Survey of American Political Behavior
Political Science 6309
Spring 2010
Professor: Brandon Rottinghaus
Email: bjrottinghaus@uh.edu
Phone: 33925 (office) or 281 / 973-8072 (home)
Office: PGH 393
Office Hours: W 11-1, Th
This course is a survey of selected segments of the literature on American political behavior.
This course is designed to provide you with an advanced understanding of American government
through classic and recent cutting-edge scholarship in the field of political science. The concept
of political behavior is broad, but encompasses the psychology of decision making, the dynamics
of opinion formation (by group and by issue type), the importance of values and affect, the
stability of mass opinion, political leadership and responsiveness and the role of the media.
We’ll just scrape the surface of these topics but give you a flavor for how research is conducted
in these areas and a sense of the debates and discussions produced from this literature.
It is designed to meet the needs of graduate students who hope at some time in the future to do
original research, master a doctoral field, or teach in one or more areas of American politics. No
one could master all of the literature on American political behavior in one semester or even
several years, so I have therefore chosen some of the finer articles and books in what I regard as
recurrent areas of interest for political scientists. Not at all incidentally, a number of the articles
and books often figure in the Ph.D. examination in American Government and Politics. I hope
you will gain a feel for how political scientists think about and execute empirical research.
Evaluation
Your grade for the course will be measured by your weekly critical writing assignments (50%)
related to the readings, your class participation (25%) and a final “field essay” (25%). Letter
grades will be assigned (and translated numerically) for final grading. Each are outlined with
more detail below:
Weekly critical writings: Each week you will be responsible for reading critically and
comprehensively and crafting a two page response to the readings. Additional details are
provided on the separate sheet (attached) describing what I am looking for in these assignments.
Think about the readings and submit a two-page (double space, 12 pt. font) “reaction paper” each
week.
These papers are an opportunity for you to organize your general assessments of the readings and
how they fit with the major theoretical and methodological questions of the course. Reaction
papers are not to summarize the readings; rather, they are intended to encapsulate your summary
of the usefulness, strengths and weaknesses of the research. Your paper should focus on a
theoretical or methodological concern from the week’s readings. The paper should discuss the
issue, raise questions about the week’s readings, and suggest answers. You do not have to
address each of the readings. It is important not to exceed 2 pages (doubled space). You need to
learn to write a succinct argument.
Participation: Your weekly in-class discussion participation is critical to my ability to track your
progress and your own development in understanding the material. This requires you to have a
comprehensive understanding of the readings and (obviously) to come to class. You should be
prepared to answer the following questions for each reading each class:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
What is the main contribution of the reading to scholarly knowledge?
What theoretical tradition is the reading working within or in contrast to?
What hypotheses are offered for empirical evidence?
What are the data and measures used in the paper appropriate for evaluating the
theory and hypothesis?
(5) What are the main findings?
(6) What are the implications of the theory and results for understanding political
behavior?
(7) What are your criticisms of the research?
Each of you will be responsible for leading the class discussion during one week of your
choosing. You should prepare a short summary and list of key questions that you will use to lead
the discussion for the class. You will need to bring for me the list of questions and arguments for
why you are asking the question and its relative importance. On the day you present and then
lead class, you will come to class with your list of questions for each of your classmates (think
about why you are asking the question and what answer you want to receive). You can work
with me to brainstorm questions.
You will start the class by making a brief presentation on the main concepts and themes of the
week and then you will lead the class in a discussion of these themes. If there is more than one
presenter during your week, you will need to coordinate with the other person so as to minimize
repetition (i.e., you will need to divide the material for purposes of presentation and discussion).
Field essay: Due Friday of finals week. Each student will turn in a 10-15 page “field” essay
during finals week. For this assignment, you should (a) pick a particular research area in
political behavior that interests you, (b) identify the principal research questions within this field,
(c) discuss the major findings to date, noting any ambiguities or significant disagreements among
authors, and (d) highlight possible paths for future research. The following are good examples of
field essays:
Norrander, Barbara. 1996. “Presidential Nomination Politics in the Post-Reform Era,” Political
Research Quarterly 49:4, 875-915.
Leighley, Jan E. 1995. “Attitudes, Opportunities and Incentives: A Field Essay on Political
Participation,” Political Research Quarterly 48:1, 181-210.
(also, Smith’s “Interest Group Influence in the U.S. Congress” in LSQ, which is on your
“recommended” list during week 7 and Manza and Cook, “A Democratic Polity?” American
Politics Research (2002) which we read for week 9).
