduction of sample size (and hence our confidence). The\&nbsp;CCES data demonstrate LLP vividly: on average, the larger the state{\textquoteright}s voter populations, the further away the actual Trump vote shares from the usual 95\% confidence intervals based on the sample proportions. This should remind us that, without taking data quality into account, population inferences with Big Data are subject to a Big Data Paradox: the more the data, the surer we fool ourselves.},
	url = {https://statistics.fas.harvard.edu/files/statistics-2/files/statistical_paradises_and_paradoxes.pdf},
	author = {Meng, Xiao-Li}
}
@article {1588457,
	title = {National Forces in State Legislative Elections},
	journal = {The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science},
	volume = {667},
	number = {1},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {207-225},
	abstract = {
	The race for the White House is at the top of the ticket, but voters will also choose more than 5,000 state legislators in November 2016. While voters elect and hold the president responsible for one job and state legislators for another, the outcomes of their elections are remarkably related. In analyses of elite and voter behavior in state legislative elections, I show that legislators affiliated with the president{\textquoteright}s party{\textemdash}especially during unpopular presidencies{\textemdash}are the most likely to be challenged, and compared with individual assessments of the state legislature, changes in presidential approval have at least three times the impact on voters{\textquoteright} decision-making in state legislative elections. Thus, while state legislatures wield considerable policymaking power, legislators{\textquoteright} electoral fates appear to be largely out of their control.

},
	author = {Steven Rogers}
}
@article {1487547,
	title = {Legislative Party Polarization and Trust in State Legislatures},
	journal = {American Politics Research},
	volume = {46},
	number = {4},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {596-628},
	abstract = {We argue that citizens{\textquoteright} trust attitudes are inversely related to party polarization because polarization tends to encourage political conflict, which most people dislike. We further posit that partisans trust attitudes are driven by the ideological extremity of the opposing and their own parties for similar reasons. Using roll-call-based estimates of state legislative party polarization and public opinion data collected in 2008, we show strong evidence in favor of our theory: higher levels of party polarization within legislative chambers depresses citizens{\textquoteright} trust in their legislatures. Among partisans, we also find that trust attitudes respond to the ideological extremity of the opposing party but not to a citizen{\textquoteright}s own party{\textquoteright}s extremity. We further find that as citizens{\textquoteright} interest in politics increases, they react more strongly to polarization when forming their trust attitudes. Finally, partisans become less responsive to the ideological extremity of the opposing party as they become more politically interested.},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177\%2F1532673X17727317},
	author = {Kevin K. Banda and Justin H. Kirland}
}
@article {1460116,
	title = {The Decline of Local News and Its Effects: New Evidence from Longitudinal Data},
	journal = {Journal of Politics},
	volume = {80},
	number = {1},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {332-336},
	abstract = {We present the first longitudinal evidence that declining local political news coverage is reducing citizen engagement. Drawing on a content analysis of more than 10,000 stories about US House campaigns in 2010 and 2014, we show that local newspapers over this period published less, and less substantive, political news. We then use panel data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study to investigate how the news environment influences citizen engagement. Track- ing the same individuals over time and simultaneously measuring changes in media content in their communities reveals that reductions in citizens{\textquoteright} political knowledge and participation follow declines in coverage about congressional elec- tions. To the extent that the local news environment continues to deteriorate{\textemdash}a likely scenario as the industry contin- ues to struggle{\textemdash}observers{\textquoteright} concerns about political engagement in localities across the United States appear very much justified.},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/694105},
	author = {Danny Hayes and Jennifer Lawless}
}
@article {1452576,
	title = {Representativeness and Motivations of the Contemporary Donorate: Results from Merged Survey and Administrative Records},
	journal = {Political Behavior},
	volume = {39},
	number = {1},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {3-29},
	abstract = {Only a small portion of Americans make campaign donations, yet because ambitious politicians need these resources, this group may be particularly important for shaping political outcomes. We investigate the characteristics and motivations of the\&nbsp;donorate\&nbsp;using a novel dataset that combines administrative records of two types of political participation, contributing and voting, with a rich set of survey variables. These merged observations allow us to examine differences in demographics, validated voting, and ideology across subgroups of the population and to evaluate the motivations of those who donate. We find that in both parties donors are consistently and notably divergent from non-donors to a larger degree than voters are divergent from non-voters. Of great interest, in both parties donors are more ideologically extreme than other partisans, including primary voters. With respect to why individuals contribute, we show that donors appear responsive to their perception of the stakes in the election. We also present evidence that inferences about donor ideology derived from the candidates donors give to may not closely reflect the within-party policy ideology of those donors. Overall, our results suggest that donations are a way for citizens motivated by the perceived stakes of elections to increase their participation beyond solely turning out.},
	author = {Hill, Seth J. and Gregory Huber}
}
@article {1452575,
	title = {Representation in an Era of Political and Economic Inequality: How and When Citizen Engagement Matters},
	journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
	volume = {16},
	number = {2},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {328-344},
	abstract = {Does political participation make a difference for policy responsiveness, or is affluence what matters most? To examine whether participation beyond voting matters for policy representation, we analyze congruence between citizens{\textquoteright} policy preferences and their representatives{\textquoteright} roll call votes using data from the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. For the main policy issue for which citizens{\textquoteright} political engagement beyond voting enhances congruence{\textemdash}namely, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010{\textemdash}we then investigate whether this effect holds when taking citizens{\textquoteright} income into account. The findings show that for the ACA, constituents{\textquoteright} participation beyond voting is associated with increased congruence with their representatives at all levels of income, and that those with less income who are politically active beyond voting experience the largest increase in congruence. However, our findings also show that the potential of political participation and income to enhance congruence is restricted to co-partisans, and to highly partisan and salient issues.},
	author = {Jan E Leighly and Jennifer Oser}
}
@article {1487648,
	title = {Issue Ownership, Issue Positions, and Candidate Assessment},
	journal = {Political Communication},
	volume = {33},
	number = {4},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {651-666},
	abstract = {I argue that citizens alter their views of candidates{\textquoteright} ideological and issue positions in response to two kinds of information cues: issue ownership and issue position cues. Issue ownership cues associate a candidate with the party that owns the issue discussed by a candidate. Issue position cues associate a candidate with the party that is linked to the position that the candidate discusses. These cues can either lead citizens to view the candidate as more or less extreme{\textemdash}both in terms of ideological and issue position assessments{\textemdash}than that candidate{\textquoteright}s party. When both types of cues are present, citizens should ignore the issue ownership cues in favor of the easier-to-process issue position cues. Evidence from a survey experiment embedded in the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study provides strong support for this theory and suggests that issue ownership can convey positional information.},
	author = {Kevin K. Banda}
}
@book {1469767,
	title = {These Estimable Courts: Understanding Public Perceptions of State Judicial Institutions and Legal PolicyMaking},
	year = {2016},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	organization = {Oxford University Press},
