Every state wants to be “the” state that selects the next president. Every state wants the attention of the presidential candidates and wants its voters to have a say in the presidential nomination process. But since the early 1980s, presidential nomination events in more and more states have essentially been meaningless as the parties' nominations have effectively been wrapped up before citizens have cast their primary ballots or attended their local caucuses.

As the 2008 presidential nominating process got underway, Iowa's coveted status as first-in-the-nation appeared increasingly in jeopardy, as states engaged in aggressive frontloading throughout 2006 and 2007. In the past, late March primaries in large states like Florida, New York, and California were irrelevant to the electoral outcome. To avoid a repeat in 2008, Florida moved its primary to January 29 and California moved to what is now being called “super duper Tuesday” on February 5 when nearly two dozen states will hold primaries. Under pressure from extra-early voting in Florida and other front-loading states, as we write this the Iowa caucuses are to be held on January 3, two days after New Year's. It seems possible that as a result of the nominating season becoming more condensed, there may be an increase in the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire, the opposite of what the states moving earlier wanted. If the first nominating events are now the starter's gun in a 50-meter dash rather than a mile run, who gets off the starting blocks first may well matter even more. As Hull (2007, 66) argues, Iowa's impact on New Hampshire and the national nomination process is a “wild, wired one.” In this rapid sea of a changing nomination process we take a close look at the Iowa electorate, both statewide registered voters and a subset of likely caucus attendees, to shed light on the underpinnings of support for the presidential candidates in the early stages of the 2008 campaign, using unique rolling cross-sectional data to track opinion change over time.The University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll is co-directed by David Redlawsk and Caroline Tolbert. It was administered with the support of the University of Iowa Social Science Research Center, Director Kevin Leicht, and funded by the University of Iowa Office of the Provost and the College of Liberal Arts and Science. We thank all these people along with the team of graduate and undergraduate students who worked with us on the survey project.

As the 2006 midterm elections approached, pollsters, scholars, and journalists attempted to predict whether the Democrats would take back the House, Senate, or both. Much media attention was paid to President George W. Bush's declining popularity and the public's dissatisfaction with the Republican-controlled Congress (see e.g., Cook 2006). With most attention paid to the immediate political dynamics of the campaign, less noticed (though not entirely neglected) was the fact that the Democrats faced a significant structural disadvantage in their effort to retake both houses of Congress. The Democrats faced an uphill battle to control the Senate simply due to the small number of seats that were seriously contested. Their hurdle to taking over the House was subtler but perhaps just as high: as we show here, they needed to win well over half the vote share in order to have an even chance of winning 50% of the seats, thereby overcoming a structural advantage enjoyed by Republicans leading up to Election Day.We thank Gary Jacobson and Walt Borges for generously sharing their data, Robert Erikson, Eduardo Leoni, Robert Shapiro, David Epstein, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments, and the National Science Foundation for financial support. Replication datasets and statistical code are available at www.columbia.edu/∼jpk2004/house2006.html.

If a future terrorist attack results in casualties on American soil, what, if any, government compensation should be provided to victims? Despite the enormous attention given to the September 11, 2001, attacks and the near universal sympathy for their casualties, there is no apparent consensual answer to the above question among politicians, academics, or within society at large. While tens of billions of dollars in public funds have been allocated to preventing another attack, and tens of thousands of personnel hours have been devoted to simulations aimed at helping victims in the immediate aftermath, relatively little attention has been given to what support might (or might not) be justified to provide for longer term needs. Victim compensation remains off the radar screen for even the vast majority of people whose daily lives are significantly consumed by contemplating terrorism.The authors would like to thank Michael Powers, Bruce Wolk, two anonymous referees for PS, participants in the PPA/Economics brownbag seminar, and Lascher's PPA 210 students for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

This study surveys recent editions of circulating introductory texts for teaching American government/politics courses. Most of the major textbooks used for these courses utilize the traditional institutional and behavioral approaches to the study of American government, which have historically treated the African American political experience as separate from mainstream American politics; thus, relegating its discussions to a separate chapter on “civil rights” or “equal rights.” Modeling our textbook reviews after the APSA Standing Committee on the Status of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgendered in the Profession (Novkov and Gossett 2007) and the non-published 2006 report to the APSA Standing Committee on the Status of Blacks in the Profession, we analyze 27 circulating introductory American government/politics textbooks to examine to what extent African Americans are integrated into the study of American politics.This report was commissioned and supported by the American Political Science Association's Standing Committee on the Status of Blacks in the Profession. The Committee reviewed earlier drafts and accepted the final report for publication and distribution. The Committee members include James Jennings, co-chair (Tufts University); Angela K. Lewis, co-chair (University of Alabama, Birmingham); Kerry L. Haynie (Duke University); Alice Jackson (Morgan State University); Mark Q. Sawyer (University of California, Berkley); Rogers M. Smith (University of Pennsylvania); Robert Starks (Northeastern Illinois University); and Toni-Michelle Travis (George Mason University).

Despite comprising a large and increasing proportion of the United States population—about 14.7%, according to March 2006 Census Bureau estimates—Latinos continue to be severely underrepresented in political science, and today comprise less than 2% of the academy (Census Bureau 2006; Michelson 2007). Increased recent attention to the issues of recruitment and retention of Latino political scientists by professional associations such as the American Political Science Association (APSA) notwithstanding, the number of Latino scholars in the field continues to lag behind that of other racial and ethnic groups. But just where in the pipeline does the problem exist? Are not enough Latinos being recruited for graduate study? Are Latinos being successfully recruited but then not finishing their degrees? Or is the leak occurring later in scholars' careers, perhaps between graduation and tenure? Avalos (1991) noted that Latinas were particularly underrepresented, with few women entering or completing Ph.D. programs. More than 16 years later, does a gender gap persist among Latino political scientists? Do leaks in the pipeline differ for Latinos and Latinas? These are the questions that drive this research.An earlier version of this research was presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. We would like to thank Maria Chavez, Patricia Jamarillo, Lisa García Bedolla, Celeste Montoya, Luis Fraga, Anna Sampaio, and Juan Carlos Huerta for their helpful comments, as well as Michael Jackson and Lilly Montalvo for their research assistance. We are also indebted to all of the respondents for their cooperation. All errors, of course, remain our own.

