Ansolabehere S, Konisky DM. Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of Global Warming. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2014 pp. 272. Publisher's WebsiteAbstract

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’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’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’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’s energy concerns can be the starting point for a new approach to energy and climate change policy.

Windett JH, Banda KK, Carsey TM. Racial stereotypes, racial context, and the 2008 presidential election. Politics, Groups, and Identites. 2013;1 (3) :349-369.Abstract
As the first African-American nominee for president of a major political party, Barack Obama'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.
Dancey L, Sheagley G. Heuristics Behaving Badly: Party Cues and Voter Knowledge. American Journal of Political Science. 2013;57 (2) :312-325.Abstract
Party cues provide citizens with low-cost information about their representatives’ policy positions. But what happens whenelected officials deviate from the party line? Relying on the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), weexamine citizens’ knowledge of their senators’ positions on seven high-profile roll-call votes. We find that although politicallyinterested citizens are the group most likely to know their senator’s position when she votes with the party, they are alsothe group most likely to incorrectly identify their senator’s position when she votes against her party. The results indicatethat when heuristics “go bad,” it is the norm for the most attentive segment of the public to become the most misinformed,revealing an important drawback to heuristic use.
Tomz M, Weeks J. Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review. 2013;107 (4) :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.

Wilson DC, Brewer PR. Factors Underlying Public Opinion on Voter ID Laws: Voting Fraud, Ideology, and Race. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2013;77 :962-984.
Evans HK. The lasting effect of competitive elections on congressional approval: Evidence from the 2010 and 2011 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Electoral Studies [Internet]. 2013;32 (4) :779-782. Publisher's Version
Nyhan B, McGhee E, Sides J, Masket S, Greene S. One Vote Out of Step? The Effects of Salient Roll Call Votes in the 2010 Election. American Politics Research. 2012;40 (5) :844–879.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.
Lavine H, Johnston CD, Steenbergen MR. The Ambivalent Partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford University Press; 2012.
Evans HK, Ulbig S. Social Butterflies and Politics: Exploring the Link between Sociability and Political Engagement, Online and Off. Journal of Information Technology & Politics [Internet]. 2012;9 (4) :402-414. Publisher's VersionAbstract

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.

Buttice MK, Stone WJ. Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections. The Journal of Politics. 2012;74 (3) :870-887.
Arceneaux K, Nicholson S. Who Wants to Have a Tea Party? The Who, What, and Why of the Tea Party Movement. PS: Political Science and Politics. 2012;45 (4) :700-710.
Pedraza F, Krueger J. Missing Voices: War Attitudes among Military Service-Connected Civilians. Armed Forces and Society. 2012;38 (3) :391-412.
Barker D, Carman C. Political Representation in Red and Blue America: How Cultural Differences Shape Democratic Expectations and Outcomes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.
Jacobson G. The Electoral Origins of Polarized Politics: Evidence from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. American Behavioral Scientist. 2012;56 (12) :1612-1630.
Jacobson G. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 8th edition. New York: Longman; 2012.
Nicholson SP, Segura GM. Who's the Party of the People? Economic Populism and the U.S. Public's Beliefs about Political Parties. Political Behavior [Internet]. 2012;34 (2) :369-389. Website
Nicholson SP. Polarizing Cues. American Journal of Political Science. 2012;56 (1) :52-66.
Wright M, Citrin J, Wand J. Alternative Measures of American National Identity: Implications for the Civic-Ethnic Distinction. Political Psychology. 2012;33 (4) :469-482.
Brooks D, Murov M. Assessing Accountability in a Post-Citizens United Era: The Effects of Attack Ad Sponsorship by Unknown Independent Groups. American Politics Research. 2012;40 (3) :383.
Richardson LE, Konisky DM, Milyo J. Public Approval of U. S. State Legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 2012;37 (1) :99-116. Full Text