Suchergebnisse

A recent study by Aldrich, Ballard, Lerner, and Rohde (2017) examines whether a specific type of money—donations from leadership political action committees—is systematically related to party goals outside of policy influence. Their model is theoretically incomplete, as leadership political action committees donate considerable money to candidates who do not help the party win new seats or maintain ideological cohesion. I account for this behavior by introducing a new conditional predictor: incumbency. When modeled as a triple interaction with party status and ideological fit, incumbency helps better explain the donating behavior of leadership political action committees. This interaction is paired with a technical extension, more directly modeling the multiplicity of races in which leadership political action committees do not make a donation in a campaign cycle. I find that extending the study with a more appropriate model allows us to draw better inferences about the behavior of leadership political action committees.

This is the final version as it appears for the citation: Jordan, Soren. 2019. "Leadership PAC Donations and Party Status: A Technical and Theoretical Extension." Research & Politics 6 (4): 1-9. DOI:10.1177/2053168019889558 Corresponding author: Soren Jordan (sorenjordanpols@gmail.com).

This is the final version as it appears for the citation: Jordan, Soren. 2018. "Opting Out of Congress: Partisan Polarization and the Decline of Moderate Candidates. By Danielle M. Thomsen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. 202p. $99.99 cloth." Perspectives on Politics 16 (1): 230-232. DOI:10.1017/S1537592717003140 The page numbers here are consistent with the published version. Corresponding author: (sorenjordanpols@gmail.com).

This is the final version as it appears for the citation: Jordan, Soren. 2016. "Politics: Basic Concepts." In Global Encyclopedia of Public Adminis- tration, Public Policy, and Governance, ed. Ali Farazmand. Springer. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1403-1 The page numbers here are consistent with the published version. Corresponding author: Soren Jordan (sorenjordanpols@gmail.com).

This is the final version as it appears for the citation: Webb, Clayton and Soren Jordan. 2022. "Avoiding, and Learning From, Mistakes Made by Junior Scholars Teaching Political Methodology." PS: Political Science & Politics 55 (1): 236-241. DOI:10.1017/S1049096521001189 The page numbers here are consistent with the published version. Corresponding author: Clayton Webb (webb767@ku.edu)

Research on mass political behavior relies extensively on ideology scales. The majority of political science surveys use a unique, and potentially problematic, word to anchor the endpoints of these scales ("extremely"). However, political science has surprisingly little evidence on the effects of using this anchor over others. We utilize an older, but ignored, survey experiment on the 1989 American National Election Study (ANES) Pilot Study to analyze the consequences of the choice between using "very" or "extremely" endpoint labels. Theoretically, our results illustrate how a seemingly negative question anchor helps optimally measure a key concept (ideology) that is fundamental to understanding phenomena such as mass polarization.

This is the final version as it appears for the citation: Jordan, Soren and Grant Ferguson. 2016. "Extremism in Survey Measures of Ideology." Research & Politics 3 (3): DOI:10.1177/2053168016669743 Corresponding author: Soren Jordan (sorenjordanpols@gmail.com).

This book develops a general explanation for party polarization in America from both historical and contemporary perspectives. Prior polarization studies focused exclusively on the modern era, but this work traces party polarization from the constitutional convention of 1787 to the present. Using such a broad historical perspective shows that what was unusual in American history was the period of low polarization from the Great Depression through 1980, rather than the period of high polarization of the modern era. Polarization is the norm of the American system, not the exception, and is likely to persist in the future. More theoretically, party polarization in America has been due to class-based conflict and rent-seeking by the patrician and plebian classes in various historical eras, rather than conflict over cultural values. As in earlier historical eras, modern party polarization has largely been elite-driven, with party entrepreneurs cunningly and strategically using polarization to their advantage.

Mummolo and Peterson improve the use and interpretation of fixed-effects models by pointing out that unit intercepts fundamentally reduce the amount of variation of variables in fixed-effects models. Along a similar vein, we make two claims in the context of random effects models. First, we show that potentially large reductions in variation, in this case caused by quasi-demeaning, also occur in models using random effects. Second, in many instances, what authors claim to be a random effects model is actually a pooled model after the quasi-demeaning process, affecting how we should interpret the model. A literature review of random effects models in top journals suggests that both points are currently not well understood. To better help users interested in improving their interpretation of random effects models, we provide Stata and R programs to easily obtain post-estimation quasi-demeaned variables.

Scholars widely understand that the U.S. electorate has become increasingly polarized since the 1980s. However, little rigorous statistical work evaluates the role of the American president in this process. A potential reason for the lack of rigorous statistical work could be measurement limitations. Previous work has also not separated out how presidents affect fellow and opposing partisans in the ongoing process. New measures of electoral polarization are presented and evaluated for presidential effects using Box‐Tiao multiple impact assessment methods. The statistical results show that post‐1980 presidents have been central to electoral polarization generally and to polarization of both the president's fellow and opposing partisans specifically.

This is the final version as it appears for the citation: Wood, B. Dan and Soren Jordan. 2018. "Response to Sam Rosenfeld's review of Party Polarization in America: The War Over Two Social Contracts." Perspectives on Politics 16 (3): 798. DOI:10.1017/S1537592718001962 The page numbers here are consistent with the published version. Corresponding author: Soren Jordan (sorenjordanpols@gmail.com).