DOCSLIB.ORG

Reviewers 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reviewers 2018 2018 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE Reviewers Thank you, thank you, thank you to all our reviewers in 2018! Referees provide an invaluable service to the journal and discipline by engaging with the ideas, arguments and evidence presented in our manuscripts. Reviewers who complete more than two reviews in a calendar year are designated as “Super Reviewers” by the AJPS and receive special badges at the following year’s MPSA Conference. These Super Reviewers’ names are in bold below. REVIEWER NAME INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION Loes Aaldering University of Vienna Alberto Abadie Massachusetts Institute of Technology Tarik Abou-Chadi University of Zurich Max Abrahms Northeastern University Marisa Abrajano University of California San Diego Alan Abramowitz Emory University Avidit Acharya Stanford University Benjamin Acosta Louisiana State University James Adams University of California Davis Claire Adida University of California San Diego E. Adler University of Colorado Rosario Aguilar Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas Douglas Ahler Vanderbilt University John Ahlquist University of California San Diego Scott Ainsworth University of Georgia Seden Akcinaroglu Binghamton University Michaël Aklin University of Pittsburgh Deniz Aksoy Washington University in Saint Louis Ericka Albaugh Bowdoin College Bethany Albertson University of Texas Michael Albertus University of Chicago Holger Albrecht University of Alabama Eduardo Aleman University of Houston Jose Aleman Fordham University Alberto Alesina Harvard University Dan Alexander Vanderbilt University Despina Alexiadou University of Strathclyde Maarten Allers Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Scott Althaus University of Illinois Michael Alvarez University of Bergen Amrit Amirapu University of Kent Eran Amsalem Hebrew University of Jerusalem Liam Andersen Wright State University Sarah Anderson University of California, Santa Barbara 1 Allison Anoll Vanderbilt University Stephen Ansolabehere Harvard University Nicolas Anspach York College of Pennsylvania Sarah Anzia University of California at Berkeley Thomas Apolte Center for Interdisciplinary Economics Daniel Arce University of Texas at Dallas Kevin Arceneaux Temple University Vincent Arel-Bundock Universite de Montreal Andreu Arenas UC Louvain Lisa Argyle Brigham Young University Eric Arias College of William and Mary Gizem Arikan Trinity College Dublin Miles Armaly University of Mississippi Victor Asal University at Albany, SUNY Elliott Ash Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich Vivekinan Ashok Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences Ewa Atanassow Bard College Berlin Lonna Atkeson University of New Mexico Jed Atkins Duke University Mary Atkinson University of North Carolina at Charlotte Adam Auerbach American University Nazli Avdan Kansas University James Avery Stockton University Richard Avramenko University of Wisconsin Emiel Awad University of Rochester Selim Erdem Aytac Koc Universitesi Leonardo Baccini McGill University Andre Bachtiger Universitat Stuttgart Hanna Back Lund University Alex Badas University of Houston Martin Baekgaard Aarhus University Nicole Baerg University of Essex Joseph Bafumi Dartmouth University Samuel Bagg McGill University Benjamin Bagozzi University of Delaware Michael Bailey Georgetown University Stanley Bailey University of California Irvine Andy Baker University of Colorado at Boulder Travis Baker University of California Center Sacramento Kristin Bakke University College London Laia Balcells Georgetown University Kate Baldwin Yale University Andrew Ballard American University 2 Cameron Ballard-Rosa University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chris Ballinger University of Oxford Exeter College Lee Ann Banaszak Pennsylvania State University Kevin Banda Texas Tech University Antonella Bandiera New York University Susan Banducci University of Exeter Kirk Bansak Stanford University Navin Bapat University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Jason Barabas Stony Brook University Michael Barber Brigham Young University Joan Barcelo Washington University in Saint Louis Scott Barclay Arizona State University David Barker American University Lucy Barnes University College London Tiffany Barnes University of Kentucky Jonathon Baron Yale University Matt Barreto University of California Los Angeles Richard Barrett Mount Mercy University Charles Barrilleaux Florida State University Brandon Bartels George Washington University John Bartle University of Essex Scott Basinger University of Houston Anna Bassi University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Ida Bastiaens Fordham University Marco Battaglini Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences James Battista University at Buffalo - SUNY Alexander Baturo Dublin City University Nichole Bauer Louisiana State University Lawrence Baum The Ohio State University Markus Baumann Heidelberg University Frank Baumgartner University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Michael Baumgartner University of Bergen Kathleen Bawn University of California Los Angeles A. Bayram University of Arkansas Oskan Bayulgen University of Connecticut David Bearce University of Colorado Kyle Beardsley Duke University Emily Beaulieu University of Kentucky Katrine Beauregard Australian National University Quintin Beazer Florida State University Emily Bech Aarhus University Michael Becher Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse Michael Bechtel Washington University 3 Deborah Beim Yale University Janina Beiser-McGrath Universitat Konstanz Eric Belanger McGill University Michelle Belco University of Houston Nisha