	abstract = {This book investigates and analyzes how citizens feel about the government institutions at the front lines of jurisprudential policymaking in the United States: the nation{\textquoteright}s state and local courts. The book{\textquoteright}s central focus concerns a primary question of governance: Why do people support and find legitimate the institutions that govern their lives? Specifically, the authors are interested in what drives citizens{\textquoteright} support for their state and local courts, and what influences public opinion regarding the proper role of these courts in American society and how judicial policymaking should be approached. A viable democracy depends upon citizen belief in the legitimacy of government institutions. Nowhere is this more evident than in judicial institutions. Indeed, courts are unusually vulnerable democratic institutions that lack appreciable influence over "either the sword or the purse." Accordingly, courts depend heavily on a reservoir of public goodwill and institutional legitimacy to get their decrees obeyed by the public and implemented by other policy actors. It enables courts to weather the storm of counter-majoritarian decisions and to remain effective governing bodies whose edicts are respected and followed. In addition to assessing citizens{\textquoteright} belief in the legitimacy of state courts, this work examines a number of related, and important, concerns. These include people{\textquoteright}s views concerning how judges decide cases, the role of judges and courts in policymaking, the manner in which judges are selected, and, finally, the dynamics of citizens{\textquoteright} views regarding compliance with the law and legal institutions.},
	url = {https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199307210.001.0001/acprof-9780199307210},
	author = {Damon M. Cann and Jeff Yates}
}
@article {1446546,
	title = {The Political Legacy of American Slavery},
	journal = {Journal of Politics},
	volume = {783},
	number = {3},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {621-641},
	url = {https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/686631},
	author = {Acharya, Avidit and Matthew Blackwell and Sen, Maya}
}
@article {Jessee2016,
	title = {(How) Can We Estimate the Ideology of Citizens and Political Elites on the Same Scale?},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	volume = {00},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {1{\textendash}17},
	abstract = {The estimation of the ideology of political elites such as candidates and elected officials on the same scale as that of ordinary citizens has been shown to have great potential to provide new understand- ings of voting behavior, representation and other political phenomena. There has been limited attention, however, to the fundamental practical and conceptual issues involved in these scalings or to the sensitivity of these estimates to modeling assumptions and data choices. I show that the standard strategy of estimating ideal point models for preference data on citizens and elites can suffer from potentially problematic patholo- gies. This paper addresses these issues and presents a modeling approach that can be used to investigate the effects of modeling assumptions on resulting estimates and also to impose restrictions on the ideological dimension being estimated in a straightforward way.},
	issn = {15405907},
	doi = {10.1111/ajps.12250},
	author = {Jessee, Stephen}
}
@article {395441,
	title = {Wedding Imagery and Public Support for Gay Marriage},
	journal = {Journal of homosexuality},
	volume = {63},
	number = {8},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {1041-1051},
	abstract = {This study uses an experiment embedded in a large, nationally representative survey to test whether exposure to imagery of a gay or lesbian couple{\textquoteright}s wedding influences support for gay marriage. It also tests whether any such effects depend on the nature of the image (gay or lesbian couple, kissing or not) and viewer characteristics (sex, age, race, education, religion, and ideology). Results show that exposure to imagery of a gay couple kissing reduced support for gay marriage relative to the baseline. Other image treatments (gay couple not kissing, lesbian couple kissing, lesbian couple not kissing) did not significantly influence opinion.},
	url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2016.1150023},
	author = {Paul R Brewer and Wilson, David C}
}
@article {Bullock2013,
	title = {Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics},
	journal = {Quarterly Journal of Political Science},
	number = {March},
	year = {2015},
	pages = {1{\textendash}73},
	abstract = {Partisanship seems to affect factual beliefs about politics. For example, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that the deficit rose during the Clinton administration; Democrats are more likely to say that inflation rose under Reagan. What remains unclear is whether such patterns reflect differing beliefs among partisans or instead reflect a desire to praise one party or criticize another. To shed light on this question, we develop a model of partisan survey response and report two experiments that are based on the model. The experiments show that small payments for correct and {\textquotedblleft}don{\textquoteright}t know{\textquotedblright} responses sharply diminish the gap between Democrats and Republicans in responses to {\textquotedblleft}partisan{\textquotedblright} factual questions. Our conclusion is that the apparent gulf in factual beliefs between members of different parties may be more illusory than real.},
	isbn = {9788578110796},
	issn = {15540634},
	doi = {10.1561/100.00014074},
	author = {Bullock, John G. and Gerber, Alan S. and Hill, Seth J. and Huber, Gregory A.}
}
@article {605721,
	title = {Beyond the Core and Periphery: A New Look at Voter Participation Across Elections},
	year = {2015},
	author = {Ansolabehere, Stephen and Schaffner, Brian}
}
@article {395406,
	title = {Candidates or Districts? Reevaluating the Role of Race in Voter Turnout},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	year = {2015},
	url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12172/abstract},
	author = {Fraga, Bernard L}
}
@article {314931,
	title = {Race, Paternalism, and Foreign Aid: Evidence from U.S. Public Opinion},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	volume = {109},
	number = {1},
	year = {2015},
	abstract = {Virtually all previous studies of domestic economic redistribution find white Americans to be less enthusiastic about welfare for black recipients than for white recipients. When it comes to foreign aid and international redistribution across racial lines, I argue that prejudice manifests not in an uncharitable, resentful way but in a paternalistic way because intergroup contact is minimal and because of how the media portray black foreigners. Using two survey experiments, I show that white Americans are more favorable toward aid when cued to think of foreign poor of African descent than when cued to think of those of East European descent. This relationship is due not to the greater perceived need of black foreigners but to an underlying racial paternalism that sees them as lacking in human agency. The findings confirm accusations of aid skeptics and hold implications for understanding the roots of paternalistic practices in the foreign aid regime.},
	url = {http://spot.colorado.edu/~bakerab/APSRFinalDraft.pdf},
	author = {Andy Baker}
}
@article {Kirkland2014,
	title = {Ideological Heterogeneity and Legislative Polarization in the United States},
	journal = {Political Research Quarterly},
	volume = {67},
	number = {3},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {533{\textendash}546},
	abstract = {The responsiveness of individual legislators to their constituents creates an indirect electoral connection between the aggregate preferences of citizens and the behavior of legislative parties. In this research, I argue that legislators from moderate districts are the least likely to support their parties and most likely to vote moderately during roll call votes. I also argue that states with low ideological variance among citizens are the most likely to have moderate districts. Thus, states with ideologically heterogeneous populations are more likely to have homogeneous, extreme legislative parties. Using ideal point estimates and measures of party cohesion from state legislative parties, empirical evidence largely supports my expectations.},
	keywords = {party cohesion, polarization, representation, state legislatures},
	isbn = {1065-9129},
	issn = {1065-9129},
	author = {Kirkland, Justin H.}
}
@unpublished {395461,
	title = {How to Suppress Turnout: Examining the Effects of Voter Identification Laws on Politically Disadvantaged Populations},
	year = {2014},
	author = {Nielson, Lindsay}
}
@article {395421,
	title = {A Misreported Registration Gap? Race and Survey Misreporting of Voter Registration Status},
	year = {2014},
	author = {Fraga, Bernard L}
}
@article {395436,
	title = {Racial Imagery and Support for Voter ID Laws},
	journal = {Race and Social Problems},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {365-371},
	author = {Wilson, David C and Paul R Brewer and Phoebe Theodora Rosenbluth}
}
@unpublished {395396,
	title = {Response Scales and the Measurement of Racial Attitudes: Agree-Disagree versus Item Specific Formats},
	year = {2014},
	author = {Davis, Darren W and Dykema, Jennifer and Schaeffer, Nora Cate}
