Although Latinos have grown substantially as a percent of the American population to now comprise the largest ethnic-racial minority group in the U.S., whether or not this national population growth can translate into direct political influence in presidential elections has always been unclear (DeSipio 1996; Fraga and Ramírez 2003–04). At least since the 1988 election, however, scholars of Latino politics have argued that Latino voters could serve as key swing voters if certain contextual and strategic conditions existed in specific contests (Guerra 1992). Among these are: a competitive election in states where Latinos are a determinative segment of the electorate; strategic mobilization of Latino voters; active engagement in the election by Latino elected officials, related organizational leaders, and Latino campaign strategists; a viable Latino candidate; and issues of specific relevance to Latino voters (Guerra and Fraga 1996).

The lack of enthusiasm for the European Union and its proposed constitution among the European people surprised the political elite of Europe. Codifying common beliefs and values seemed to be a good way to represent the European identity in written form. The signing of the constitutional treaty should have become an important symbolic act, demonstrating the willingness of the people to bond together. Instead, a so-called Reform Treaty was passed in Lisbon in 2007 (to be ratified by all member states by 2009) that specifically abandoned any allusion to symbolic forms of European representation such as the term constitution, the flag, or a European anthem.

Graduate students suffer from many pressures when writing a dissertation. Deadlines loom, jobs are highly competitive, publishing is always a bonus, and these are often combined with outside research, teaching fellowships, or other occupations. In order to finish a quality dissertation without too much wasted time or effort it is useful for students to begin early and to think hard about their projects in a variety of ways. Students may have a broad conceptual interest or field interest without a focused and tractable project. In addition to the normal practice of discussing potential projects with advisors and mentors, there are several ways to evaluate potential projects that may be overlooked. This essay helps bring a good dissertation project to the front of several potential ideas a student might have by describing several characteristics for comparison across topics. In addition, this essay provides a rubric by which students can develop and discuss a project with faculty and colleagues. Without a doubt, one of the most important aspects of preparing a dissertation project is to discuss that project with faculty mentors and potential committee members (Banesh 2001). Between these discussions, or before the first discussion of potential projects, students can spend considerable time thinking about various ideas for their thesis or dissertation. Students approaching their project systematically may have many projects they are considering and wish to narrow down those projects to a manageable few before discussing them with advisors. As a first time dissertation writer, however, most graduate students are unaware of criteria that can be used to evaluate and compare their ideas objectively so they can compare several project ideas and narrow down the field. The criteria described here combine and extend other criteria previously developed, such as developing questions that are important in the real world and those that contribute to scholarly literature (King, Keohane, and Verba 1994). The criteria described below were developed specifically for dissertation projects, but are also very useful for students writing theses for other purposes such as undergraduate senior projects. The guide provided here should enable students to compare several potential ideas objectively to begin to find a viable project. Although the initial development of a thesis project based on a student's theoretical or empirical interests is mostly idiosyncratic and personal (See King, Keohane, and Verba 1994; Van Evera 1997), once a student's interests emerge there are some common ways to objectively evaluate several dissertation projects. This essay helps students develop several ways to think about their dissertation projects and create a rubric so that several projects can be evaluated on comparable terms.Thanks to the two anonymous reviewers and Ronald B Mitchell who made instrumental suggestions on improving the text.

When a political party wrests control of either house of Congress from the other, expectations for change are usually high and that was certainly the case in January 2007 when Democrats took majorities in both chambers for the first time in 12 years. What did the new majorities—and specifically their leaders—promise? To what extent have they delivered? And how do the experiences of the new majorities during their first nine months conform with or raise questions about our theories of Congress? This is perforce an interim report but, even so, it can perhaps shed some light on our theories as well as provide a first assessment of the new majorities and their leaders.In addition to the references cited here, this paper is based on interviews, observation and news accounts.