Bellinger Boise State University Paolo Bellucci University of Siena William Bendix Keene State College Jonathan Bendor Stanford University Justin de Benedictis-Kessner Harvard University and Northeastern University Sara Benesh University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Keith Bentele University of Mass-Boston Thomas Bentley Michigan State University Lars Berger University of Leeds William Berger University of Pennsylvania Johannes Bergh Institute for Social Research Adam Berinsky Massachusetts Institute of Technology Daniel Berliner London School of Economics and Political Science Samuel Berlinski Inter-American Development Bank Rodolpho Bernabel New York University Julian Bernauer University of Mannheim William Bernhard University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Dan Bernhardt University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Frances Berry Florida State University Jeffrey Berry Tufts University Marie Berry University of Denver Matthew Berry Boston College Andrew Bertoli IE University - Campus Madrid Clayton Besaw University of Central Florida Rebecca Best University of Missouri at Kansas City Robin Best Binghamton University (SUNY) Timm Betz Texas A&M University Sambit Bhattacharyya University of Sussex Rikhil Bhavnani University of Wisconsin, Madison William Bianco Indiana University Nicolas Bichay Michigan State University Chris Bidner Simon Fraser University Daniel Biggers University of California Riverside Glen Biglaiser University of North Texas Thomas Billard University of Southern California Peter Bils Princeton University Daniel Bischof University of Zurich Martin Bisgaard Aarhus Universitet Amanda Bittner Memorial University 4 Christian Bjørnskov Aarhus University Ryan Black Michigan State University Bethany Blackstone University of North Texas Matthew Blackwell Harvard University Robert Blair Brown University Andre Blais University of Montreal Charles Blake James Madison University Christopher Blattman University of Chicago Lisa Blaydes Stanford University Jaimie Bleck University of Notre Dame Rachel Blum Miami University of Ohio Jack Blumenau University College London Taylor Boas Boston University Robert Boatright Clark University Daniel Bochsler University Zurich Cristina Bodea Michigan State University Frederick Boehmke University of Iowa Anjali Thomas Bohlken Georgia Tech Carles Boix Princeton University Damien Bol King's College London Niklas Bolin Mid Sweden University Nicole Bolleyer University of Exeter Toby Bolsen Georgia State University Jørgen Bølstad University of Oslo Sergio Ascencio Bonfil New York University - Abu Dhabi Campus Adam Bonica Stanford University Chris Bonneau University of Pittsburgh Walter Borges University of North Texas at Dallas Erica Borghard US Military Academy Nils-Christian Bormann University of Exeter Tanja Borzel Free University of Berlin Inken von Borzyskowski Florida State University Angela Bos College of Wooster Cheryl Boudreau University of California, Davis Carew Boulding University of Colorado at Boulder Andrew Boutton University of Central Florida Jacob Bowers University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Jennifer Bowie University of Richmond Shaun Bowler University of California-Riverside Ann Bowman Texas A&M University Janet Box-Steffensmeier Ohio State University Amber Boydstun University of California, Davis Alex Braithwaite University of Arizona 5 Jessica Braithwaite University of Arizona Brittany Bramlett University of Georgia Jordan Branch Brown University Mark Brandt Tilburg University J. Branham University of Texas Sebastian Braun Universitat Bayreuth Sam Brazys University College Dublin Christian Breunig Universitat Konstanz Sarah Brierley Washington University in Saint Louis David Broockman Stanford Graduate School of Business Deborah Brooks Dartmouth College Leah Brooks George Washington University James Broz University of California, San Diego Sarah Bruch University of Iowa Wouter van der Brug University of Amsterdam Kathleen Bruhn University of California Santa Barbara Lisa Bryant California State University Fresno Bryan Bubolz
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proseminar in American Politics Fall 2014
    GOV 2305: American Politics Field Seminar Fall 2017 Monday 2-4pm Location: Knafel 108 Instructors: Dan Carpenter: Office hours are Wednesdays, 1:15-4:15, CAPS Conference Room [email protected] Jennifer Hochschild: Office hours are Tuesdays, 2-4, CGIS K156 [email protected] The purpose of this course is to introduce doctoral students to the major themes and some of the best scholarship in the political science literature on American Politics. The readings for 2305 typically form the core of students’ subsequent reading lists for major or minor general exams in American politics. Still, there is much in the study of American politics that is not represented here, indeed that political scientists have failed to take up. Along the way, we will want to identify important but neglected questions. What issues should motivate the next generation of research in this field? What theoretical and methodological approaches might be appropriate to studying them? The most important requirement of the course is to read the assigned readings for each week carefully and critically. They will be the focus of our weekly discussions, though we will rarely be able to talk about them all. Nonetheless, please read all of them since your reading of some will affect your reading of others, whether in the current or some other week. More generally, the readings will provide us, as a group, with common terms of reference upon which good discussions will depend. To facilitate discussion, it is important that you write as well as read and think in advance about how the readings address the overall topic for that session.