}
@inbook {395356,
	title = {The Tea Party, Republican Factionalism, and the 2012 Elections},
	booktitle = {The state of the parties : the changing role of contemporary American parties},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {157-174},
	publisher = {Rowman, Littlefield},
	organization = {Rowman, Littlefield},
	edition = {7},
	address = {Lanham, MD},
	author = {Ronald B. Rapoport and Meredith Dost and Walter J. Stone},
	editor = {John C. Green and Daniel J. Coffey and David B. Cohen}
}
@mastersthesis {395456,
	title = {Voting At All Costs: How Demographics Affect the Costs of Voting},
	year = {2014},
	type = {Doctoral dissertation},
	author = {Nielson, Lindsay}
}
@unpublished {395446,
	title = {What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions and Prospects for Constituency Control},
	year = {2014},
	url = {http://sitemaker.umich.edu/cskovron/files/broockman_skovron_asymmetric_misperceptions.pdf},
	author = {David E. Broockman and Skovron, Christopher}
}
@article {315181,
	title = {Do Ballot Initiatives Increase General Political Knowledge?},
	journal = {Political Behavior},
	year = {2014},
	abstract = {Current literature often suggests that more information and choices will enhance citizens{\textquoteright} general political knowledge. Notably, some studies indicate that a greater number of state ballot initiatives raise Americans{\textquoteright} knowledge through increases in motivation and supply of political information. By contrast, we contend that political psychology theory and findings indicate that, at best, more ballot measures will have no effect on knowledge. At worst greater use of direct democracy should make it more costly to learn about institutions of representative government and lessen motivation by overwhelming voters with choices. To test this proposition, we develop a new research design and draw upon data more appropriate to assessing the question at hand. We also make use of a propensity score matching algorithm to assess the balance in the data between initiative state and non-initiative state voters. Controlling for a wide variety of variables, we find that there is no empirical relationship between ballot initiatives and political knowledge. These results add to a growing list of findings which cast serious doubt on the educative potential of direct democracy.},
	url = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-014-9273-5},
	author = {Nicholas R. Seabrook and Joshua J. Dyck and Edward L. Lascher, Jr.}
}
@book {315196,
	title = {Competitive Elections and Democracy in America: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.},
	year = {2014},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	organization = {Routledge},
	author = {Heather K. Evans}
}
@article {315231,
	title = {The Enduring Effects of Competitive Elections},
	journal = {Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties},
	volume = {24},
	number = {4},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {455-472},
	abstract = {Research on U.S. congressional elections has placed great emphasis on the role of competitiveness, which is associated with high levels of campaign spending, media coverage, and interest group and party involvement. Competitive campaigns have been found to increase citizens{\textquoteright} participation, engagement and learning. However, little is known about whether the effects of competitive campaigns have enduring consequences for citizens{\textquoteright} attitudes and behavior. Analyzing a survey of citizens conducted one year after the 2006 congressional elections that includes an oversample of respondents from competitive House races, we examine whether exposure to a competitive House campaign affects voters{\textquoteright} political knowledge and political interest as well as their consumption of political news. We find that competitive elections have positive effects that endure for at least a year beyond the campaign season, reinforcing the idea that political competition plays a robust role in American representative democracy.},
	url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17457289.2013.874351$\#$.VG0BSmfOtXo},
	author = {Heather K. Evans and Michael J. Ensley and Edward G. Carmines}
}
@article {315186,
	title = {To Know You is Not Necessarily to Love You: The Partisan Mediators of Intergroup Contact.},
	journal = {Political Behavior},
	volume = {36},
	number = {3},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {553-580},
	abstract = {We propose the contact{\textendash}cue interaction approach to studying political contact{\textemdash}that cues from trusted political elites can moderate the effect of contact on the formation of public policy opinions. Allport{\textquoteright}s initial formulation of the contact effect noted that it relies on authority support. In a highly polarized political era, authoritative voices for individuals vary based on party identification. Social experiences may affect public policy, but they must also be considered in light of partisan filters. Using data from the 2006 CCES, we examine the manner in which straight respondents with gay family members, friends, co-workers and acquaintances view same-sex marriage policy, finding a strong contact effect among Democrats, but no contact effect among the strongest Republican identifiers. Our data and analyses strongly support the perspective that social interactions (and their effect on policy) are understood through the lens of partisanship and elite cues.},
	url = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-013-9240-6},
	author = {Joshua J. Dyck and Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz}
}
@article {301676,
	title = {"Do Something" Politics and Double-Peaked Policy Preferences},
	journal = {The Journal of Politics},
	volume = {76},
	number = {2},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {333-349},
	abstract = {When a public problem is perceived to be poorly addressed by current policy, it is often the case that credible alternative policies are proposed to both the status quo{\textquoteright}s left and right. Specially designed national surveys show that in circumstances like these, many Americans{\textquoteright} preferences are not single-peaked on the standard left-right dimension. Rather, they simply want the government to {\textquotedblleft}do something{\textquotedblright} about the problem and therefore prefer both liberal and conservative policies to the moderate status quo. This produces individual and collective preferences that are double-peaked with respect to the left-right dimension. Double-peakedness is less prevalent on issues where no consensus exists regarding policy goals, and it increases when exogenous events raise the public{\textquoteright}s concern about the seriousness of a policy problem.},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online\&aid=9209088\&fileId=S0022381613001527},
	author = {Egan, Patrick}
}
@book {276681,
	title = {Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of Global Warming},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {272},
	publisher = {MIT Press},
	organization = {MIT Press},
	address = {Cambridge},
	abstract = {How do Americans think about energy? Is the debate over fossil fuels highly partisan and ideological? Does public opinion about fossil fuels and alternative energies divide along the fault between red states and blue states? And how much do concerns about climate change weigh on their opinions? In Cheap and Clean, Stephen Ansolabehere and David Konisky show that Americans are more pragmatic than ideological in their opinions about energy alternatives, more unified than divided about their main concerns, and more local than global in their approach to energy.Drawing on extensive surveys they designed and conducted over the course of a decade (in conjunction with MIT{\textquoteright}s Energy Initiative), Ansolabehere and Konisky report that beliefs about the costs and environmental harms associated with particular fuels drive public opinions about energy. People approach energy choices as consumers, and what is most important to them is simply that energy be cheap and clean. Most of us want energy at low economic cost and with little social cost (that is, minimal health risk from pollution). The authors also find that although environmental concerns weigh heavily in people{\textquoteright}s energy preferences, these concerns are local and not global. Worries about global warming are less pressing to most than worries about their own city{\textquoteright}s smog and toxic waste. With this in mind, Ansolabehere and Konisky argue for policies that target both local pollutants and carbon emissions (the main source of global warming). The local and immediate nature of people{\textquoteright}s energy concerns can be the starting point for a new approach to energy and climate change policy.},
	url = {http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/cheap-and-clean},
	author = {Ansolabehere, Stephen and Konisky, David M.}
}
@article {1487650,
	title = {Racial stereotypes, racial context, and the 2008 presidential election},
	journal = {Politics, Groups, and Identites},
	volume = {1},
	number = {3},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {349-369},
