Our State-Level Economic Model incorrectly forecast the outcome of the presidential election. The model's projections were based on the two-party vote in the prior election, the status of the incumbent party in the election/reelection cycle, national and state unemployment rates, and changes in real per capita personal income levels for state residents. Even before the Republican nomination process began, President Obama's success in the 2008 campaign coupled with the electoral advantage typically enjoyed by first-term incumbents bode well for his reelection chances. However, by the arrival of the fall campaign, unemployment remained high and income growth was stagnant, meaning that the president faced significant economic headwinds. Our estimates indicated that Governor Romney would carry most of the battleground states. We were wrong. President Obama carried all but one of them.

In “The Dog that Didn't Bark: The Role of Canines in the 2008 Campaign,” Diana Mutz (2010) argues that dog ownership made voters significantly less likely to vote for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. We examine this claim further. Although President Obama has owned a dog since shortly after his 2008 election, we argue that Bo's presence most likely did little to improve his owner's chances of being reelected in 2012. Rather, the apparent significance of dog ownership uncovered by Mutz is due largely to key variables being omitted from the analysis. Using the same data, we show that Obama didn't so much have trouble with dog owners in 2008 as he had trouble with conservative, rural, Southern whites, who, for reasons we examine, are more likely than other Americans to own dogs. Accordingly, we suspect that Bo failed to boost Obama's vote tally in 2012. While we recognize the tongue-in-jowl tone of portions of Mutz's article, this tale is an important one, and is consistent with recent research linking racial attitudes to levels of support for Barack Obama. We also argue that while scholars are often wise to include control variables such as “South” in studies of political attitudes and behavior, it is important to consider the variety of politically relevant characteristics that such variables may be capturing.

Recently, new electronic technologies have supplemented older mechanisms of communication between members of Congress and their constituents. These technologies have enhanced members' options for communication, both with constituents and other interested parties. This research examines member use of one specific electronic communication medium: Twitter. Using original data to examine patterns of use, two models predict the probability of a member adopting Twitter based on political, personal, and district-level variables.

The workplace provides an exceptional outlet for citizens to encounter different viewpoints and discuss politics with people with whom they may disagree. In Washington, DC, however, many people work in partisan environments where like-minded coworkers rarely encounter alternate points of view. Group polarization theory suggests that these environments push individuals to the partisan and ideological extremes. This study tests this hypothesis by comparing opinion change among interns who worked in a partisan workplace with that of interns who were employed in less-partisan environments. The results suggest that partisan workplace environments foster opinion polarization, especially among Republicans.

Recent efforts to cut public funding for the arts and culture sectors in the United States are couched in the need for balanced budgets and fiscal discipline. Lawmakers who support cuts question whether artistic pursuits such as “cowboy poetry” or artistic endeavors that offend or shock some viewers are an appropriate use of public monies in a depressed economy. While the current debate is grounded in a need for balanced budgets and reduced deficits, long-standing unresolved legacies fragment arts and culture policy and leave arts and culture funding vulnerable to additional cuts. The normative implications for the role of the arts and culture sectors in a democratic society need to be considered.

The American system of higher education is under attack by political, economic, and educational forces that threaten to undermine its business model, governmental support, and operating mission. The potential changes are considerably more dramatic and disruptive than anything previously experienced. Traditional colleges and universities urgently need a coherent, thought-out response. Their central role in fostering the creation, preservation, and distribution of knowledge in the world may be at risk and, as a consequence, so too may be the spectacular progress across fields we have come to expect as a result.

The American system of higher education appears poised for disruptive change of potentially historic proportions due to massive new political, economic, and educational forces that threaten to undermine its business model, governmental support, and operating mission. These forces include dramatic new types of economic competition, difficulties in growing revenue streams as we had in the past, relative declines in philanthropic and government support, actual and likely future political attacks on universities, and some outdated methods of teaching and learning that have been unchanged for hundreds of years.

Chin up; chest out; don't panic, yet. Yes, we who work in universities do face epic challenges described eloquently by King and Sen. Yes, we have indeed mostly ignored these—or rather have tended to wring our hands and wail operatically before planting our heads deeply in the sand. We will certainly experience massive technological disruptions of our traditional modus operandi and have only dim notions about how to respond to these. And all of us, if we are brutally honest, are deeply complicit in contributing to an unsustainably rising cost curve that, unchecked, will blow apart the very system that currently sustains our comfortable lives. These sorry truths are self-evident.

Politics, economics, and technology have conspired to make this an exceptionally challenging time for American higher education. Some critics claim that costs are out of control in traditional public and private nonprofit higher education. They believe these institutions will soon go the way of the railroads as for-profit institutions displace them and the Internet replaces college campuses and classrooms. Other critics bemoan the privatization of higher education and the increasing role of market forces. Still others think higher education has lost its way and fails to focus on educating undergraduates.

