This poses problems for polarization, representation, and governance. Through their subsidies, ideologically and narrowly motivated PROs (re)enforce polarized views, move policy toward their own ends, and prevent cross-party dialogue and compromise.

First, the main takeaway: many policy research organizations (PROs) today are partisan policy demanders who subsidize the policymaking efforts of their partisan allies, not only thru their research but also direct political advocacy. See, for example, Heritage and CAP.

Really cool feeling to open a box of your own book! For sale starting august 26.

www.pennpress.org/978151282802...

Ok but why have colleagues been doing this in meetings for a decade?

Violating 2, 3, 5 and 6 (at least)

Opened up an article with this photo and my 3 year old said “poor buddy”. Summarized his whole Speakership in two words.

Here we show results from 2 conjoints. 1) shows marginal effect of being "likely to win" (vs lose) on vote choice based on out-party ratings, controlling for ideology alignment. 2) shows win vs. toss up, controlling for policy agreement. Electability always matters most for negative partisans

I’m skeptical that “voters who are truly undecided but care deeply about the details of policy proposals” is a very large constituency