Both scholars and pundits alike have attributed the Democrats' success in gaining control of the House and Senate in 2006 to their “nationalization” of the election and their success in connecting Republican candidates to both the war in Iraq and the highly unpopular George W. Bush presidency. The “election has been nationalized around two standards that could not be more unfavorable to the GOP: an unpopular war and an unpopular president” (Novak 2006). Many have gone so far as to say that the election results provide evidence that former House Speaker Tip O'Neil's famous aphorism, “all politics are local,” has been “swept aside” (Lambro 2006) and does not apply during wartime. “If one trend emerged this year when 435 House seats and 33 Senate seats were at stake, it was this: All politics are not local” (Israel 2006).We would like to thank Francisco I. Pedraza for his research assistance.

Legislative scholars have a history of stepping back occasionally to examine the development and state of the sub-discipline (Budge 1973; Gamm and Huber 2002; Loewenberg, Patterson, and Jewell 1985; Mezey 1993; Morris-Jones 1983; Pasquino 1973; Patterson 1989). Many of these existing reviews, although valuable, are predominantly of a qualitative and subjective nature and are, in most cases, now dated. This paper provides a bibliometrical analysis of the state of legislative studies in the United States and Europe by exploring the content of eight political science journals. I looked at six general political science journals, three originating in the United States and three in Europe, as well as the content of two legislative studies journals—the American-based Legislative Studies Quarterly and the British-based Journal of Legislative Studies.

Placing the 2008 election in the context of political development reveals the gendered nature of the presidency and presidential elections. The institution of the presidency is predominantly masculinist. It privileges conventional masculine attributes of strength, determination, and decisiveness. Yet the degree to which the institution requires masculinist leadership attributes varies throughout political development and according to different types of time. Viewed through a chronological linear lens, developments in “historical time” magnify the most masculinist aspect of the presidency—the role of commander in chief. On the other hand, in 2008 “political time” signals the end of the neoliberal era and a shift away from confrontational, partisan politics toward the building of a new consensus that emphasizes domestic welfare. As a result, the nature and stage of the regime cycle or moment in political time favor feminalist features of leadership such as collective engagement, cooperation, and conciliation. In the 2008 election, these two types of time collide, and the collision helps explain the gender-specific character of the campaigns, the candidates, and the next president.

If you could start a political science program from scratch, how would you do it? Given no institutional history, how would you design graduate and undergraduate programs? How would you grow your faculty? How would you attempt to build a reputation in the absence of a reputation at time t-1? In an interdisciplinary environment, with which disciplines would you work most closely? For most political science professors, these might be interesting hypothetical questions to consider. For the two of us, these questions are very real and have dominated our recent work lives as we have just finished our first year as the founding political science faculty at the brand new University of California campus, UC Merced.We thank Carissa Hansford, Shawn Kantor, and Jennifer Nicholson for helpful comments and suggestions.

One of the more entertaining pastimes during the presidential campaign is the “veepstakes,” or speculation about who the presidential nominee will select for a running mate. While much of this speculation occurs after the nomination has been decided (Alter 2004; Feldmann 2004; Kennedy 2004; Lehigh 2004; Starr 2004), speculation about the 2008 selections had begun as early as 2007 (Cain 2007; Klein 2007; Mackowiak 2007; Sanderson 2007). Most are grounded in a good understanding of what presidential candidates look for in a running mate, but one writer has not unfairly referred to the veepstakes as a “largely fact-free parlour game” (Harding 2004).

Intellectual exchange is central to progress in any discipline, including political science. The transfer of knowledge, ideas, and techniques takes place in many forums (e.g., advisor-student meetings, conferences, department lounges) and it is no simple task to systematically identify or quantify this interchange. In general though, the fruition of a successful or insightful idea is a published journal article or book. The way in which the author(s) of a published piece of work acknowledges previous or contemporary work that contributed to its development is via references or citations. Thus, while we cannot easily keep track of the entire process of intellectual exchange that leads to publication, citations inform us of other (usually published) work that influenced and contributed to the articles and books that make up the research output of the field.We thank two anonymous referees for helpful comments on content and structure.