	abstract = {As the first African-American nominee for president of a major political party, Barack Obama{\textquoteright}s campaign and ultimate victory reminded voters, scholars, pundits, and the press of the centrality of race in American political life. Speculation by observers of all types centered around the potential impact of race as an individual psychological prejudice and/or as a geographic/contextual factor. These two themes parallel different leading scholarly treatments of race and racism in the USA. Rather than choose one theme or the other, in this paper, we bring both traditions together in a unified analysis of white voter response to Obama. We find strong evidence that the level of prejudice toward African-Americans held by whites affected their evaluations of Obama as well as their probability of voting for him. In contrast, we find little evidence that whites responded to the racial context of their immediate geographic environment.},
	author = {Jason H. Windett and Kevin K. Banda and Thomas M. Carsey}
}
@article {1452285,
	title = {Heuristics Behaving Badly: Party Cues and Voter Knowledge},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	volume = {57},
	number = {2},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {312-325},
	abstract = {Party cues provide citizens with low-cost information about their representatives{\textquoteright} policy positions. But what happens whenelected officials deviate from the party line? Relying on the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), weexamine citizens{\textquoteright} knowledge of their senators{\textquoteright} positions on seven high-profile roll-call votes. We find that although politicallyinterested citizens are the group most likely to know their senator{\textquoteright}s position when she votes with the party, they are alsothe group most likely to incorrectly identify their senator{\textquoteright}s position when she votes against her party. The results indicatethat when heuristics {\textquotedblleft}go bad,{\textquotedblright} it is the norm for the most attentive segment of the public to become the most misinformed,revealing an important drawback to heuristic use.},
	author = {Logan Dancey and Geoffrey Sheagley}
}
@article {1448950,
	title = {Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	volume = {107},
	number = {4},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {849-865},
	abstract = {One of the most striking findings in political science is the democratic peace: the absence of war between democracies. Some authors attempt to explain this phenomenon by highlighting the role of public opinion. They observe that democratic leaders are beholden to voters and argue that voters oppose war because of its human and financial costs. This logic predicts that democracies should behave peacefully in general, but history shows that democracies avoid war primarily in their relations with other democracies. In this article we investigate not whether democratic publics are averse to war in general, but whether they are especially reluctant to fight other democracies. We embedded experiments in public opinion polls in the United States and the United Kingdom and found that individuals are substantially less supportive of military strikes against democracies than against otherwise identical autocracies. Moreover, our experiments suggest that shared democracy pacifies the public primarily by changing perceptions of threat and morality, not by raising expectations of costs or failure. These findings shed light on a debate of enduring importance to scholars and policy makers.},
	author = {Michael Tomz and Jessica Weeks}
}
@article {395391,
	title = {Factors Underlying Public Opinion on Voter ID Laws: Voting Fraud, Ideology, and Race},
	journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
	volume = {77},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {962-984},
	author = {Wilson, David C and Paul R Brewer}
}
@article {315246,
	title = {The lasting effect of competitive elections on congressional approval: Evidence from the 2010 and 2011 Cooperative Congressional Election Study},
	journal = {Electoral Studies},
	volume = {32},
	number = {4},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {779-782},
	url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379413000760},
	author = {Heather K. Evans}
}
@article {Nyhan2012,
	title = {One Vote Out of Step? The Effects of Salient Roll Call Votes in the 2010 Election},
	journal = {American Politics Research},
	volume = {40},
	number = {5},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {844{\textendash}879},
	abstract = {We investigate the relationship between controversial roll call votes and support for Democratic incumbents in the 2010 midterm elections. Consistent with previous analyses, we find that supporters of health care reform paid a significant price at the polls. We go beyond these analyses by identifying a mechanism for this apparent effect: constituents perceived incumbents who supported health care reform as more ideologically distant (in this case, more liberal), which in turn was associated with lower support for those incumbents. Our analyses show that this perceived ideological difference mediates most of the apparent impact of support for health care reform on both individual-level vote choice and aggregate-level vote share. We conclude by simulating counterfactuals that suggest health care reform may have cost Democrats their House majority.},
	keywords = {congress, elections, health care},
	isbn = {1532-673X},
	issn = {1532-673X},
	doi = {10.1177/1532673X11433768},
	author = {Nyhan, Brendan and McGhee, Eric and Sides, John and Masket, Seth and Greene, Steven}
}
@book {395451,
	title = {The Ambivalent Partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy},
	year = {2012},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	organization = {Oxford University Press},
	author = {Lavine, Howard and Johnston, Christopher D and Steenbergen, Marco R}
}
@article {315261,
	title = {Social Butterflies and Politics: Exploring the Link between Sociability and Political Engagement, Online and Off},
	journal = {Journal of Information Technology \& Politics},
	volume = {9},
	number = {4},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {402-414},
	abstract = {This article explores the relationship between individual-level sociability and political engagement. While some evidence exists that individual-level sociability may be related to political engagement and interest, little is known about the ways in which sociability affects participation in different forms of political activity, particularly newer forms of online political engagement. Using data from the 2009 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, we explore the ways in which individual-level sociability affects political engagement in a range of activities, including online political discussions. We find sociability levels affected some activities more than others. Sociability has no impact on more socially isolated political activities such as voter registration and voting, but greatly impacts engagement in political activities involving a higher degree of social interaction, such as attending a meeting where a member of Congress was present and discussing politics with others, both in person and online. These findings help explain longstanding questions about the factors that motivate participation in traditional political activities as well as newer online forms of political engagement.},
	url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19331681.2012.691039$\#$.VG0HCmfOtXo},
	author = {Heather K. Evans and Stacy Ulbig}
}
@article {15116,
	title = {Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections},
	journal = {The Journal of Politics},
	volume = {74},
	number = {3},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {870-887},
	author = {Matthew K Buttice and Walter J. Stone}
}
@article {10058,
	title = {Who Wants to Have a Tea Party? The Who, What, and Why of the Tea Party Movement},
	journal = {PS: Political Science and Politics},
	volume = {45},
	number = {4},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {700-710},
	author = {Arceneaux, Kevin and Nicholson, Stephen}
}
@article {9874,
	title = {Missing Voices: War  Attitudes among Military Service-Connected Civilians},
	journal = {Armed Forces and Society},
	volume = {38},
	number = {3},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {391-412},
	author = {Francisco Pedraza and James Krueger}
}
@book {7153,
	title = {Political Representation in Red and Blue America: How Cultural Differences Shape Democratic Expectations and Outcomes},
	year = {2012},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	organization = {Oxford University Press},
	address = {New York},
	author = {David Barker and Christopher Carman}
}
@article {4599,
	title = {The Electoral Origins of Polarized Politics: Evidence from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study},
	journal = {American Behavioral Scientist},
	volume = {56},
	number = {12},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {1612-1630},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@book {4591,
	title = {The Politics of Congressional Elections, 8th edition},
	year = {2012},
	publisher = {Longman},
	organization = {Longman},
	address = {New York},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@article {4586,
	title = {Who{\textquoteright}s the Party of the People? Economic Populism and the U.S. Public{\textquoteright}s Beliefs about Political Parties},
	journal = {Political Behavior},
	volume = {34},
