The news media often anticipate televised presidential debates as a national event of great importance — a kind of Super Bowl of American democracy. But political scientists have noted that, in contrast to the party conventions, the general election debates do not typically have dramatic effects on voters.
The general responses of presidential campaigns to challenges and moments of great risk can seem haphazard; decision-making may appear to depend entirely on the character of the specific candidate and campaign. But as a scholar at Columbia University argues in a 2011 study, “presidential campaign management is potentially far more predictable than it at first appears.”
That America has become more politically polarized in recent decades is a widely accepted notion, and though some observers dispute aspects of this trend, political scientists have found strong overall evidence to support it.
Campaign observers and citizens often complain about the effects of negative ads and their perceived damage to deliberative democracy. But the reality may be more complicated, and the true results of such ads may depend on more than just their emotional or critical tone.
Among the most consequential — and controversial — roll-call votes that members of Congress cast during President Obama’s first term were those on cap-and-trade legislation, the economic stimulus and, of course, health care reform. How these votes subsequently affected legislators who ran for reelection in 2010 is of acute interest both to political scientists who study the interplay between votes and election consequences, and to campaign observers who are assessing the reverberations of these votes.
For both President Obama and members of Congress, the calculus of whether or not to intervene in the Syrian conflict has many variables. Some are unique to this particular moment in time and conflict, but stepping back, researchers have examined some of the more general dynamics and principles that may help guide understanding of war and peace decision-making.
As Election Day 2012 approached, the public and the news media prepared for a close election in which small numbers of votes in specific swing states may be decisive in the outcome. Legal battles may be a crucial part of resolving voting discrepancies in these key regions.
