Edward G. Carmines – författare

This textbook is designed to bridge the gap between the theorist and the methodologist by presenting an integrated approach to measurement. By differentiating between random and systematic error, it conveys both statistical techniques and their theoretical underpinnings essential to students of sociology and political science. Rather than developing new technical methods of new theoretical structures, Professors Zeller and Carmines provide thorough explanations of the assumptions, limitations and interpretations of previously established techniques and theories. Written at a level accessible to students of social science with some statistical training, the book does not presume a sophisticated mathematical background. By concentrating on synthesizing the methodological and theoretical realms, Zeller and Carmines demonstrate why measurement considerations are important to research and how measurement principles can be most effectively applied.

If white Americans could reveal what they really think about race, without the risk of appearing racist, what would they say? In this elegantly written and innovative book, Paul Sniderman and Edward Carmines illuminate aspects of white Americans' thinking about the politics of race previously hidden from sight. And in a thoughtful follow-up analysis, they point the way toward public policies that could gain wide support and reduce the gap between black and white Americans.Their discoveries will surprise pollsters and policymakers alike. The authors show that prejudice, although by no means gone, has lost its power to dominate the political thinking of white Americans. Concentrating on the new race-conscious agenda, they introduce a method of hidden measurement which reveals that liberals are just as angry over affirmative action as conservatives and that racial prejudice, while more common among conservatives, is more powerful in shaping the political thinking of liberals. They also find that the good will many whites express for blacks is not feigned but represents a genuine regard for blacks, which they will stand by even when given a perfectly acceptable excuse to respond negatively to blacks.More crucially, Sniderman and Carmines show that the current impasse over race can be overcome if we remember what we once knew. The strongest arguments in behalf of equality for black Americans reach beyond race to the moral principles that give the issue of race itself a moral claim on us.

The description for this book, Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics, will be forthcoming.

A Stanford University Press classic.

A Stanford University Press classic.

This is a study of the dynamics of partisan polarization in the United States. It has three objectives: (1) to identify and explain why some Republicans and Democrats - but not others - have polarized, particularly over the last twenty years; (2) to demonstrate that they have done so not on this or that issue but systematically, programmatically - domain versus issue sorting; and (3) to bring into the open profound asymmetries in polarization between the two parties, not least that Republicans polarized early and thoroughly on issues of race, while Democrats in the largest number stayed neutral or even conservative until only recently. Emerging from the reasoning and results is a revised theory of party identification that specifies the conditions under which ordinary Republicans and Democrats can become ideological partisans - real-life conservatives and liberals in their behavior - in the choices they make on candidates, policies, and parties.

This is a study of the dynamics of partisan polarization in the United States. It has three objectives: (1) to identify and explain why some Republicans and Democrats - but not others - have polarized, particularly over the last twenty years; (2) to demonstrate that they have done so not on this or that issue but systematically, programmatically - domain versus issue sorting; and (3) to bring into the open profound asymmetries in polarization between the two parties, not least that Republicans polarized early and thoroughly on issues of race, while Democrats in the largest number stayed neutral or even conservative until only recently. Emerging from the reasoning and results is a revised theory of party identification that specifies the conditions under which ordinary Republicans and Democrats can become ideological partisans - real-life conservatives and liberals in their behavior - in the choices they make on candidates, policies, and parties.