	number = {2},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {369-389},
	url = {http://www.springerlink.com/content/f47638400223142t/},
	author = {Nicholson, Stephen P. and Segura, Gary M.}
}
@article {4585,
	title = {Polarizing Cues},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	volume = {56},
	number = {1},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {52-66},
	author = {Nicholson, Stephen P.}
}
@article {4564,
	title = {Alternative Measures of American National Identity:  Implications for the Civic-Ethnic Distinction},
	journal = {Political Psychology},
	volume = {33},
	number = {4},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {469-482},
	author = {Matthew Wright and Citrin, Jack and Jonathan Wand}
}
@article {4556,
	title = {Assessing Accountability in a Post-Citizens United Era: The Effects of Attack Ad Sponsorship by Unknown Independent Groups},
	journal = {American Politics Research},
	volume = {40},
	number = {3},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {383},
	author = {Deborah Brooks and Michael Murov}
}
@article {3236,
	title = {Public Approval of U. S. State Legislatures},
	journal = {Legislative Studies Quarterly},
	volume = {37},
	number = {1},
	year = {2012},
	note = {*uses CCES 2008 data
},
	pages = {99-116},
	author = {Lilliard E. Richardson and Konisky, David M. and Jeffrey Milyo}
}
@conference {7154,
	title = {End Times Theology, The Shadow of the Future, and American Exceptionalism regarding Global Climate Change},
	booktitle = {Annual Conference},
	year = {2011},
	month = {January},
	publisher = {Southern Political Science Association},
	organization = {Southern Political Science Association},
	address = {New Orleans},
	author = {David Barker and David Bearce}
}
@conference {4607,
	title = {The President, the Tea Party, and the Voting Behavior in 2010:  Insights From the Cooperative Congressional Election Study},
	booktitle = {2011 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2011},
	month = {1-4 Sept},
	publisher = {American Political Science Association},
	organization = {American Political Science Association},
	address = {Seattle},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@conference {4606,
	title = {Barack Obama, the Tea Party, and the 2010 Midterm Elections},
	booktitle = {2011 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2011},
	month = {31 Mar - 3 Apr},
	publisher = {Midwestern Political Science Association},
	organization = {Midwestern Political Science Association},
	address = {Chicago},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@inbook {4598,
	title = {Polarization, Public Opinion and the Presidency:  The Obama and Anti-Obama Coalitions},
	booktitle = {The Barack Obama Presidency:  First Appraisals},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {94-121},
	publisher = {CQ Press},
	organization = {CQ Press},
	address = {Washington D. C.},
	author = {Gary Jacobson},
	editor = {Bert A. Rockman and Andrew Rudalevige}
}
@inbook {4597,
	title = {Obama and the Polarized Public},
	booktitle = {Obama in Office: the First Two Years},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {19-40},
	publisher = {Paradigm Publishers},
	organization = {Paradigm Publishers},
	address = {Boulder, CO},
	author = {Gary Jacobson},
	editor = {James Thurber}
}
@article {4596,
	title = {Legislative Success and Political Failure:  The Public{\textquoteright}s Reaction to Barack Obama{\textquoteright}s Early Presidency},
	journal = {Presidential Studies Quarterly},
	volume = {41},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {219-42},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@article {4584,
	title = {Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence},
	journal = {Journal of Politics},
	volume = {73},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {1165-1177},
	author = {Nicholson, Stephen P.}
}
@article {4570,
	title = {Red States vs. Blue States: Going beyond the mean},
	journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
	volume = {75},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {227-248},
	author = {Levendusky, Matthew S. and Pope, Jeremy C.}
}
@article {4567,
	title = {Lost Our Lease: Issue Attention and Partisan Defection in the 2008 Presidential Election},
	journal = {American Politics Research},
	volume = {39},
	number = {6},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {1045-1071},
	author = {L.M. Vandenbroek}
}
@article {4566,
	title = {Electoral Incentives and Partisan Conflict in Congress: Evidence from Survey Experiments},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	volume = {55},
	number = {3},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {494-510},
	url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00517.x/abstract},
	author = {Laurel Harbridge and Neil Malhotra}
}
@book {4565,
	title = {The Trusted Leader:  Building the Relationships That Make Government Work, 2nd edition},
	year = {2011},
	publisher = {CQ Press College},
	organization = {CQ Press College},
	author = {Terry Newell and Grant Reeher and Peter Ronayne}
}
@article {4559,
	title = {Personality Traits in the Political Arena},
	journal = {Annual Review of Political Science},
	volume = {14},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {265-87},
	author = {Alan S. Gerber and Huber, Gregory A. and David Doherty and Conor Dowling}
}
@article {4558,
	title = {Are Financial or Moral Scandals Worse? It Depends},
	journal = {PS: Political Science and Politics},
	volume = {44},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {749-757},
	author = {David Doherty and Conor Dowling and Michael Miller}
}
@article {4557,
	title = {Policy Confidence and Electoral Punishment: A New Dimension for Understanding Electoral Accountability},
	journal = {Journal of Politics},
	volume = {74},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {1206-1224},
	author = {Alan S. Gerber and Huber, Gregory A. and David Doherty and Conor Dowling}
}
@article {4504,
	title = {The Impact of Party Cues on Citizen Evaluations of Senators},
	journal = {Congress and the Presidency},
	volume = {38},
	number = {1},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {1-15},
	author = {Lawrence, Eric and Sarah Binder and Forrest Maltzman}
}
@article {4503,
	title = {Profiling Originalism},
	journal = {Columbia Law Review},
	volume = {111},
	number = {2},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {356-418},
	author = {Jamal Greene and Persily, Nathaniel and Ansolabehere, Stephen}
}
@article {4502,
	title = {You Wouldn{\textquoteright}t Like Me When I{\textquoteright}m Angry: List Experiment Misreporting},
	journal = {Social Science Quarterly},
	volume = {92},
	number = {2},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {552-62},
	author = {L.J. Zigerell}
}
@inbook {3617,
	title = {Introduction},
	booktitle = {The Trusted Leader:  Building the Relationships that Make Government Work, 2nd ed},
	year = {2011},
	publisher = {Congressional Quarterly Press},
	organization = {Congressional Quarterly Press},
	address = {Washington, D.C.},
	author = {Terry Newell and Grant Reeher and Peter Ronayne}
}
@conference {3616,
	title = {What{\textquoteright}s So Amazing about Really Deep Thoughts? Cognitive Style and Political Misperceptions},
	booktitle = {MPSA Annual Conference},
	year = {2011},
	publisher = {Midwest Political Science Association},
	organization = {Midwest Political Science Association},
	address = {Chicago},
	author = {Sides, John}
}
@conference {3615,
	title = {Does Transparency of Political Activity Have a Chilling Effect on Participation?},
	booktitle = {MPSA Annual Conference},
	year = {2011},
	publisher = {Midwest Political Science Association},
	organization = {Midwest Political Science Association},
	address = {Chicago},
	author = {Raymond J. La Raja}
}
@conference {3614,
	title = {The Political Consequences of Internal Dissent in Advocacy Groups: The AMA, Public Opinion and Health Care Reform},
	booktitle = {MPSA Annual Conference},
	year = {2011},
	publisher = {Midwest Political Science Association},
	organization = {Midwest Political Science Association},
	address = {Chicago},
	author = {Maryann Barakso}
}
@conference {3613,
	title = {When Pandering is Not Persuasive},
	booktitle = {MPSA Annual Conference},
	year = {2011},
	month = {22 Mar.},
	publisher = {Midwest Political Science Association},
	organization = {Midwest Political Science Association},
	address = {Chicago},
	author = {Eitan Hersh and Schaffner, Brian}
}
@article {3612,
	title = {Racial Salience and the Obama Vote},
	journal = {Political Psychology},
	volume = {32},
	number = {6},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {963-988},
	url = {http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/racial_salience_pp_revised.pdf},
	author = {Schaffner, Brian}
}
@article {3611,
	title = {Risk Tolerance and Support for Potential Military Interventions},
	journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
	volume = {75},
	number = {3},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {533-544},
	url = {http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/ecklesschaffnerpoqaccepted.pdf},
	author = {David L. Eckles and Schaffner, Brian}
}
@article {3610,
	title = {Explaining the Unpopularity of Public Funding for Congressional Elections},
	journal = {Electoral Studies},
	volume = {30},
	number = {3},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {525{\textendash}533},