    [Show full text]
  • Circles and Hemispheres of Integration
    Circles and Hemispheres of Integration The Development of a System of Graded European Union Membership Frank Schimmelfennig, ETH Zürich, September 2014 Abstract The study of integration has focused on organizational growth and on the “deepening” and “widening” of regional organizations. By contrast, this paper analyzes organizational differentiation. It conceives of differentiation as a process, in which states either refuse to be integrated or are being refused integration by the core member states but all parties find value in creating in-between grades of membership. A particularly fine-grained system of graded membership has developed in Europe. This paper describes its development and seeks to explain the positioning and movement of states in this system. I argue that the “refusers” and the “refused” are located in different “hemispheres” of integration that cut across the “circles” of membership, and in which membership status is driven by opposite or different factors. The states of the “hemisphere of bad governance” are refused further integration because the core members are concerned about efficiency losses, redistribution, and a dilution of the EU’s democratic identity. By contrast, the states of the “hemisphere of affordable nationalism” refuse further integration because they care strongly about national identity and sovereignty and are wealthy and well-governed enough to resist. A panel analysis of European countries since the early 1990s shows that membership status among the refused countries increases with wealth, democracy,
    [Show full text]
  • 2505 Academic Programme
    Contents Welcome Welcome messages ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.2 Organizing committees ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.4 ECPR Standing Group on the EU .. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. p.5 The University of Trento ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. p.5 Academic program Schedule of activities …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.6 Jo urnal of Common Market Studies Keynote Lecture ………………………………………………………………….. p.7 Plenary Roundtable ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.7 Other events ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.8 List of Sections …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. p.9 List of Panels by Section ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. p.10 List of Panels by Session time ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. p.47 Practical information Location ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. p.48 Regist ration ……………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………. p.48 Floor plans …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.49 Technology …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.51 Where to eat ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.51 Further information ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.5 2 List of registered participants ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… p.53 1 Welcome Welcome messages Dear Participants, it is my pleasure to welcome you to the University of Trento on the occasion of the 8th Pan-European Conference on the EU organized by the ECPR Standing Group on the European
    [Show full text]
  • With 126 Panels, Nearly 500 Researc
    Welcome to the 14th Biennial Conference of the European Union Studies Association in Boston! With 126 panels, nearly 500 researchers and practitioners from over 250 institutions across the world are participating in panels, plenaries and roundtables, making this one of the largest EUSA Conferences. We have a diversity of topics and disciplines represented in the program, along with key plenary sessions, followed by evening receptions open to all participants. Among the highlights of the program is an evening plenary panel on Friday: Neoliberal Policies and their Alternatives, followed by a keynote lecture by Thomas Piketty, Inequality in the Europe- and What the EU Could Do About it. Immediately thereafter, there is a reception hosted by the Journal of Common Market Studies. Two other plenaries will focus on the Future of EU Federalism, and the Future of Transatlantic Relations, the latter featuring Baroness Catherine Ashton (former High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy). A panel and discussion Honoring Lifetime Achievement in European Studies Award Recipient James Caporaso, former Chair of EUSA, will take place on Saturday during the lunch time session. A presentation of EUSA Prize Winners will be held on Thursday Evening, where we will award the Ernst Haas Fellowship, Lifetime Achievement Award, Best Book, Best Dissertation and Best Paper Prizes. This will be followed by a EUSA Reception. There are also a number of interest group business meetings listed in the program that conference participants are welcome to attend. The European Union Studies Association is grateful for a generous conference grant from the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, and logistical assistance, financial sponsorship and organizational support from the Journal of Common Market Studies, College of Europe, Fulbright Commission, Northeastern University, and the University of Pittsburgh, which supports EUSA on its campus.
