Egan P.

"Do Something" Politics and Double-Peaked Policy Preferences

. The Journal of Politics [Internet]. 2014;76(2):333-349. Publisher's VersionAbstract
When a public problem is perceived to be poorly addressed by current policy, it is often the case that credible alternative policies are proposed to both the status quo’s left and right. Specially designed national surveys show that in circumstances like these, many Americans’ preferences are not single-peaked on the standard left-right dimension. Rather, they simply want the government to “do something” about the problem and therefore prefer both liberal and conservative policies to the moderate status quo. This produces individual and collective preferences that are double-peaked with respect to the left-right dimension. Double-peakedness is less prevalent on issues where no consensus exists regarding policy goals, and it increases when exogenous events raise the public’s concern about the seriousness of a policy problem.
Ansolabehere S, Konisky DM.

Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of Global Warming

. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2014 pp. 272. Publisher's WebsiteAbstract
How do Americans think about energy? Is the debate over fossil fuels highly partisan and ideological? Does public opinion about fossil fuels and alternative energies divide along the fault between red states and blue states? And how much do concerns about climate change weigh on their opinions? In Cheap and Clean, Stephen Ansolabehere and David Konisky show that Americans are more pragmatic than ideological in their opinions about energy alternatives, more unified than divided about their main concerns, and more local than global in their approach to energy.Drawing on extensive surveys they designed and conducted over the course of a decade (in conjunction with MIT’s Energy Initiative), Ansolabehere and Konisky report that beliefs about the costs and environmental harms associated with particular fuels drive public opinions about energy. People approach energy choices as consumers, and what is most important to them is simply that energy be cheap and clean. Most of us want energy at low economic cost and with little social cost (that is, minimal health risk from pollution). The authors also find that although environmental concerns weigh heavily in people’s energy preferences, these concerns are local and not global. Worries about global warming are less pressing to most than worries about their own city’s smog and toxic waste. With this in mind, Ansolabehere and Konisky argue for policies that target both local pollutants and carbon emissions (the main source of global warming). The local and immediate nature of people’s energy concerns can be the starting point for a new approach to energy and climate change policy.
Buttice MK, Stone WJ. Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections. The Journal of Politics. 2012;74(3):870-887.
Arceneaux K, Nicholson S. Who Wants to Have a Tea Party? The Who, What, and Why of the Tea Party Movement. PS: Political Science and Politics. 2012;45(4):700-710.
Pedraza F, Krueger J. Missing Voices: War Attitudes among Military Service-Connected Civilians. Armed Forces and Society. 2012;38(3):391-412.
Barker D, Carman C. Political Representation in Red and Blue America: How Cultural Differences Shape Democratic Expectations and Outcomes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.
Jacobson G. The Electoral Origins of Polarized Politics: Evidence from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. American Behavioral Scientist. 2012;56(12):1612-1630.
Jacobson G. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 8th edition. New York: Longman; 2012.
Nicholson SP, Segura GM. Who's the Party of the People? Economic Populism and the U.S. Public's Beliefs about Political Parties. Political Behavior [Internet]. 2012;34(2):369-389. Website
Nicholson SP. Polarizing Cues. American Journal of Political Science. 2012;56(1):52-66.
Wright M, Citrin J, Wand J. Alternative Measures of American National Identity: Implications for the Civic-Ethnic Distinction. Political Psychology. 2012;33(4):469-482.
Brooks D, Murov M. Assessing Accountability in a Post-Citizens United Era: The Effects of Attack Ad Sponsorship by Unknown Independent Groups. American Politics Research. 2012;40(3):383.
Richardson LE, Konisky DM, Milyo J. Public Approval of U. S. State Legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 2012;37(1):99-116. Full Text
Barker D, Bearce D. End Times Theology, The Shadow of the Future, and American Exceptionalism regarding Global Climate Change, in Annual Conference. New Orleans: Southern Political Science Association; 2011.
Jacobson G. Barack Obama, the Tea Party, and the 2010 Midterm Elections, in 2011 Annual Meeting. Chicago: Midwestern Political Science Association; 2011.
Hersh E, Schaffner B. When Pandering is Not Persuasive, in MPSA Annual Conference. Chicago: Midwest Political Science Association; 2011. Full Text
Jacobson G. The President, the Tea Party, and the Voting Behavior in 2010: Insights From the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, in 2011 Annual Meeting. Seattle: American Political Science Association; 2011.
Jacobson G. Polarization, Public Opinion and the Presidency: The Obama and Anti-Obama Coalitions. In Rockman BA, Rudalevige A The Barack Obama Presidency: First Appraisals Washington D. C.: CQ Press; 2011. pp. 94-121.
Jacobson G. Obama and the Polarized Public. In Thurber J Obama in Office: the First Two Years Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers; 2011. pp. 19-40.
Jacobson G. Legislative Success and Political Failure: The Public’s Reaction to Barack Obama’s Early Presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly. 2011;41:219-42.