Mischiefs of Faction
This post is part of Mischiefs of Faction, an independent political science blog featuring reflections on the party system.
Republicans are seeing higher than usual primary turnout this year, but not for the reasons you think.
Saving their party might be worth letting Hillary Clinton win the presidency.
Should a scientist be trying to study a crisis or prevent it?
The rise of Donald Trump as a premier political figure is consistent with a predictable shift in American parties away from a liberal-conservative divide and toward a cosmopolitan-populist divide.
Republicans are most likely to support Trump if they are poor and hold three major Republican-related social identities.
Being first lady is a big part of Clinton’s résumé. How should we evaluate it?
The prospect of Donald Trump being the Republican nominee may significantly change the game.
The key to Romney’s speech is that he wants Republicans to do whatever it takes to deny Trump delegates.
Obama can troll Grassley because Grassley’s all in.
The party seems a little surprised that it’s not deciding .
Do Trump and Christie fall along the same ideological wavelength?
We consider why McConnell so quickly tried to preempt a Supreme Court nominee in the first place.
Party elites haven’t dominated the process this year, but they’re not following voters.
Scalia was conservative on most, but not all, issues.
Political scientists have several ways to measure Supreme Court ideology. They don’t all give the same answer.
The success of outsiders like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump means very little for the former New York mayor.
It’s a delicate situation.
Barring scandal, moderate Supreme Court nominees usually survive a hostile Senate.
We know that Antonin Scalia shaped conservative legal thought. But he also made liberal legal arguments better on the courts where he served.
85 percent of landmark cases were decided 5-4 during Scalia’s tenure.
There are lots of strange possibilities to consider now that the Court has a 4-4 partisan deadlock.
Pro tip to primary candidates: Don’t win too early.
Fiorina’s voters should have voted for Christie.
Clinton has lost some ground since 2008. Will this hurt?
The Mischiefs of Faction are live-blogging the Granite State.
Members of Congress spend their time raising money so they can return and do it again.
Did Rubio’s debate glitch matter?
A list to help combat gender inequality in political science.
If Sanders wins and Rubio surges, do the Democrats wind up with the more interesting race to watch?
Why some county parties are more likely to hold their caucus in a church than others.
We’ve heard a lot in this election cycle about the idea of party “establishments” and “establishment candidates.” But what exactly does that mean?
Two non-establishment, populist candidates are poised to win the nation’s first contests in the 2016 presidential campaign. Does this mean they go all the way? How does such evidence help political scientists update theories of party action?
Democrats are providing a great test for The Party Decides. Republicans really aren’t.
What if the establishment has been dead the whole time?
The Federal Election Commission is crippled by partisan deadlock and ideological infighting, allowing political players to make a mockery of the law.
Donald Trump and Sarah Palin aren’t philosophical conservatives; they’re identity conservatives.
She must convince primary voters that she has evolved with her party.
Determining the more acceptable presidential candidates got a lot harder this year.