	abstract = {This article uses data from the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study to explain weak support for public financing of congressional campaigns. Previous studies lack theory to explain variation in support and use a flawed measure of the dependent variable. We argue that low support reflects a failure resulting from a collective action dilemma. Citizens desire a campaign finance system that weans politicians from private donors, but are unwilling to pay a small amount in taxes to support public financing. In contrast to conventional wisdom, we show that support for public financing is highest among those perceived to benefit the most from the current system. Our results suggest that most Americans would rather not pay for politics, and that reform proposals must avoid incurring transparent costs on individual citizens to pay for reform.},
	url = {http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/publicfinancing.pdf},
	author = {Raymond J. La Raja and Schaffner, Brian}
}
@article {3609,
	title = {Migration and Sorting in the American Electorate:  Evidence from the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study},
	journal = {American Politics Research},
	volume = {39},
	number = {3},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {512-33},
	author = {Ian McDonald}
}
@article {3608,
	title = {Variability in Citizens{\textquoteright} Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	volume = {55},
	number = {2},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {307-25},
	author = {Kim Fridkin and Patrick Kenney}
}
@conference {3607,
	title = {Measuring Value Choices: Are Rank Orders Valid Indicators?},
	booktitle = {Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association},
	year = {2011},
	note = {Also presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association.},
	address = {Chicago},
	author = {William J. Jacoby}
}
@inbook {3601,
	title = {Obama{\textquoteright}s Battle with Lobbyists},
	booktitle = {Obama in Office},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {127-42},
	publisher = {Paradigm Press},
	organization = {Paradigm Press},
	address = {Boulder, CO},
	url = {http://www.paradigmpublishers.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=280240},
	author = {James Thurber},
	editor = {James Thurber}
}
@unpublished {3562,
	title = {Re-Examining the Validity of Different Survey Modes for Measuring Public Opinion in the U.S.: Findings From a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison},
	year = {2011},
	abstract = {In this paper, we present data from a three-mode study carried out in 2010. National surveys were fielded at the same time over the Internet (using an opt-in Internet panel), by telephone with live interviews (using a national RDD sample of landlines and cell phones), and by mail (using a national sample of residential addresses). Each survey utilized a nearly identical questionnaire soliciting information across a range of political and social indicators, many of which can be validated with government data. Comparing the findings from the modes to each other and the validated benchmarks, we demonstrate that a carefully executed opt-in Internet panel produces estimates that are as accurate as a telephone survey and that the two modes differ little in their estimates of other political indicators and their correlates.},
	author = {Ansolabehere, Stephen and Schaffner, Brian}
}
@article {3436,
	title = {The Contemporary Presidency: Changing the Way Washington Works? Assessing President Obama{\textquoteright}s Battle with Lobbyists},
	journal = {Presidential Studies Quarterly},
	volume = {41},
	number = {2},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {358-374},
	author = {James Thurber}
}
@article {3235,
	title = {Public Preferences for Environmental Policy Responsibility},
	journal = {Publius: The Journal of Federalism},
	volume = {41},
	number = {1},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {76-100},
	author = {Konisky, David M.}
}
@article {1798,
	title = {The Role of Candidate Traits in U.S. Senate Campaigns},
	journal = {Journal of Politics},
	volume = {73},
	number = {1},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {61-73},
	author = {Kim Fridkin and Patrick Kenney}
}
@article {1796,
	title = {Public Opinion Toward Intergovernmental Policy Responsibilities},
	journal = {Publius: The Journal of Federalism},
	volume = {41},
	number = {1},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {1-30},
	author = {Saundra K. Schneider and William J. Jacoby and Daniel C. Lewis}
}
@article {1789,
	title = {Safe, Legal, Rare...and Early: Gender and the Politics of Abortion},
	journal = {Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties},
	volume = {21},
	number = {1},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {83-96},
	author = {L.J. Zigerell and D.C. Barker}
}
@article {1784,
	title = {When Candidates Value Good Character: A Spatial Model with Applications to Congressional Elections},
	journal = {Journal of Politics},
	volume = {73},
	number = {1},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {17-30},
	author = {James Adams and Samuel Merrill and Elizabeth N. Simas and Walter J. Stone}
}
@article {1782,
	title = {The Party Faithful: Partisan Images, Candidate Religion, and the Electoral Impact of Party Identification},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	volume = {55},
	number = {1},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {42-58},
	doi = {10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00474.x},
	author = {D.E. Campbell and J.C. Green and G.C. Layman}
}
@conference {7003,
	title = {Barack Obama and the 2008 Presidential Election: Appling the Minimal Racial Cue Model to a Maximal Racial Cue Situation},
	booktitle = {Annual Conference},
	year = {2010},
	month = {Apr},
	publisher = {MPSA},
	organization = {MPSA},
	address = {Chicago},
	author = {Gregory Petrow and Joel Hebrink}
}
@conference {4605,
	title = {Barack Obama and the American Public:  The First 18 Months},
	booktitle = {2010 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2010},
	month = {2-5 Sept.},
	publisher = {American Political Science Association},
	organization = {American Political Science Association},
	address = {Washington D. C.},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@conference {4603,
	title = {Barack Obama and the American Public:  From Candidate to President},
	booktitle = {Conference on {\textquotedblleft}Obama Governing"},
	year = {2010},
	month = {14 May},
	publisher = {Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster},
	organization = {Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster},
	address = {London},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@article {4595,
	title = {A Tale of Two Wars:  Public Opinion on the U.S. Military Interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq},
	journal = {Presidential Studies Quarterly},
	volume = {40},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {585-610},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@article {4594,
	title = {George W. Bush, the Iraq War, and the Election of Barack Obama},
	journal = {Presidential Studies Quarterly},
	volume = {40},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {207-224},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@book {4592,
	title = {A Divider not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People, 2nd edition},
	year = {2010},
	publisher = {Longman},
	organization = {Longman},
	address = {New York},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@conference {4581,
	title = {Racial Salience and the Obama Vote: Evidence from a New Survey Instrument},
	booktitle = {2010 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2010},
	publisher = {Southern Political Science Association},
	organization = {Southern Political Science Association},
	author = {Schaffner, Brian}
}
@conference {4577,
	title = {Election Reform in the U.S.: Who Cares and What are they Thinking?},
	booktitle = {2010 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2010},
	publisher = {Southern Political Science Association},
	organization = {Southern Political Science Association},
	author = {Heather Creek}
}
@article {4568,
	title = {Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and their Members in Congress},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	volume = {104},
	number = {3},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {519-42},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online\&aid=7909409},
	author = {Herron, Michael C. and Bafumi, Joseph}
}
@article {4563,
	title = {Are Caucuses Bad for Democracy?},
	journal = {Political Science Quarterly},
	volume = {125},
	number = {3},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {425-42},
	author = {Costas Panagopoulos}
}
@article {4562,
	title = {Self-Segregation or Deliberation? Blog Readership, Participation, and Polarization in American Politics},
	journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
	volume = {8},
	number = {1},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {141-57},
	url = {http://home.gwu.edu/~jsides/blogs.pdf},
	author = {Lawrence, Eric and Sides, John and Farrell, Henry}
}
@article {4561,
	title = {Managing Monikers: The Role of Name Presentation in the 2008 Presidential Election},
	journal = {Presidential Studies Quarterly},
	volume = {40},
	number = {3},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {464-81},