This paper represents a broad survey study of assessment models used in political science programs at 50 universities and colleges across the country. We examine the most frequently used assessment activities and then investigate whether differences between institutions is a function of institutional characteristics. What are the techniques currently employed by departments across the country?

This is the 36th year that I have been monitoring participation by women at our Annual Meeting. These PS reports have documented the ascent of women in our profession. 2007 was one of the best years for female participation at our meetings.

The last time members of the graduating class of 2008 lived in a nation at peace, they were in the first month of their high school sophomore year. Because they are not subject to conscription; because the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being fought by a professional army that has separated itself in many respects from civil society; and because the government has asked little of society in the way of sacrifice for the wars, today's undergraduates have little direct experience of conflict, the armed forces, or those people most affected by it. What do we teach students about the war? Political scientists are often reluctant to teach current events—aside from the fact emotions can run high and classroom discussion can be hijacked by unproductive ideological debates, in real-time we lack the kinds of patterned data that lend themselves to systematic analysis and prediction.

In November 2006, undergraduate students in a Model United Nations Club (MUN) conducted an exercise intended to simulate a series of crises in the Middle East. In the exercise, a total of 66 undergraduate students role-played cabinet-level officials in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and were required to make foreign policy decisions based on knowledge acquired in the classroom and on information delivered as the exercise unfolded.

Student resistance to learning about race and racism is pervasive and well-documented. Scholars have noted an array of direct and indirect resistance tactics. These range from withdrawal from class discussion or course withdrawal; questioning professorial authority in classrooms; and verbal and physical harassment and assault (Painter 2000; Tatum 2001; Tusmith and Reddy 2002; Lee and Johnson-Bailey 2004). In response, scholars have developed a variety of pedagogical approaches and techniques for confronting student resistance and/or providing the optimal context for teaching on race and other sensitive subjects. These responses to resistance to learning about race and racism include, but are not limited to: “frontloading” (i.e., providing a substantial amount of data establishing the reality of social inequality at the beginning of the course, and telling students ahead of time that they will be engaging in difficult subjects, and to expect discomfort) (Samuels, Fervber, and Herrera 2003); setting ground rules for discussion to ensure respect in the classroom (Allen, Floyd-Thomas, and Gillman 2001); assigning privilege inventories and/or other exercises, such as journaling, that encourage self-examination (Allen, Floyd-Thomas, and Gillman 2001; Sue 2003); and creating opportunities for self-generated knowledge (e.g., assigning interviews on racial topics) (Tatum 2001).Thanks to my two anonymous reviewers, Gena Chandler, and Emily Satterwhite for their helpful comments on the manuscript. Also, this work was presented as a faculty development workshop in 2004 sponsored by Virginia Tech's Center for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching and at a panel on teaching and learning at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the APSA.

Critical analysis, which is defined as the reasoned and logical process of skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information (Scriven and Paul 2001), is at the heart of the research process that propels our profession's knowledge-base forward. In this essay, I describe an effective method that I developed to help inculcate and hone students' critical analysis skills. Indeed, critical analysis skills are crucial foundational skills necessary for all students, especially those who intend to thrive successfully as researchers in our profession.I am grateful to A.B. Assensoh, Joan Middendorf and the three anonymous reviewers, respectively, who offered helpful comments on earlier versions of this essay.

Faculty are always grappling with how to get their students to actively participate in learning about politics. Interest in active learning, service learning, and other pedagogical approaches demonstrate this concern. At the same time we are witnessing a parallel and related mission promoting civic engagement. For example, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities' American Democracy Project has a civic engagement series in which it collaborates with campuses across the United States to encourage increased political participation and civic awareness of topics such as the stewardship of public lands and jury service, to name a few. What can instructors do in the classroom to bring these learning methods together and accomplish these goals? We suggest that outlining and describing the political dynamics of interest group activity in an interesting issue area, and then requiring students to advocate on behalf of these interests in class role-play scenarios and other exercises, help to accomplish active learning, which may lead to greater civic engagement.The authors thank Michael J. Yochim for his insightful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript and George L. Mehaffy, vice president for Academic Leadership and Change at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and the founder of the American Democracy Project, for organizing our visit to Yellowstone National Park.

Why are teachers afraid of sentences that begin with “I feel …” or that draw on personal experience? When Enid Bloch, a former practitioner of political science, asked her colleagues these questions, she was given the standard answer of “subjectivity” or “when someone brings up personal feelings there is nothing to discuss” (1999, 69–73). That may be true for other subfields of political science but surely the books we teach in political theory are brimming with subjectivity. Aren't they? And surely the essays we assign call for injecting the writing self into the broader political discussion. Don't they? So what gets in the way?

People in Political Science.

For the record.

In the news….

This section lists upcoming book publications across the broad field of political science. This list is fully reader-generated. If your first-edition book is scheduled for publication in the three months before publication of the next issue of PS, enter the details of publication in the box found at PS's web site: www.apsanet.org/section_223.cfm. We hope that spreading word of upcoming work will help keep our members even more attune to new scholarship within the discipline.

People in Political Science.

In memoriam.