    [Show full text]
  • Why European Union Member States Opt out of Integration
    The Choice for Differentiated Europe: Why European Union Member States Opt out of Integration Thomas Winzen and Frank Schimmelfennig Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich, Switzerland1 Paper prepared for the 14th biennial conference of the European Union Studies Association, 5-7 March 2015, Boston, MA. Abstract Since the early 1990s, European integration has become differentiated integration. Treaty revisions and enlargements have resulted in opt-outs for countries such as Britain or Denmark, and in policy areas such as monetary union. Analysing under what conditions member states make use of the opportunity to opt- out or exclude other countries from European integration, we argue that different explanations apply to treaty and accession negotiations respectively. Threatening to block deeper integration, member states with strong national identities secure differentiations in treaty reform, particularly regarding the integration of core state powers. In enlargement, in turn, old member states fear economic disadvantages and low administrative capacity and, therefore impose differentiation on poor newcomers. A logistic regression analysis of the use of differentiation opportunities by member and candidate countries from Maastricht in 1993 to the Croatian accession in 2013 lends empirical support to these arguments. Introduction2 Since the early 1990s, European integration has become differentiated integration. This period has been characterized by a far-reaching extension of the European Union’s policy scope beyond
    [Show full text]
  • Kelly D. Patterson Department of Political Science Brigham
    Kelly D. Patterson Department of Political Science Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 (801) 422-4985 [email protected] EDUCATION Ph.D. Political Science, Columbia University, 1989 M.A. Political Science, Columbia University, 1985 B.A. Political Science, Brigham Young University, 1982 TEACHING AND RESEARCH INTERESTS American politics, political parties, campaigns and elections, public opinion, quantitative methods, election administration, political theory EMPLOYMENT Professor, Brigham Young University, current Associate Dean, College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences, Brigham Young University, 2012-2017 Director, Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, Brigham Young University, 2004- 2012 Chair, Department of Political Science, Brigham Young University, 1998-2004 Associate Professor, Brigham Young University, 1997-2007 Assistant Professor, Brigham Young University, 1993-1997 Congressional Fellow, American Political Science Association, 1992-1993 Assistant Professor, Franklin & Marshall College, 1989-1993 Visiting Instructor, Franklin & Marshall College, 1988-1989 BOOKS Political Parties and the Maintenance of Liberal Democracy. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996). JOURNAL ARTICLES AND PUBLICATIONS “The Enduring Effects of State Party Tradition on the Voting Experience.” Election Law Journal 19 (March 2020): 1-20 (with Jay Goodliffe, Paul Herrnson, and Richard Niemi). “Who’s in and Who’s Out: The Politics of Religious Norms.” Politics and Religion 9 (September 2016): 509-536 (with Christopher Karpowitz and J. Quin Monson). “Online Polls and Registration-Based Sampling: A New Method for Pre-Election Polling 22 Political Analysis (Summer 2014): 321-335 (with Michael J. Barber, Christopher B. Mann, and J. Quin Monson). “Exceeding Expectations? Determinants of Satisfaction with the Voting Process in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election” 75 Journal of Politics (April 2013): 451-463 (with Ryan Claassen, Paul S.
