Presentations

For this week's write-up, briefly discuss someone else's class presentation.  What did you learn, and why is it important? 

Well-Done

For the write-up, what outcome surprised you the most and why?

Next week, everyone will give a brief talk on the research paper.  Prepare to speak for 5 minutes and take questions for 2-3 minutes on these questions:

• What is the main point you are making?
• What evidence are you using?
• Are you looking for additional evidence?  If so, what kind?

If you want to display a graph, table, map, or photo, email it to me by the night before class, so I can post it on the blog.  You do not need a PowerPoint just to repeat what you are saying.

Here is the schedule.  You may swap slots, but tell me in advance.

Monday:

• Peter
• Nick C.
• Lily
• Kurt
• Jasper
• Dean
• Isaiah
• Sohani

Wednesday:

• Charlie
• Keith
• Chantal
• Omar
• Emily
• Nicholas S.
• Thea

WELL-DONE SCENARIO: Dems gain an astounding 43 House seats (NYT estimate) and at least 7 Senate seats, and maybe 9.

Election summary

EXIT POLL

A remarkable social media post by J.D. Vance

Specific races:

• Kurt: KY 6
• Charlie: NY 17
• Keith: TX 15

Bigger picture: nationalization of elections

• Trump job approval

Iran war: 

• Americans are not antiwar, but they want their hot wars to be purposeful and time-limited.
• Poll: 34% approve of the strikes; 54% say the war wasn’t worth fighting.
• Memories of Vietnam
• Iraq and Afghanistan

Energy: 

• The war is a significant driver of higher fuel prices, with gas back above $4.
• Diesel hit farm states, home heating oil in the Northeast

Inflation: 

•  Not extreme by the standards of late 1970s and early 1980s, but...
• Prices rose 0.6% in September, for 3.7% annual inflation. 
• It’s the top issue for a plurality.

Tariffs: 

• They’ll cost households about $920 in 2026, and consumers see the link to prices. 
• The Canada trade war hit Michigan, Maine, and Ohio

Data centers: 

• Residential electricity is up 14% since January 2025, 
•  60% wouldn’t be comfortable with one nearby.

Immigration: 

• Border crossings are at a 50-year low, but 
• Republican support among Hispanic voters has slipped since 2024.
• Little noticed:  ICE is also going after Asians.

Four Strategic Postures Since 2000 (House, by election year) 

                    Majority                              Minority 

In Party        Dems 08, 20                     GOP 06, 18, 26

                    GOP 00, 02, 04, 16, 24      Dem 10,12,14,22

           

Out Party     GOP 10,12,14,22              GOP 08, 20

                    Dem 06, 18, 26                  Dem 00, 02, 04, 16, 24

Election Eve

For tonight, post a short summary of what you expect to find in your paper.

Next week, everybody will make a short oral presentation (7-10 minutes).  We shall go in alphabetical order unless you request otherwise.  PowerPoints not necessary unless you want to show a map, table, or graph.  Email it to me first, and I will post to the blog.

For Wednesday, chapter 6 of Carson and Jacobson.

Scenarios

Election Night (all times Eastern, so subtract 3)

From Bruce Mehlman P `25

National VEP Turnout Rates, 1789-Present 

Demographics of turnout

Party-line voting 

The Decline of House-Presidernt Ticket-Splitting

From Pew: 

"Waves" and "Snapbacks"

Why the difference between House and Senate outcomes?

What happened in "wave" years?

Congressional Campaigns: Money, Strategy, Media Tactics

 Questions on the paper?  Remember, each of you will make a brief (10-minute max) presentation the week after next.  (Use PowerPoint only if you have tables or graphs.)

Early vote tracker, NOT a foolproof indicator of the outcome.

For Monday,  Carson & Jacobson, ch. 5

Why run?

• Policy
• Service
• Ambition:
• Opportunity (time and place)
• Confidence (article coauthor is CMC alum)
• Recruitment (dissertation by Pomona alum)
• Resources:

Campaign Finance Redux:  Access Money and Belief Money

• Self-Funded candidates
• PACs:  The Distinguished Gentleman
• Online fundraising:  WinRed and ActBlue.  Who are the champs in small donations?
• Super PACs and dark money
• Party organizastion and coordinated expenditure (93-94).  Remember that NRSC v FEC ended the caps on coordinated expenditures

Campaign Strategy and  Message Grid

Oppo and vulnerability studies:  "Dirty Tricks Thursday" and early voting

Base mobilization  

Demobilization

Persuasion

Graph on tone of ads

GOTV

Television

Social media, text and paid influencers

Research Paper

Option 1

National forces shape congressional elections. But why do similar candidates fare differently?

Choose two House candidates from the same party whose 2026 results present a puzzle. One might win while the other loses, or one might outperform the party’s usual showing while the other falls short. Do not use a race from your previous paper.

Before the election, choose a provisional pair in your weekly writeup, due this time on November 2.   Include the note in your final appendix; no separate submission is necessary. You may change your pair afterward, but tell why.