Disruptive change is never easy for those who have helped construct the status quo. By definition, it undermines much that we take for granted and rely on, much that has evolved over time. It sometimes destroys things that are worth treasuring. This is why we fear it. But disruptive change also provides an opportunity for restructuring that can actually improve our institutions. Our task should be to adjust as nimbly as we can, taking advantage of new opportunities while we protect those aspects of traditional higher education that are of the greatest importance to our mission.

I share Gary King and Maya Sen's view that applying the knowledge, approaches, and tools of the social and policy sciences might help us be more intelligent about shaping the future of the American system of higher education and its component parts. I have even been surprised, in turning from the scholarly field of my training and academic field to a professional preoccupation with higher education, to search in vain for sessions at APSA meetings in which my fellow political scientists might focus their analytical eyes on our own sector and institutions. Taking more systematic analytical approaches might certainly be a good alternative to riding the most recent serious source of anxiety—and there have been many in recent decades—or mining a particular strand of data in search of indicators that might serve as tea leaves or life rafts, also known in the trade as “benchmarks.”

The university occupies a peculiar space in democratic societies with market economies. Higher education serves the cause of democracy by fostering a more able and enlightened citizenry and the needs of the economy by producing a more skilled and creative workforce. The university likewise depends on the state and the market for its resources, for the tuitions, the grants, the contracts, the licenses, the royalties, and the gifts that are the lifeblood of every institution of higher learning.

The simplistic, but still influential, idea of a clear-cut boundary between science and politics does not capture the complexities of the ongoing “dialogue between science and politics.” Neither do political scientists live in an ivory tower, nor do they breathe the air of a separate world. However, the relation between political science practitioners and the rest of the world remains knotty. In this contribution we outline the value of a focus on “practical reflexivity” to assist in the dialogue with political practice. Based on proposals from social theory we evaluate six strategies of coping with the dilemmas of engaging with practice. The strategies provide a menu of choice for political scientists, as well as systematization of furthering the discussion on practical reflexivity.

Peer review is central to political science. In this article we collect the ideas of journal editors in political science and several recent PhDs, who met as a panel at the 2011 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting to discuss the principles of the review process. This includes why reviewing is important to the development of one's own scholarship but also offers some nuts and bolts on reviewing.

Efforts to systematize our knowledge of international relations (IR) have tended to focus on journal articles while ignoring books. In contrast, we argue that to know IR we must know IR books. To this end, this article presents the first systematic analysis of such books based on coding 500 IR texts published by leading presses against variables covering methodology, theoretical paradigm, and policy application. We compare the results with those of the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) project's coding of 2,800 journal articles against the same variables, and the 2008 and 2011 TRIP surveys of more than 3,000 IR scholars. The main findings are that books are much less quantitative than articles published in leading journals, are somewhat more representative of the field according to paradigm, and are more engaged with policy concerns.

Films used for political science instruction are typically political or historical and are selected to examine concepts developed by the filmmaker within the context of a curriculum. This approach may not be appropriate for introductory American government classes given students' weak foundation of political knowledge and lack of interest in politics. This article examines an alternative model of film use employing the seemingly nonpolitical film The Big Lebowski. Viewed early in the semester, the film highlights the ubiquitous presence of politics in society and government's relevance to everyday life. Clip montages of the movie characters were used to enhance discussion of the First Amendment, voter identification, social capital, and foreign policy throughout the semester.

During their time at university, political science students frequently only learn to write for the academic setting. However, not all students will come to work in academia, nor do they want to. When entering the job market, they often do not have the writing skills that are demanded by potential employers and have to learn them “on the fly.” Simulating cooperative policy-writing processes in the classroom not only gives students the opportunity to acquire these skills, but also helps them make important connections between the theory taught in the classroom and the “real-life” policy-making process. Using the practical example of a policy paper-writing simulation, this article illustrates how posing a policy-writing challenge from the field of foreign policy making can equip students with a grasp on theories of policy making, their practical application, and policy writing as a practical skill.

Political science graduate students need to develop strong skills in drafting empirical research manuscripts. Yet, many graduate student manuscripts contain similar shortcomings, which require student peers, faculty advisors, and journal referees to produce the same comments for multiple manuscripts. This article lists common comments on empirical research manuscripts, as a reference to help students revise their manuscripts before presentation to others for review, so that reviewers can focus on the more substantive elements of a manuscript, thus producing better manuscripts that are more likely to be published and thus contribute to knowledge about political phenomena.

Reflecting on a survey of employees of NGOs based in Ontario, Canada, the article considers two questions: How well are our BA programs preparing students for the workplace? Can we enhance workplace relevance without sacrificing our commitment to liberal education? Key findings are presented, including the BA continues to be a desired and employable degree and skills associated with it are valued; employers are not convinced that graduates with BAs necessarily possess these skills; and respondents associate their formal education with individual skills and extracurricular activities with interpersonal skills. Three strategies to enhance the workplace relevance of BA programs without sacrificing liberal education are suggested, and faculty are encouraged to think more holistically about their BA programs and what students need from them.