These are longer in text and larger in scope than the one required here, but these give you a sense
of how to craft a summary and synthesis of a large body of literature. One strategy in preparing
for this project is to identify a smaller portion of a subfield’s literature (perhaps structured
around a question) and write a more narrowly focused field essay. Use the “recommended”
readings below to begin this process and please discuss it with me.
Cheating and Plagiarism: All students are expected to observe the University of Houston’s
rules against cheating and plagiarism. See the section on “Academic Honesty” in the University
of Houston Studies handbook for a full statement regarding UH’s rules against cheating and
plagiarism. A succinct discussion of the University’s policies with links to all the relevant
regulations can be found at http://www.uh.edu/provost/stu/stu_syllabsuppl.html. Any violation
may result in expulsion from the University. Cheating and plagiarism in this class will be
punished to the maximum extent possible.
ADA Statement: The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal antidiscrimination
statute that provides comprehensive civil rights protection for persons with disabilities. Among
other things, this legislation requires that all students with disabilities be guaranteed a learning
environment that provides for reasonable accommodation of their disabilities. If you believe you
have a disability requiring an accommodation, please contact UH’s Center for Students with
Disabilities (CSD) at (713) 743-5400.
Readings
The following books are required for the class and are available at the UH Bookstore and online.
I think these are books you will certainly want to keep in your collection and there is a strong
likelihood you will use these in other classes. We will read portions of other books not on this
list (see below) but buying them is not required (but highly recommended).
An Economic Theory of Democracy. 1957. Anthony Downs. Harper Collins.
Why Parties? 1995. John Aldrich. U. Chicago Press.
Congress: The Electoral Connection. 1974. David Mayhew. Yale U. Press.
Going Public. 2007 Kernell, Samuel. CQ Press.
The Rational Public. 1992. Benjamin I. Page and Robert Shapiro. U. Chicago Press.
The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. 1998. John Zaller. Cambridge U. Press.
On Deaf Ears. 2003. George Edwards. Yale University Press.
Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America. 1993. Steven Rosenstone and John Mark
Hansen. MacMillan.
In addition, readings marked with an “**” denote required readings which you can find on
JSTOR. Readings marked with a (BR) denote articles I will distribute to you either via
email.
Schedule:
Week 1 (January 21) – Introductions
Week 2 (January 28) – Presidency
Neustadt, Presidential Power, 1, 3-5 (BR)
Ragsdale and Theis. “The Institutionalization of the American Presidency, 1924-92.” American
Journal of Political Science (1997) **
Skowronek, Stephen. 1998. “Presidential Leadership in Political Time.” In The Presidency and
the Political System, ed. Michael Nelson. Washington D. C.: CQ Press, 125-170. (BR)
Sullivan, Terry, “Bargaining with the President: A Simple Game and New Evidence.” American
Political Science Review (1990)**
Kernell, Going Public, Chapter 1-2, 3, 5.
Edwards and Wood, “Who Influences Whom?,” American Political Science Review (1999)**
Recommended:
Jones, The Presidency in a Separated System. Brookings Press.
Cameron, Charles. 2000. Veto Bargaining: Presidents and the Politics of Negative Power. Cambridge U. Press.
Barber, James David. 1992. The Presidential Character. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McCarty, Nolan, Timothy Groseclose. 2000. “The Politics of Blame: Bargaining before an Audience.” AJPS
Moe, Terry. 1985. “The Politicized Presidency.” In The New Direction in American Politics, ed. John E. Chubb and Paul
E. Peterson. Brookings Press.
Howell, 2003. Power without Persuasion. Princeton.
Wildavsky, “The Two Presidencies,” in Wildavsky, Perspectives on the Presidency, 448-61
Deering and Maltzman. “The Politics of Executive Orders.” PRQ (1999).
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Michael C. Herron and Kenneth W. Shotts. 2001. “Leadership and Pandering: A Theory of
Executive Policymaking” American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 532-550.
Tulis, Jeffrey. 1987. The Rhetorical Presidency.
Cohen, Jeffrey. 1997. Presidential Responsiveness to Public Policy-Making. U. Michigan Press.
Ostrom, Charles W., and Dennis M. Simon. 1988. “The President's Public.” AJPS
Eisinger, Robert. 2003. The Evolution of Presidential Polling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards III, George. 2003. On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brace, Paul and Barbara Hinckley. 1993. Follow the Leader. Basic Books.