After the election, establish the puzzle. Consider district partisanship, incumbency, candidate experience, and spending. Set a baseline for judging performance. A victory alone does not show that a candidate exceeded expectations.

Test two competing explanations for the difference. Find evidence that helps distinguish them. Do not assume a tactic worked because its candidate won.

Build your argument around three findings:

• A campaign contrast: Compare the items you saved. Quote or describe a specific feature that bears on your explanation.

• A local complication: Find a fact in local reporting or official records that a national account of the election might miss. Explain whether it changes your argument.

• An inconvenient fact: Present the strongest evidence against your preferred explanation. Explain why it matters.

Use official returns, campaign materials, local reporting, and course readings. Cite exact pages, passages, or figures where appropriate. If returns remain incomplete, explain what you can and cannot conclude.

Return to your Canvas note. Identify what you got wrong, overlooked, or confirmed. Explain which source most changed your thinking.

Conclude by weighing national forces against individual campaigns. State what your comparison cannot establish.

Option 2

Whatever happens, the 2026 election will change Trump’s political circumstances. Will it change how he governs?

Choose one policy goal Trump emphasized before the election. Explain how the results affect his options: seek legislation, act through executive authority, negotiate, or delay.  Describe your  choice in your weekly writeup, this time due November 2.

Save two pre-election statements showing what Trump wanted and how he planned to get it. Then examine his statements and actions after the election, through November 18. Did he change his goal, his methods, or just his message? Consider the congressional results, party divisions, and limits on presidential power.

Identify his most plausible next moves. Explain its chief obstacle and weigh the strongest alternative. Tell what evidence would change your judgment. Distinguish actions from announcements and threats. Assess what Trump can do, not what you wish he would do.

Evidence: Use Trump’s statements before and after the election, relevant executive actions or bills, congressional responses, election results, and independent reporting. Include evidence that challenges your argument.

Option 3

Political parties have official leaders. On social media, other people may command more attention.

Choose one issue contested in the 2026 election. Compare how three accounts on the same platform address it: an official party account, a candidate or elected official, and an independent commentator aligned with that party.  Do not choose Trump's accounts. Describe your choice in your weekly writeup, this time due November 2.

Collect twelve public posts—two from each account before the election and two afterward, through November 18. Use the same date ranges for all three accounts. Explain how you selected the posts; do not simply choose the most outrageous examples.

Who defines the issue? Who identifies enemies, sets priorities, or tells followers what the election means? Examine humor, images, emotional appeals, and calls to action. Identify one revealing disagreement or difference in emphasis. Then assess whether the election changed the accounts’ messages or their relationship to the party.

Use course readings and outside research to explain what your comparison reveals about party organization, polarization, or governing. Distinguish evidence of influence from evidence of attention: likes and shares alone do not show that an account changed votes or policy.

Conclude by answering: Does social media help party leaders direct their coalition, or give them a coalition they cannot control? Address the strongest evidence against your answer.

Evidence: Include a compact appendix with the twelve posts, dates, links, and brief descriptions. Trace one apparent instance of influence (e.g.,  another account adopting a phrase or responding to a demand) and consider whether a shared news event offers a better explanation. Choose publicly accessible accounts.

Option 4

Americans increasingly vote for state and local offices as they vote for president. Do state and local races still turn on state and local concerns?

Pick one state or local race on the November ballot, in any state: governor, state legislature, attorney general, secretary of state, state supreme court, mayor, county office, or a statewide ballot measure. Your home state is a good choice. Ballotpedia lists races by state.  In your weekly writeup, this time due November 2, predict who will win and whether the race will turn on local issues or national ones. Use sources such as

• Candidate or campaign websites, ads, and social media posts
• Party endorsements and spending, state and national
• Campaign finance records (your state’s disclosure site or FollowTheMoney.org)
• Endorsements from interest groups and elected officials
• Local news coverage, through the college library’s databases
• Official results if available

Answer these questions:

• What did each side say the race was about? 
• Where did the money come from: in state or out of state, parties or groups?
• Did the national party help, ignore, or embarrass its candidate?
• Did the results follow the national tide, or depart from it? Compare the race to statewide or national results.
• If the race is undecided on November 18, say so and reason from the count so far.
• Was your November 1 prediction right?  Why or why not?

Requirements

• Essays should be double-spaced, 12-point type, and no more than six pages long. I will not read past the sixth page.
• Essays should be in Word document format. Do not submit PDFs.
• Cite all outside sources with endnotes (not footnotes) in Chicago/Turabian style. Endnote pages do not count against the page limit.
• Misrepresenting AI-generated content as your own work is plagiarism. It could result in a referral to the Academic Standards Committee.
• Watch your spelling, grammar, diction, and punctuation. Errors will count against you. Read Strunk & White and watch my writing lecture before writing this paper.
• Turn in essays to Canvas by 11:59 PM, Friday, November 20. (If you have trouble with Canvas, simply email it to me as a Word file.) I reserve the right to dock essays a grade point for one day’s lateness, a full letter grade after that.