    [Show full text]
  • Central and Eastern Europe in the European Union
    This work has been published by the European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. © European University Institute 2018 Editorial matter and selection © Michał Matlak, Frank Schimmelfennig, Tomasz P. Woźniakowski, 2018 Chapters © authors individually 2018 doi:10.2870/675963 ISBN:978-92-9084-707-6 QM-06-18-198-EN-N This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes. Any additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s), editor(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the year and the publisher Views expressed in this publication reflect the opinion of individual authors and not those of the European University Institute. Artwork: ©Shutterstock: patrice6000 The European Commission supports the EUI through the European Union budget. This publication reflects the views only of the author(s), and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. EUROPEANIZATION REVISITED: CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Editors: Michał Matlak, Frank Schimmelfennig and Tomasz P. Woźniakowski In memoriam Nicky Owtram TABLE OF CONTENTS Biographies 1 Acknowledgments 4 Foreword 5 Europeanization Revisited: An Introduction Tomasz P. Woźniakowski, Frank Schimmelfennig and Michał Matlak 6 The Europeanization of Eastern Europe: the External Incentives Model Revisited Frank Schimmelfennig and Ulrich Sedelmeier 19 New
    [Show full text]
  • European Integration (Theory) in Times of Crisis a Comparison of the Euro and Schengen Crises
    European Integration (Theory) in Times of Crisis A comparison of the Euro and Schengen crises Frank Schimmelfennig, ETH Zürich, [email protected] Abstract The European Union has gone through major crises of its two flagship projects of the 1990s: the Euro and Schengen. Both crises had structurally similar causes and beginnings: exogenous shocks exposed the functional shortcomings of both integration projects and produced sharp distributional conflict among governments as well as an unprecedented politicization of European integration in member state societies. Yet they have resulted in significantly different outcomes: whereas the Euro crisis has brought about a major deepening of integration, the Schengen crisis has not. I put forward a neofunctionalist explanation of these different outcomes, which emphasizes variation in transnational interdependence and supranational capacity across the two policy areas. Acknowledgments For comments on previous versions of the paper, I thank audiences at an ACCESS EUROPE seminar at VU Amsterdam, the 2017 annual conference of the Swiss Political Science Association in St. Gallen, the 2017 EUSA Convention in Miami, and the Euro-CEFG workshop at the University of Rotterdam. Special thanks to Klaus Armingeon, Ben Crum, Madeleine Hosli, Matthias Mattijs, Thomas Spijkerboer, and Jonathan Zeitlin. Introduction The European Union (EU) has come to operate in crisis mode permanently. When the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force in December 2009, the EU finally appeared to have achieved institutional consolidation after the failure of the Constitutional Treaty. Around the same time, however, the mounting Greek balance-of-payment problem signaled the start of the Euro crisis. As soon as “Grexit” was averted in dramatic negotiations in July 2015, the migration flow across the Aegean Sea spiraled out of control, triggering a crisis of the Schengen regime of free movement across internal EU borders.
    [Show full text]
  • DONALD TRUMP and the TRANSFORMATION of AMERICAN POLITICS Sebastião C
    A HOUSE DIVIDED: DONALD TRUMP AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN POLITICS Sebastião C. Velasco e Cruz1 Taking as its methodological principle the requirement to articulate long-term trends and conjunctural determinants as key to the analysis of political change, this article reviews the literature on political polarization in American society and reconstructs the ascension process of the conservative movement, as essential elements for the interpretation of the Trump phenomenon. It shows, however, that the latter is only understandable by integrating into the analysis the impact of the 2008 financial crisis, the election of Barack Obama - the first black president in US history - and the consequent outbreak of the Tea Party, a reactionary movement that had a strong destabilizing effect on the Republican Party, paving the way for the New York tycoon’s overwhelming rush. Keywords: Donald Trump; polarization; Republican Party; conservative movement. UMA CASA DIVIDIDA: DONALD TRUMP E A TRANSFORMAÇÃO DA POLÍTICA AMERICANA Tomando a exigência de articular tendências de longo prazo e determinantes conjunturais como princípio de método-chave para a análise da mudança política, este artigo passa em revista a literatura sobre a polarização política na sociedade americana e reconstitui o processo de ascensão do movimento conservador, como elementos essenciais à interpretação do fenômeno Trump. Mostra, entretanto, que o mesmo só se torna compreensível ao se integrar na análise o impacto da crise financeira de 2008, a eleição de Barack Obama – primeiro presidente negro na história dos Estados Unidos – e a consequente eclosão do Tea Party, movimento reacionário que teve forte efeito desestabilizador sobre o Partido Republicano, abrindo o caminho nele para a arrancada avassaladora do magnata nova-iorquino.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics Is National: the Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S