Canes-Wrone and Shotts, “The Conditional Nature of Presidential Responsiveness to Public
Opinion” AJPS (2004)**
Edwards and Wood, “Who Influences Whom?,” American Political Science Review (1999)**
Wood, “How Does Presidential Rhetoric on the Economy Affect Presidential Approval” (2005)**
Rottinghaus, “Strategic Leaders: Determining Successful Leadership of Public Opinion”(BR)
Week 3 (February 4) – Congress
Mayhew, Congress: The Electoral Connection, Part I (skim Part II)
Polsby, “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives.” APSR (1968)
Arnold 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action, 1-4, 7 (BR)
Binder, “The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947-96,” APSR (1990)**
Poole & Rosenthal, “Patterns of Congressional Voting,” AJPS (1991)**
Recommended:
Kingdon, John W. 1981. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions, Harper and Row, chapters 1, 9-12.
Fenno, Richard F. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Little Brown (any Fenno will be helpful)
Sinclair. 1998. Legislators, Leaders and Lawmaking. Johns Hopkins Press.
Sinclair. 2000. Unorthodox Lawmaking. CQ Press.
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. University of Michigan Press. Chapters 1-3.
Weingast & Marshall, “The Industrial Organization of Congress,” Journal of Political Economy (1988)
Cox and McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan. University of California Press.
Cox and McCubbins. 1993. Setting the Agenda. Cambridge University Press.
Groseclose and King. 2001. “Committee Theories Reconsidered.” In Congress Reconsidered. 7th edition. Edited by
Lawrence Dodd and Bruce Oppenheimer. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. 191-216.
Hall and Evans. 1990. “The Power of Subcommittees.” Journal of Politics
Week 4 (February 11) – Judiciary and the Courts
Hamilton, Federalist #78 (BR or Internet)
Dahl, “Decision Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy Maker.” Journal of
Public Law (1957)**
Casper. “The Supreme Court and National Policy Making,” APSR (1976).
Segal and Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge
University Press. Chapters 2 & 3 (pages 44-114). (BR)
George and Epstein. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision-Making.” APRS (1992)**
Brace & Hall, “The Interplay of Preferences, Case Facts, Context, and Rules in the Politics of
Judicial Choice,” Journal of Politics (1997)**
Whittington, “Interpose Your Friendly Hand: Political Supports and the Exercise of Judicial
Review,” APSR (2005)**
Recommended:
Rosenberg. 1992, Hollow Hope, U. Chicago Press. Chapters 1, 3-5, 7-9.
Epstein and Knight. 1998. Choices Justices Make. Washington D. C.: CQ Press.
Maltzman, Spriggs II, Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court : The Collegial Game. Cambridge UP.
Bueno de Mesquita and Stephenson. 2002. “Informative Precedent and Intrajudicial Communication.” American
Political Science Review. 96(December): 755-766.
Cameron, Segal, and Songer. 2000. “Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the
Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions.” American Political Science Review. 94 (March): 101-116.
Perry, 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United Sates Supreme Court. Harvard University Press.
Caldeira, Wright, and Zorn. 1999. “Strategic Voting and Gatekeeping in the Supreme Court.” Journal of Law,
Economics, and Organization 15(3): 549-72.
Week 5 (February 18) – Interest Groups & Parties
Madison, Federalist #10 (BR or Internet)
Olson, 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press. Chapters 1 and 2 (BR)
Moe, 1981. “Toward a Broader Theory of Interest Groups.” Journal of Politics (1981) **
Nownes and Freeman, “Interest Group Activity in the States,” Journal of Politics (1998)**
Aldrich, Why Parties? Chapter 1-3, and 6-9
Sundquist, Dynamics of the Party System (1983 ed.), Chs. 1-3, 10-end (BR)
Recommended:
Smith, “Interest Group Influence in the U. S. Congress,” Legislative Studies Quarterly (1995)
Schlozman, Kay Lehman. 1984. “What Accent the Heavenly Chorus? Political Equality and the American
Pressure System.” The Journal of Politics 46 (November): 1006-1032.
Walker, Jack. 1983. “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in the United States.” American Political
Science Review 77 (June): 390-406.
Becker, Gary. 1983. A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence.” The Quarterly
Journal of Economics 98(3): 371-400.
Austen-Smith and Wright. 1994. “Counteractive Lobbying.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 25-44.
Wawro, Gregory. 2001. “A Panel Probit Analysis of Campaign Contributions and Roll Call Votes.” AJPS 45(3):
563-79.
Gordon, Stacy. 2001. “All Votes are Not Created Equal: Campaign Contributions and Critical Votes.” JOP
63(1):249-69.
