<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:adano="http://adambrown.info/p/xmlns/adano#" 
>

<channel>
	<title>Abstract Politics &#187; polarization</title>
	<atom:link href="http://abstractpolitics.com/tag/polarization/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://abstractpolitics.com</link>
	<description>Notes on political science research</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:07:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The World Wide Web and the U.S. Political News Market</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/06/the-world-wide-web-and-the-u-s-political-news-market/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/06/the-world-wide-web-and-the-u-s-political-news-market/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:40:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>A.B.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american journal of political science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cable television]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ideology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media and politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perceptual bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polarization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voter information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting and elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[websites blogs and new media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=242</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No serious observer of American politics would be surprised if you made two basic claims: (1) Small-circulation media outlets (websites, cable channels, independent newspapers) can be far more ideologically extreme than large-circulation outlets (network news) that need to appeal to a large audience to remain profitable, and (2) people prefer media sources that confirm their [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/06/the-world-wide-web-and-the-u-s-political-news-market/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partisan Polarization and Congressional Accountability in House Elections</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/05/partisan-polarization-and-congressional-accountability-in-house-elections/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/05/partisan-polarization-and-congressional-accountability-in-house-elections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 16:06:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>A.B.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american journal of political science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blame]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incumbency advantage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polarization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting and elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=228</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shortly before the 2008 Congressional elections, only 36% believed that most members of Congress deserved reelection. These numbers were not unusual. Since consistent polling began in the 1970s, Congressional approval has rarely been higher than 40%. Nevertheless, 94% of U.S. House members won reelection. For years, political scientists have explained this seeming paradox by pointing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/05/partisan-polarization-and-congressional-accountability-in-house-elections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/02/no-middle-ground-how-informal-party-organizations-control-nominations-and-polarize-legislatures/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/02/no-middle-ground-how-informal-party-organizations-control-nominations-and-polarize-legislatures/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:00:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hjghassell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislatures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partisanship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polarization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[primary elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting and elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The debate on the influence of political parties on the political process until recently has been restricted to parties in government.  Scholars have focused their debate primarily on the impact of party on the actions of a legislator in the legislature. Masket takes this a step further, arguing that local informal party organizations control nominations and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/02/no-middle-ground-how-informal-party-organizations-control-nominations-and-polarize-legislatures/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/01/candidate-positioning-and-voter-choice/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/01/candidate-positioning-and-voter-choice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:53:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>A.B.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american political science review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[experiment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ideology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[median voter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partisanship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polarization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spatial models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting and elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=34</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Issue-based voting seems simple enough on its face: Support the candidate who will produce the policies you want. Simple as it sounds, though, there are three competing theories as to how voters actually make this decision. The lengthy previous literature on candidate positioning has failed to distinguish empirically between these three theories&#8211;something that Tomz and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/01/candidate-positioning-and-voter-choice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are Voters Sensitive to Terrorism? Direct Evidence from the Israeli Electorate</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/01/are-voters-sensitive-to-terrorism-direct-evidence-from-the-israeli-electorate/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/01/are-voters-sensitive-to-terrorism-direct-evidence-from-the-israeli-electorate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:30:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>A.B.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Comparative Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american political science review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortality salience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partisanship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polarization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=23</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since 1984 Israeli has endured over 500 terrorist attacks, resulting in over 1000 fatalities. These attacks, together with the frequency of parliamentary elections, enables the authors to conduct a rigorous quantatitive analysis to answer a simple questions: Are voters sensitive to terrorism? At first blush, one might find the question simple: Of course voters are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/01/are-voters-sensitive-to-terrorism-direct-evidence-from-the-israeli-electorate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2008/05/framing-public-opinion-in-competitive-democracies/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2008/05/framing-public-opinion-in-competitive-democracies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 20:31:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>A.B.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american political science review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[framing effects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media and politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minimal effects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polarization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public opinion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=13</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a democracy, politicians and policy outcomes should be responsive to changes in public opinion. But what if politicians (or others, such as media commentators) were able to manipulate public opinion through propaganda or other, more subtle methods? We might appear on the surface to have democracy, but it would be a farce. The public [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2008/05/framing-public-opinion-in-competitive-democracies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Effects of &#8220;In-Your-Face&#8221; Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2008/04/effects-of-in-your-face-television-discourse-on-perceptions-of-a-legitimate-opposition/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2008/04/effects-of-in-your-face-television-discourse-on-perceptions-of-a-legitimate-opposition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 00:23:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>A.B.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american political science review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[experiment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media and politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polarization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public opinion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=11</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do we truly believe that ALL red-state residents are ignorant racist fascist knuckle-dragging NASCAR-obsessed cousin-marrying road-kill-eating tobacco-juice-dribbling gun-fondling religious fanatic rednecks; or that ALL blue-state residents are godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing Communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts? With that opening quotation from Dave Barry, Mutz introduces her central question: How do [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2008/04/effects-of-in-your-face-television-discourse-on-perceptions-of-a-legitimate-opposition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