    All Politics is National: The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. House and Senate Elections in the 21st Century Alan Abramowitz Emory University Steven Webster Emory University Abstract One of the most important developments affecting electoral competition in the United States in the 21st century has been the increasing partisanship of the American electorate. However, the standard party identification scale does not adequately reflect the growing intensity of voters’ partisan preferences. Using data from the American National Election Studies cumulative file, we show that since 1992 and especially since 2008, partisan identities have become increasingly associated with racial, cultural and ideological divisions in American society. As a result, growing proportions of strong, weak and leaning party identifiers have come to perceive important differences between the parties and to hold extremely negative opinions of the opposing party. This has led to sharp increases in party loyalty and straight ticket voting across all categories of party identification and to growing consistency between the results of presidential elections and the results of House and Senate elections. Increasing nationalization of congressional elections has important implications for party performance, democratic representation and governance. Prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 16-19, 2015 In the 21st century, the United States has entered a new age of partisanship. Sharp party divisions now characterize all of our major political institutions. In Congress, the ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate is now larger than at any time in the past century (Ansolabehere, Snyder, and Stewart 2001; Bafumi and Herron 2010; Mann and Ornstein 2013; Kraushaar 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • I TOWARD a GRAMMAR of the BLOGOSPHERE: RHETORIC and ATTENTION in the NETWORKED IMAGINARY by Damien Smith Pfister B.A., Universit
    TOWARD A GRAMMAR OF THE BLOGOSPHERE: RHETORIC AND ATTENTION IN THE NETWORKED IMAGINARY by Damien Smith Pfister B.A., University of Alabama, 2000 M.A., University of Pittsburgh, 2004 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2009i UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH School of Arts and Sciences This dissertation was presented by Damien Smith Pfister It was defended on January 16, 2009 and approved by Dr. Gregory Crowley, Coro Center for Civic Leadership Dr. John Lyne, Professor, Department of Communication Dr. Barbara Warnick, Professor, Department of Communication Dissertation Advisor: Gordon R. Mitchell, Associate Professor, Department of Communication ii Copyright © by Damien Smith Pfister 2009 iii TOWARD A GRAMMAR OF THE BLOGOSPHERE: RHETORIC AND ATTENTION IN THE NETWORKED IMAGINARY Damien Smith Pfister, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2009 This dissertation explores the rhetorical imaginary of internetworked societies by examining three cases where actors in the blogosphere shaped public deliberation. In each case, I analyze a trope that emerged organically as bloggers theorized their own rhetorical interventions, and argue that these tropes signal shifts in how citizens of networked societies imagine their relations. The first case study, on the blogosphere’s reaction to Trent Lott’s 2002 toast to Strom Thurmond, examines how bloggers “flooded the zone” by relentlessly interpreting the event and finding evidence that eventually turned the tide of public opinion against Lott. Flooding the zone signifies the inventional possibilities of blogging through the production of copious public argument. The second case study, focusing on the 2003 blogging of the Salam Pax, an English- speaking Iraqi living in Iraq on the precipice of war, develops the idea of “ambient intimacy” which is produced through the affective economy of blogging.
    [Show full text]
  • Independents: the Marginal Members of an Electoral Coalition 3
    A HOOVER INSTITUTION ESSAY ON CONTEMPORARY AMERicAN POLITicS Independents: The Marginal Members of an Electoral Coalition Currently, the party balance in the United States is nearly even, roughly one-third Democratic, one-third Republican, and one-third independent, taking turnout into account. This means that to win a majority a party normally must capture at least as large a share Hoover Institution Hoover of independents as the other party. Thus, independents constitute the marginal members of an electoral majority. We do not know nearly as much about this critical group of voters as many pundits think. The electoral movements of this poorly understood category underlie the unstable majorities of our time. MORRIS P. FIORINA Series No. 6 “We will never have a time again, in my opinion, in this country when you are going to have a polarization of only Democrats versus Republicans . you are going to have the Independents controlling basically the balance of power.”—Richard M. Nixon “There are more independents than ever before. That means nothing.”—Aaron Blake In recent elections partisans have voted for the presidential candidates of their parties at rates exceeding 90 percent.1 These figures lead many commentators to jump to the conclusion that the country is evenly divided into two deeply opposed partisan camps. But, as shown in the third essay in this series, party sorting in the general public remains far from perfect. Consider an analogy from the religious realm. Probably 90 percent of se lf-identified Catholics who attend church services attend Catholic services rather than those of other denominations, just as 90 percent of partisans who turn out cast their votes for the party with which they identify.
    [Show full text]