Week 6 (February 25) – Public Opinion
Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, 5-7
Converse, Philip. 1964. “The Nature of Beliefs Systems in the Mass Public.” in Ideology and
Discontent, ed. David Apter. (BR)
Zaller, John and Stanley Feldman. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering
Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science (1992)**
Berinkey, Adam. “The Two Faces of Public Opinion.” American Political Science Review (1999)**
Page and Shapiro, The Rational Public, Chapters 1-3, 7-10
Recommended:
Schattschneider, E. E. 1974. The Semisovereign People. Hinsdale.
Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. Free Press, 1922.
Nie, Norman, Sidney Verba and John Petrocik. 1976. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, MA.
Achen, Christopher H. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political
Science Review. 69(4): 1218-1231.
Kinder, Donald. 1983. “Diversity and Complexity in American Public Opinion.” In The State of the
Discipline, ed. Ada Finifter. Washington D. C.: APSA, 389-425.
Alvarez, Michael R. and John Brehm.1997 “Are Americans Ambivalent Towards Racial Policies?“
American Journal of Political Science 41(2): 345-374.
Lupia, McCubbins and Popkin. 2000. Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice and the Bounds of Rationalistic.
Cambridge University Press.
Berinsky, Adam. 2004. Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Political Participation in America. Princeton Univeristy
Press.
Huckfeldt, Johnson and Sprague. 2004. Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within
Communication Networks. Cambridge University Press.
Hetherington, Mark. 2004. Why Trust Matters. Princeton University Press.
Mutz, Diana. 1998. Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes. U. Chicago
Press.
Week 7 (March 4) – No Class!
Week 8 (March 11) – Political Representation and Responsiveness
Stimson, MacKuen and Erikson. ”Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review
(1995)**
Page and Shapiro, “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy,” American Political Science Review (1983)**
Bartels, “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: the Reagan Defense Buildup.”
American Political Science Review (1991)**
Wlezien, “The Public As Thermostat,” AJPS (1995) **
Rottinghaus, “Rethinking Presidential Responsiveness,” JOP (2006)**
Recommended:
Benjamin I. Page, Who Deliberates? (1993) University of Chicago Press.
Brooks and Manza, “Why Do Welfare States Persist?” JOP (2006).
Kuklinski, James and John E. Stanga. 1979. “Political Participation and Government Responsiveness: The
Behavior of California Superior Courts.” American Political Science Review 73 (December): 1090-1099.
Clinton, Joshua. 2006. “Representation in Congress: Constituents and Roll Calls in the 106th House.” The Journal of
Politics 68(2): 397-409.
Bishin, Ben. 2000. “Constituency Influence in Congress: Does Subconstituency Matter?” Legislative Studies
Quarterly 25(3): 389-415.
Achen, Christopher H. 1978. “Measuring Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 22 (August): 475510.
Page, Ben. “Democratic Responsiveness? Untangling the Links Between Public Opinion and Policy” PS (1993)
Monroe, “Public Opinion and Public Policy, 1980-1993” Public Opinion Quarterly 62, 1998.
Week 9 (March 18) – Spring Break!
Week 10 (March 25) – Political Knowledge, Information and Preferences
Zaller, The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion (all)
Delli Carpini and Keeter. 1989. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. Yale
U. Press. Chapters 1-2. (BR)
Althaus, “Information Effects in Collective Preferences” American Political Science Review
(1998)**
Jerit, Barabas and Bolsen. “Citizens, Knowledge and the Information Environment.” American
Journal of Political Science (2006)**
Druckman, James. “On the Limits of Framing,” Journal of Politics (2001)**
Chong, Dennis and Druckman, Jamie, “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies”
American Political Science Review (2007)***
Recommended:
Jennings, M. Kent. 1996. “Political Knowledge Over Time and Across Generations” Public Opinion Quarterly 60
(Summer): 228-252.
Mondak, Jeffrey and Belinda Creel. 2001. “Asked and Answered: Knowledge Levels When We Will Not Take
‘Don’t Know’ for an Answer.” Political Behavior 23 (September): 199-225.
Mondak, Jeffrey and Mary Anderson. 2004. “The Knowledge Gap: A Reexamination of Gender-Based
Differences in Political Knowledge.” Journal of Politics 66 (May) 492-513.
Mondak, Jeffrey. 2001. “Developing Valid Knowledge Scales.” American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 224-238.
Conway, Margaret, David Ahern, and Mikel Wyckoff. 1981. “The Mass Media and Changes in Adolescents’
Political Knowledge During an Election Cycle.” Political Behavior 3 (1): 69-80.
Alvarez, Mark and John Brehm. 2002. Hard Choices, Easy Answers. Princeton University Press.
Lupia and McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What they Need to Know?
Cambridge University Press.
Sniderman, Brody and Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and Choice. Cambridge University Press.