Option 5.  If the previous four do not inspire you, devise your own topic, subject to my approval.  Please do so before Election Day.

Incumbents, Challengers, Open Seats

For next time, Carson & Jacobson ch. 4

From last time:

• Gerrymandering game: cracking and packing
• Partisan opinion depends on who is doing the gerrymander. Note p. 10 on building minority coalitions -- ulterior motive of "bleaching"

Racial Gerrymandering update to p. 17:  the Callais decision

The Incumbency Advantage

Incumbents Usually Win -- House and Senate

House and Senate margins  

The traditional explanations

• Constituency service
• Constituent communications
• Pork "Vote No and Take the Dough

The current explanation?  (hint: p.  36)

Reasons for defeat

• Scandal
• Redistricting
• New territory
• Incumbent v. Incumbent
• Partisan waves favoring the other party (p. 78)
• Primaries

Bailing out ahead of defeat

The 2026 picture

• Primary losses
• Overall

The special case of the GOP under Trump

Members seeking House or Senate renomination whose opponents Trump endorsed

Year	Republican member	Seat contested	Trump-endorsed opponent	Member’s result	Source
2016	George Holding	House, NC-2	Rep. Renee Ellmers	Won primary against fellow incumbent	Roll Call
2018	Mark Sanford	House, SC-1	Katie Arrington	Lost primary	ABC News
2022	David McKinley	House, WV-2	Rep. Alex Mooney	Lost primary against fellow incumbent	Ballotpedia
2022	Rodney Davis	House, IL-15	Rep. Mary Miller	Lost primary against fellow incumbent	Ballotpedia
2022	Nancy Mace	House, SC-1	Katie Arrington	Won primary	Roll Call
2022	Tom Rice	House, SC-7	Russell Fry	Lost primary	Ballotpedia
2022	Peter Meijer	House, MI-3	John Gibbs	Lost primary	Ballotpedia
2022	Jaime Herrera Beutler	House, WA-3	Joe Kent	Lost: failed to advance from top-two primary	Roll Call
2022	Dan Newhouse	House, WA-4	Loren Culp	Survived top-two primary; Culp was eliminated	Roll Call
2022	Liz Cheney	House, Wyoming at-large	Harriet Hageman	Lost primary	PBS/AP
2022	Lisa Murkowski	Senate, Alaska	Kelly Tshibaka	Survived top-four primary; defeated Tshibaka in general election	PBS/AP
2024	Bob Good	House, VA-5	John McGuire	Lost primary; recount confirmed defeat	Roll Call
2024	Dan Newhouse	House, WA-4	Jerrod Sessler and Tiffany Smiley	Survived top-two primary; defeated Sessler in general election	Endorsements; result
2026	Bill Cassidy	Senate, Louisiana	Rep. Julia Letlow	Lost: finished third and missed primary runoff	AP
2026	John Cornyn	Senate, Texas	Ken Paxton	Lost primary runoff	PBS
2026	Thomas Massie	House, KY-4	Ed Gallrein	Lost primary	AP

Recruiting challengers

• Meaning of "quality challenger" has changed (p. 63)
• Rahm recruits Shuler in 2006

Congressional Elections: Constitutional Framework

For Monday,  Carson & Jacobson ch. 3.

Questions on the paper due Friday?

For this week's writeup: midterm review.  Are there any new topics (not on syllabus) you want to discuss or old topics you want to revisit?  Any other suggestions for the course?

Brief (one-minute) presentations of your research:  your candidate strategy or election prediction.

The Senate and the Constitution

• Article I, section 3
• 17th Amendment -- popular elections and replacement

Two seats per state

• Countermajoritarianism -- more from internal procedures than malapportionment (over history about 12% of roll calls resulted in a majority vote from states with a minority of population)
• In the 119th Congress, the 47 senators in the Democratic caucus (45 Democrats and 2 Independents) represent roughly 179.1 million people, or about 53% of the U.S. population, even though they are in a 47–53 minority in the Senate.
• Democratic Caucus Population: ~179.1 million people (53%)
• Republican ConferencePopulation: ~155.1 million people (47%)

Staggered Senate elections and the 6-year cycle.

• A class that undergoes a large partisan shift in a presidential year faces reelection in a midterm -- and vice versa.  Very often, the political climate can change substantially.
• Democrats surged in the Watergate midterm of 1974, then lost their majority to the Republicans in the Reagan landslide of 1980. Republicans lost their Senate majority in 1986.
• And the party holding the vice presidency gets the tiebreaking vote.

The 2026 map:

House districts

• Reapportionment and redistricting are two different things.
• With the law (not the Constitution) fixing the size of the House at 435, seat changes hinge on relative population changes.
• In 2025-26, unusual mid-decade redistricting (Carson & Jacobson 15-17).
• PRONOUNCE GERRYMANDER WITH A HARD G!!!
• Gerrymandering game: cracking and packing
• Partisan opinion depends on who is doing the gerrymander. Note p. 10 on building minority coalitions -- ulterior motive of "bleaching"

Racial Gerrymandering update to p. 17:  the Callais decision