The American Political Science Association (APSA) has roughly 14,000 members. In fall 2002, APSA appointed a “Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy” (TFIAD). The group's 15 members represented various prestigious American universities, including, for example, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. TFIAD was tasked with assessing the relationship between economic inequality in America and changes in political participation rates in our representative democracy.

In political science, urban politics is a well-established subfield. And more recently, suburban political behavior has received a fair amount of attention (Gainsborough 2001; 2005; McKee and Shaw 2003; Oliver 2001). But with a few exceptions (see Francia and Baumgartner 2005–2006; Gimpel and Karnes 2006), the political behavior of rural residents has been conspicuously absent thus far in a growing literature on the political role of place. This is quite surprising given the clamoring in the popular press about “red states” versus “blue states” in the most recent presidential contests. All of the post-presidential election maps that highlight red Republican counties and blue Democratic counties display a sea of red covering the vast swaths of rural, middle America. The ocean of Republican red is enough to make one ask: What's the Matter with Kansas? (Frank 2004)—one of those thinly populated plains states with hardly a glimmer of blue on a county-level map of the 2004 presidential election.

This paper discusses an arms control simulation that formed a central part of the course, Controlling Chemical and Biological Weapons. Based on the experiential learning approach this simulation sought to (a) provide an active learning context for students to acquire an in-depth understanding of central aspects of biological arms control, and (b) gain an appreciation for the complexities of multilateral diplomacy in general and arms control negotiations in particular. I taught this course in spring 2006 to a group of 16 final-year undergraduate students. The arms control simulation complemented the weekly one-hour lectures and replaced the standard one-hour student-led seminar sessions. At the beginning of the simulation I supplied students with a set of confidential country instructions to approach the simulation, which was subdivided into two negotiating rounds of three sessions each and a drafting exercise towards the end of the semester.

“Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?” This survey question, which appeared on the 2004 National Election Pool (NEP) exit poll, attracted as much controversy as any in recent years. More respondents chose “moral values” than any other issue. Among this 22% of respondents, 80% voted for President Bush. Initially, news reporters and pundits interpreted this finding as indicating that moral values played a decisive role in Bush's victory. The morning after the election, Chris Matthews, host of the MSNBC program Hardball, suggested the election was “a referendum on values” (“Chris Matthews Gives his Assessment”). Tim Russert, host of NBC's Meet the Press, said that “People had an agenda. They put their moral values ahead of some of their economic interests” (“Analysis”). A reporter for the CBS Morning News concluded that “in the end, the number-one voter motivator [was] morality” (“Morality Proves Number One”).

In the provocatively titled Indoctrination U., David Horowitz argues that radical members of college faculties have “intruded a political agenda into the academic curriculum,” engaging in propaganda rather than scholarship and indoctrinating students rather than teaching them (Horowitz 2007, xi). Although allegations of liberal bias in academia are nothing new, the issue has gained increased attention as the result of efforts by Horowitz and the Center for the Study of the Popular Culture (CSPC) to promote the Academic Bill of Rights for American colleges and universities.

The December 2006 APSA report, “Trends in the Political Science Profession” (Sedowski and Brintnall 2006; Brintnall 2005), noted that the number of political science jobs posted on eJobs reached an all-time high for the academic year. Thirty-six percent of those jobs were in B.A.-granting institutions, institutions most likely to include a focus on liberal arts teaching. Similarly, results from the most recently available department chairs' survey show that almost one-third of all graduates in 2002, including those in non-academic employment, obtained jobs in B.A. institutions (Lopez 2003). In response to these circumstances, the Political Science Education Section has, at recent APSA annual meetings, including 2007's meeting, sponsored a short course titled, “Getting a Job at a Teaching Institution—and Then Succeeding!” For this article we have drawn on our experiences in the short course—and in interviewing, hiring, mentoring, and evaluating colleagues at a range of liberal arts colleges—to compile a list of frequently asked questions and their answers. B.A.-granting institutions are highly diversified, as evidenced by the authors' own affiliations. Still, after much discussion, we are confident that the advice offered here is broadly applicable to colleges focusing upon the liberal arts and undergraduate education. However, applicants should always research the mission and the corresponding commitments of the institutions at which they are seeking employment.