Week 11 (April 1) – Public Opinion and Leadership
Edwards, On Deaf Ears (all)
Edwards and Wood, “Who Influences Whom?,” American Political Science Review (1999)**
Page, Shapiro, and Dempsey,“What Moves Public Opinion?” American Political Science Review
(1987)**
Recommended:
Jacobs and Shapiro, Politicians Don’t Pander (Chapters 1-2)
Erikson, Robert, Michael MacKuen and James Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge University Press.
Krosnick and Kinder, “Altering the Foundations of Support for the President through Priming,” APSR 84 (1990),
497-512.
Rudolph, T. 2003. “Who’s Responsible for the Economy?” American Journal of Political Science (47)
Ostrom, Charles W., and Dennis M. Simon. 1988. “The President's Public.” AJPS
Jacobs and Shapiro, 1994, “Issues, Candidate Image and Priming” APSR 88
Geer, John, 1993. From Tea Leaves to Opinion Polls. Columbia.
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Michael C. Herron and Kenneth W. Shotts. 2001. “Leadership and Pandering: A Theory
of Executive Policymaking” American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 532-550.
Tulis, Jeffrey. 1987. The Rhetorical Presidency.
Eisinger, Robert. 2003. The Evolution of Presidential Polling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brace, Paul and Barbara Hinckley. 1993. Follow the Leader. Basic Books.
Canes-Wrone and Shotts, “The Conditional Nature of Presidential Responsiveness to Public Opinion” AJPS (2004)
Wood, “How Does Presidential Rhetoric on the Economy Affect Presidential Approval” (2005)
Week 12 (April 8) – Political Participation and Deliberation
Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, 11-14
Rosenstone and Hansen, Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America (all)
Putnam, “Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America” PS
(1995)**
Barabas, Jason. “How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions.” American Political Science Review
(2004)**
Fishkin, Voice of the People (1997) (BR)
Recommended:
Riker, William and Peter Ordeshook. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science
Review 62 (March): 25-42.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. Yale University Press
Aldrich, John. 1993. “Rational Choice and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (February): 246-278.
Wolfinger, Raymond and Steven Rosenstone. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven: Yale UP. Chapters 2 and 4.
Beck, Paul Allen and M. Kent Jennings. 1982. “Pathways to Participation.” American Political Science Review 76
(March): 94-108.
Burns, Nancy, Kay Scholzman and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action. Harvard University
Press.
Rosenstone and Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America
Brehm, John and Wendy Rahn. 1997. “Individual Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital.”
American Journal of Political Science (41).
Skocpol, Ganz and Munson. 2000. “A Nation of Organizers: The Institutional Origins of Civil Volunteerism in
the United States.” American Political Science Review (94).
Week 13 (April 15) – Voting
Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, 1-4
Ansolabehere & Snyder, “The Incumbency Advantage in U.S. Elections,” Election Law Journal
(2002)**
Bartels & Zaller, “Presidential Vote Models: A Recount,” PS (2001)**
Burnham, “The Changing Shape of The American Political Universe,” APSR (1965) **
Fiorina, Retrospective Voting in American National Elections, chs. 1, 4 (BR)
Week 14 (April 22) – No Class! Midwest Political Science Meetings
Week 15 (April 29) – Campaigns and Elections
Gelman and King, “Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls so Variable When
Votes Are so Predictable?” British Journal of Political Science (1993) **
Shaw, “The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide Presidential Votes, 198896,” The American Political Science Review (1999) **
Lodge, Steenbergen and Brau, “The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics
of Candidate Evaluation”, APSR (1995)**
Kaplan, Park and Ridout. 2006. “Dialogue in American Political Campaigns?” American Journal
of Political Science
Recommended:
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. Norton.
Green, Donald P. and Ian Shapiro. 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. Yale University Press. Chapter 4,
“The Paradox of Voter Turnout”
Shaw, Daron R. 1999. “A Study of Presidential Campaign Event Effects from 1952 to 1992.” The Journal of Politics
Petrocik, John R., William L. Benoit, and Glenn J. Hansen. 2003. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning,
1952-2000.” Political Science Quarterly
Bartels, Larry. 1993. “Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure.” APSR
Lawson, Chappell and James A. McCann. 2005. “Television Coverage, Media Effects, and Mexico’s 2000
Elections,” BJPS 35:1, 1-30
Sides, John. 2006. “The Origins of Campaign Agendas.” British Journal of Political Science
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (1996). Packaging the Presidency. Oxford University Press.
APSR Forum, December 1999, 851-910 (negative campaigning)
Geer, John. In Defense of Negative Advertising. University of Chicago Press.