	url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2010.03781.x/abstract},
	author = {Ray C. Block and Chinonye Onwunli}
}
@article {4560,
	title = {A National Survey Reveals Public Skepticism About Research-Based Treatment Guidelines},
	journal = {Health Affairs},
	volume = {29},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {1882-4},
	author = {Alan S. Gerber and Eric Patashnik and David Doherty and Conor Dowling}
}
@article {4530,
	title = {Who Wants To Deliberate{\textemdash}And Why?},
	journal = {American Political Science Review},
	volume = {104},
	year = {2010},
	note = {Winner of the Heinz Eulau award for best article in the APSR for 2010
},
	pages = {566-583},
	author = {Michael A. Neblo and Kevin M. Esterling and Ryan P. Kennedy and David M.J. Lazer and Anand E. Sokhey}
}
@conference {4507,
	title = {Can a Same-Sex Marriage Ban Make you Smarter? Reexamining the Educative Effect of Direct Democracy},
	booktitle = {2010 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2010},
	publisher = {Southern Political Science Association},
	organization = {Southern Political Science Association},
	author = {Daniel Biggers}
}
@conference {4506,
	title = {Political figures in a social and cultural context: Dimensionality of candidate evaluations},
	booktitle = {2010 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2010},
	publisher = {Southern Political Science Association},
	organization = {Southern Political Science Association},
	author = {John Aldrich and David Sparks}
}
@article {4505,
	title = {Are Governors Responsible for the State Economy? Partisanship, Blame, and Divided Federalism},
	journal = {Journal of Politics},
	volume = {72},
	number = {3},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {605-15},
	author = {Adam R. Brown}
}
@article {3078,
	title = {New Measures of Partisanship, Ideology, and Policy Mood in the American States},
	journal = {State Politics \& Policy Quarterly },
	volume = {10},
	number = {2},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {136-156},
	author = {Thomas M. Carsey and Jeffrey J. Harden}
}
@article {1802,
	title = {Balancing Constituency Representation and Party Responsiveness in the US Senate: the Conditioning Effect of State Ideological Heterogeneity},
	journal = {Public Choice},
	year = {2010},
	author = {Thomas M. Carsey and Jeffrey J. Harden}
}
@article {1801,
	title = {Issue Voting and Partisan Defection in Congressional Elections},
	journal = {Legislative Studies Quarterly},
	volume = {forthcoming},
	year = {2010},
	author = {Paul C. Herrnson and James M. Curry}
}
@article {1794,
	title = {Perception, Memory, and Partisan Polarization on the Iraq War},
	journal = {Political Science Quarterly},
	volume = {125},
	number = {Spring},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {1-26},
	chapter = {1},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@article {1790,
	title = {Yes We Can or Yes He Can? Citizen Preferences Regarding Styles of Representation and Presidential Voting Behavior},
	journal = {Presidential Studies Quarterly},
	volume = {40},
	number = {3},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {431-448},
	author = {D.C. Barker and C.J. Carman}
}
@inbook {1787,
	title = {Activists, Influence, and Representation in American Politics},
	booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {285-302},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	organization = {Oxford University Press},
	author = {Walter J. Stone},
	editor = {L. Sandy Maisel and Jeffry M. Berry}
}
@inbook {1786,
	title = {Party, Constituency, and Representation in Congress},
	booktitle = {State of the Parties: the Changing Role of Contemporary American Parties},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {333-48},
	publisher = {Rowman and Littlefield},
	organization = {Rowman and Littlefield},
	address = {Lanham, MD},
	author = {Walter J. Stone and Matthew Pietryka},
	editor = {John Green and Daniel J. Coffey}
}
@article {1785,
	title = {Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U. S. House Elections},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	volume = {54},
	number = {2},
	year = {2010},
	month = {04/2010},
	pages = {371-88},
	chapter = {371},
	author = {Walter J. Stone and Elizabeth N. Simas}
}
@article {1780,
	title = {I Wouldn{\textquoteright}t, But You Can: Attitudes Toward Interracial Marriage},
	journal = {Social Science Research},
	volume = {being reviewed for resubmission},
	year = {2010},
	author = {M. R. Herman and M. E. Campbell}
}
@article {1779,
	title = {Politics and Policies: Attitudes toward Multi-racial People and Political Candidates},
	journal = {Ethnic and Racial Studies},
	volume = {33},
	number = {9},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {1511-1536},
	author = {M. E. Campbell and M. R. Herman}
}
@article {1778,
	title = {Partisanship, Political Control, and Economic Assessments},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	volume = {54},
	number = {1},
	year = {2010},
	month = {01/2010},
	pages = {153-73},
	chapter = {153},
	author = {Alan S. Gerber and Huber, Gregory K.}
}
@article {489,
	title = {Race, Region, and Vote Choice in the 2008 Election: Implications for the Future of the Voting Rights Act},
	journal = {Harvard Law Review},
	volume = {123},
	number = {6},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {1386-1436},
	chapter = {1386},
	author = {Persily, Nathaniel and Ansolabehere, Stephen and Stewart, Charles}
}
@article {488,
	title = {Constituents{\textquoteright} Responses to Congressional Roll-Call Voting},
	journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
	volume = {54},
	number = {3},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {583-507},
	author = {Ansolabehere, Stephen and Philip Edward Jones}
}
@conference {478,
	title = {What Americans Know and Why It Matters for Politics},
	booktitle = {Midwest Political Science Association Annual National Conference},
	year = {2010},
	address = {Chicago, IL},
	author = {Lawrence, Eric}
}
@article {381,
	title = {A Modified National Primary: State Losers and Support for Changing the Presidential Nomination Process},
	journal = {Political Science Quarterly},
	volume = {125},
	number = {3},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {393-424},
	author = {Tolbert, Caroline and Keller, Amanda and Donovan, Todd}
}
@article {380,
	title = {Polls and Elections: Support for Nationalizing Presidential Elections},
	journal = {Presidential Studies Quarterly},
	volume = {40},
	number = {4},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {771-793},
	author = {Karp, Jeffrey and Tolbert, Caroline}
}
@article {379,
	title = {Direct Democracy, Public Opinion, and Candidate Choice},
	journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
	volume = {74},
	number = {1},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {85-108},
	chapter = {85},
	author = {Smith, Daniel A. and Tolbert, Caroline}
}
@article {378,
	title = {Race and Turnout: Does Descriptive Representation in State Legislatures Increase Minority Voting?},
	journal = {Political Research Quarterly},
	volume = {63},
	number = {4},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {890-907},
	author = {Rocha, Rene and Tolbert, Caroline and Bowen, Daniel and Clark, Chris}
}
@article {350,
	title = {Residential Mobility, Family Structure and Cell-Only Population},
	journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
	volume = {74},
	number = {2},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {244-259},
	author = {Ansolabehere, Stephen and Schaffner, Brian}
}
@conference {4602,
	title = {A Tale of Two Wars:  Public Opinion on the U.S. Military Interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq},
	booktitle = {2009 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2009},
	month = {2-6 Sept.},
	publisher = {American Political Science Association},
	organization = {American Political Science Association},
	address = {Toronto},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@article {4593,
	title = {The 2008 Presidential and Congressional  Elections: Anti-Bush Referendum and Prospects for the Democratic Majority},
	journal = {Political Science Quarterly},
	volume = {124},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {1-30},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@conference {4579,
	title = {Swimming with the Tide: Redistricting and Voter Choice in the 2006 Midterm},
	booktitle = {2009 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2009},
	publisher = {Midwestern Political Science Association},
	organization = {Midwestern Political Science Association},
	author = {M. V. Hood III and Seth McKee}
}
@conference {4578,
	title = {Re-examining Voter Confidence as a Metric for Election Performance},
	booktitle = {2009 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2009},
	publisher = {Midwestern Political Science Association},
	organization = {Midwestern Political Science Association},
	author = {Paul Gronke and James Hicks}
}
@conference {4575,
	title = {Referendum II: The Bush Legacy in the 2008 Congressional Elections},
	booktitle = {2009 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2009},
	month = {2-5 Apr.},
	publisher = {Midwestern Political Science Association},
	organization = {Midwestern Political Science Association},
	address = {Chicago},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@conference {4573,
	title = {Domestic Migration and Sorting Effects in the U.S.: Evidence from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study of 2006},