A variety of measures indicate that income inequality has grown significantly in the United States during the last three decades (APSA 2004; Brandolini and Smeeding 2006). In a flurry of recent research, scholars have attributed this trend to the failure of the national government to represent the preferences of ordinary citizens in general and less wealthy citizens in particular (APSA 2004; Bartels 2004; 2006; Gilens 2005), who participate in politics less consistently and contribute fewer resources to political candidates than their wealthier peers (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). The American Political Science Association's (APSA) Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy summarizes this representative failure hypothesis: “disparities in participation ensure that ordinary Americans speak in a whisper while the most advantaged roar” (2004, 2).

Many media pundits explained Bush's victory in the 2004 presidential election as due in large part to an advantage that he held over Kerry in personal characteristics or character traits, at least as perceived by the voters. By these accounts, Kerry was seen by many voters as aloof, humorless, vacillating, and indecisive. In contrast, Bush was viewed as warm, authentic, and a strong leader. Such interpretations were expressed by a wide range of journalists. For example, New York Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks (2004a) claimed that if “… the Democrats had nominated Dick Gephardt, this election wouldn't be close, but character is destiny, and Kerry's could be debilitating …” Also in the New York Times, Kate Zernike and John Broder (2004) found that in interviews around the country taken the day after the election, “the voices of voters … fairly shouted that the outcome was … about a fundamental question of character.” Leadership was the trait most commonly cited as one of Bush's strengths. As one voter whom they interviewed put it, “People say George Bush is a cowboy … People say he shoots quick … sometimes you have to do that, you have to be decisive. Kerry never projected that.” Kerry was also faulted for being dull and uninspiring. Brooks (New York Times 2004b) felt that Kerry talked “like a manager or an engineer.” Others felt that Kerry lacked the personal warmth or charm that would allow voters to relate to him. Klein (2006, 221) felt that Kerry “… remained aloof, a distant figure, a politician in all the worst senses of the word.” Perhaps the worst insult was hurled by one of my students, who called Kerry “too professorial.”Author's note: I appreciate the comments provided by two of my colleagues, David Holian and Greg McAvoy.

For many faculty members, the move by universities toward greater reliance on online and hybrid courses raises questions of course content and quality. Many faculty, socialized to deliver information to students in a manner described as “chalk and talk,” wonder whether moving courses out into the online environment somehow compromises the education students receive. In fact, there is a small but growing body of information in political science and other cognate disciplines that addresses these questions and offers evidence that online courses, while different from more traditional face-to-face classes, can offer rich learning opportunities in their own right. This article seeks to contribute to that body of knowledge by reporting the results of a quasi-experiment comparing student success and satisfaction in online and face-to-face courses.The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the UWM Center for Instructional and Professional Development and the assistance of Anthony Ciccone, Connie Schroeder, and the anonymous reviewers.

Recent research shows that the Internet, by sharply reducing the real costs of sharing information, has profoundly impacted collaboration between faculty in different departments. Using information on spatial-temporal Bitnet connections, Agrawal and Goldfarb (2006) find that Internet connectivity increased collaboration between those connected universities by 85%. Extensively analyzing faculty productivity at the top 25 universities during the last three decades, Kim, Morse, and Zingales (2006) report that the Internet has significantly lowered department-specific research externalities in economics and finance by giving those outside of top schools access to productive research colleagues within top schools. Concomitant with this decline in location-specific externalities, they also report that salaries at those top universities have increased since the universities are less able to appropriate any rent based on research productivity created by physically being located at that university. One of the reasons that physical location is less important is e-mail. Walsh and Maloney (2003), using information from four fields (experimental biology, mathematics, physics, and sociology), find that e-mail has significantly reduced coordination problems in research collaboration.