There has been considerable debate regarding a hypothesis that the American electorate has become spatially more polarized over recent decades. Using a new method for measuring polarization, this paper evaluates that hypothesis regarding voting for the Democratic party’s presidential candidates at six elections since 1992, at three separate spatial scales. The findings are unambiguous: polarization has increased substantially across the country’s nine census divisions, across the 49 states within those divisions, and across the 3,077 counties within the states—with the most significant change at the finest of those three scales.

Large numbers permeate political life, and students of political science can expect to encounter a wide range of numbers in newspaper articles, course readings, and statistics. Recent research in cognitive psychology demonstrates that American adults make systematic errors when comparing numbers in the millions, billions, and trillions. Political decisions made by voters often require weighing large quantities that range across many orders of magnitude, which is difficult without at least a basic understanding of relative magnitudes. If students also lack an understanding of large numbers, professors cannot meaningfully teach them about political phenomena involving such magnitudes. The authors designed and tested an exercise to improve students’ accuracy in dealing with large magnitudes, which had immediate and sustained effects on their political judgments about information involving large numbers.

This article analyzes the effectiveness of an international, interdisciplinary simulation of an ongoing trade negotiation. It thoroughly describes the simulation, provides links to background information for public use, and offers suggestions on ways to further strengthen the learning outcomes achieved.

Identifying voters who share policy positions with the candidates has become an important component of modern political campaigns as they rely on microtargeted estimates to guide targeting decisions. Using survey data and microtargeted estimates from the 2012 election, I conduct one of the first independent examinations of the accuracy of microtargeting. The estimates are the most accurate in Florida, a state that requests information on the race of voters when they register and has party registration. The estimates are less accurate in the other battleground states that do not collect as much information. The accuracy rates range from 36% to 82% depending on the issue and state.

In this article, I present results from a conditional logit model of vice presidential selection that predicts the selection of vice presidential candidates for both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016. Examining contested major party vice presidential nominations from 1960 through 2012, the model finds media exposure, political experience, military service, age, and demographic (gender/racial/ethnic) diversity to be significant factors in the selection process. In the end, the model correctly predicts 15 of the 21 (71.%) contested major party nominations during this period. For 2016 the model correctly and convincingly predicts Mike Pence as Donald Trump’s selection, but incorrectly predicts Cory Booker as Hillary Clinton’s pick. This reduces the overall percentage of correct predictions from 1960 to 2016 to 69.6% (16 of 23), but the approach taken here still represents a more appropriate way for social scientists to think about what factors drive vice presidential selection.

Public opinion tends to be stable. Once formed, attitudes are persistent and endure over time at both the individual and the aggregate levels. Attitudes toward marriage equality, however, have changed rapidly in recent years. This article posits that this is partly due to people learning that other members of their in-groups are supporters; they then alter their own opinions to be consistent with those of other in-group members. The authors tested this theory using a set of randomized survey experiments that shared identities as fans of professional football. When fans learn—sometimes unexpectedly—that other fans or athletes are supporters of marriage equality, they are motivated to agree in order to further normalize their membership in those sports-fan groups.

Every four years the state of Iowa leads off the presidential primary season by voting in its famed First in the Nation caucuses. And every four years academics, journalists, and citizens question whether Iowa is a suitable candidate to start the primary season. As a lifelong New Jerseyan, I joined this opposition view, and favored a different system—whether regional primaries, a rotating first state, or, well, anything else. Then, just three years ago I moved from New Jersey to Iowa, providing me an inside view of the state’s role in the nominating process and forcing me to see the caucuses in a new light. What I have seen, and will discuss here, are my reasons for changing my mind.