	booktitle = {2009 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2009},
	publisher = {Western Political Science Association},
	organization = {Western Political Science Association},
	author = {Ian McDonald}
}
@conference {4571,
	title = {Migration, Polarization and Geographic Sorting in U.S. Congressional Elections: Evidence from the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study},
	booktitle = {2009 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2009},
	publisher = {Midwestern Political Science Association},
	organization = {Midwestern Political Science Association},
	author = {Ian McDonald}
}
@article {1799,
	title = {The Role of Gender Stereotypes in U.S. Senate Campaigns},
	journal = {Politics and Gender},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {301-324},
	chapter = {301},
	author = {Kim Fridkin and Patrick Kenney}
}
@book {1792,
	title = {The Politics of Congressional Elections},
	year = {2009},
	publisher = {Pearson Longman},
	organization = {Pearson Longman},
	edition = {7th},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@book {1788,
	title = {California Government},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {22-23},
	publisher = {Wadsworth},
	organization = {Wadsworth},
	edition = {5th},
	address = {Boston},
	author = {John L Korey}
}
@unpublished {1776,
	title = {Toward a More Complete Explanation of Religion and the Culture War: The Effects of Secularism and Religiosity on Political Attitudes and Behavior},
	year = {2009},
	author = {Richard Fleisher}
}
@report {385,
	title = {Self-Segregation or Deliberation?  Blog Readership, Participation, and Polarization in American Politics},
	year = {2009},
	url = {http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sides13-2008jul13,0,3601017.story},
	author = {Lawrence, Eric and Sides, John and Farrell, Henry}
}
@article {307,
	title = {Determining Trade Policy: Do Voters Hold Politicans Accountable?},
	journal = {International Organization},
	volume = {63},
	number = {3},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {491-532},
	chapter = {491},
	author = {Guisinger, Alexandra}
}
@conference {4601,
	title = {Perception, Memory, and the Partisan Polarization of Opinion on the Iraq War},
	booktitle = {2008 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2008},
	month = {28-31 Aug.},
	publisher = {American Political Science Association},
	organization = {American Political Science Association},
	address = {Boston},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@conference {4576,
	title = {Patterns in Citizen "Knowledge" of Congressional Roll Call Voting: Assessing Projection Effects},
	booktitle = {2008 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2008},
	publisher = {American Political Science Association},
	organization = {American Political Science Association},
	author = {J. Matthew Wilson and Paul Gronke}
}
@conference {4574,
	title = {Who Defects? Age, Issues and Media Use in the 2006 Congressional Elections},
	booktitle = {2008 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2008},
	publisher = {Midwestern Political Science Association},
	organization = {Midwestern Political Science Association},
	author = {L.M. Vandenbroek}
}
@article {3435,
	title = {Who{\textquoteright}s to Blame? (Mis) perceptions of the Intergovernmental Response to Disasters},
	journal = {Publius: The Journal of Federalism},
	volume = {38},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {715-738},
	author = {Saundra K. Schneider}
}
@inbook {1800,
	title = {Issue Voting in the 2006 Elections for the House of Representatives},
	booktitle = {Congress Reconsidered},
	year = {2008},
	publisher = {CQ Press},
	organization = {CQ Press},
	edition = {9th},
	address = {Washington},
	author = {Paul S. Herrnson and James M. Curry},
	editor = {Bruce I. Oppenheimer and Lawrence C. Dodd}
}
@conference {1795,
	title = {The Iraq War in the 2006 House Elections:  An Exploration},
	booktitle = {Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association},
	year = {2008},
	month = {03/2008},
	address = {San Diego},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@inbook {1793,
	title = {The President, the War, and Voting Behavior in the 2006 House Elections},
	booktitle = {Fault Lines: Why the Republicans Lost Congress},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {128-147},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	organization = {Routledge},
	address = {New York},
	author = {Gary Jacobson},
	editor = {Jeffrey J. Mondak and Donna Gene Mitchell}
}
@report {482,
	title = {The Place of Perceptions in the Debate over Election Fraud and Voter Identification},
	year = {2008},
	author = {Ansolabehere, Stephen and Persily, Nathaniel}
}
@conference {481,
	title = {Revisiting the Politics of Economic Populism: Class, Faith, and Party Images in the United States},
	booktitle = {Midwest Political Science Association Annual National Conference},
	year = {2008},
	month = {04/2008},
	address = {Chicago, IL},
	author = {Nicholson, Stephen P. and Segura, Gary M.}
}
@report {384,
	title = {Voter Confidence in Context and the Effect of Winning},
	year = {2008},
	author = {Llewellyn, Morgan H. and Hall, Thad E. and Alvarez, R. Michael}
}
@report {383,
	title = {Measuring the Political Consequences of Residential Mobility},
	year = {2008},
	author = {Ansolabehere, Stephen and Lovett, John}
}
@article {308,
	title = {Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements},
	journal = {Harvard Law Review},
	volume = {1737},
	year = {2008},
	author = {Ansolabehere, Stephen and Persily, Nathaniel}
}
@article {306,
	title = {Environmental Policy Attitudes: Issues, Geographical Scale, and Political Trust.},
	journal = {Social Science Quarterly},
	volume = {89},
	number = {5},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {1066-1085},
	chapter = {1066},
	author = {Konisky, David M. and Jeffrey Milyo and Lilliard E. Richardson}
}
@article {Stone2007,
	title = {Candidate Valence and Ideological Positioning in the 2006 House Elections},
	journal = {American Journal Political Science},
	volume = {12},
	number = {2},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {371{\textendash}388},
	url = {http://web.mit.edu/polisci/portl/cces/material/Stone and Simas.pdf},
	author = {Stone, W.J. and Simas, E.N.}
}
@conference {4600,
	title = {The President, the War, and Voting Behavior in the 2006 House Elections:  Evidence from Four National Surveys},
	booktitle = {Illinois Conference on Congressional Elections},
	year = {2007},
	month = {18-19 Oct.},
	publisher = {University of Illinois},
	organization = {University of Illinois},
	address = {Urbana-Champaign},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@conference {4580,
	title = {Trait Ownership and Trait Effects in U.S. Senate Elections},
	booktitle = {2007 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2007},
	publisher = {American Political Science Association},
	organization = {American Political Science Association},
	author = {Danny Hayes}
}
@conference {4572,
	title = {Constraint, Ideology, and Polarization in the American Electorate: Evidence from the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study},
	booktitle = {2007 Annual Meeting},
	year = {2007},
	publisher = {American Political Science Association},
	organization = {American Political Science Association},
	author = {Abramowitz, Alan I.}
}
@conference {1797,
	title = {The Electoral Effect of Credit Claiming for Pork Barrel Projects in Congress},
	booktitle = {Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association},
	year = {2007},
	author = {Kenneth N. Bickers and Diana Evans and Robert M. Stein and Robert D. Wrinkle}
}
@book {1791,
	title = {A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People},
	year = {2007},
	publisher = {Pearson Longman},
	organization = {Pearson Longman},
	edition = {2nd},
	address = {New York},
	author = {Gary Jacobson}
}
@report {486,
	title = {Valence Voters: Images, Issues, and anc Citizen Vote Choice in U.S. Congressional Elections},
	year = {2007},
	author = {Grose, Christian R. and Globetti, Suzanne}
}
@report {485,
	title = {Representative Bureaucrats: Attitudinal Congruence and Agency Expertise},
	year = {2007},
	author = {Konisky, David M.}
}
@conference {484,
	title = {Preference Aggregation, Representation, and Elected American Political Institutions},
	booktitle = {Midwest Political Science Association Annual National Conference},
	year = {2007},
	address = {Chicago, IL},
	author = {Bafumi, Joseph and Herron, Michael C.}
}
@report {483,
	title = {When the Supreme Court Decides, Does the Public Follow?},
	year = {2007},
	author = {Citrin, Jack and Egan, Patrick}
}
@mastersthesis {309,
	title = {Going Nuts in the Nutmeg State},
	volume = {Bachelor of Arts},
	year = {2007},
	school = {Reed College},
	author = {Toffey, Daniel}
}
@audiovisual {480,
	title = {Can We Find Political Advertising Effects in the CCES?},
	journal = {CCES 06 Lake Arrowhead Meeting},
	year = {2006},
	author = {Hill, Seth and Lo, James and Vavreck, Lynn and Zaller, John}
}
@audiovisual {479,
	title = {The Social Desirability of Belief in God},
	journal = {CCES 06 Lake Arrowhead Meeting},
	year = {2006},
	author = {Jackman, Simon}
}
@report {313,
	title = {Constituents{\textquoteright} Policy Perceptions and Approval of Members{\textquoteright} of Congress},
	year = {2006},
	author = {Ansolabehere, Stephen and Jones, Phil}
}
