A new forecast suggests he'll lag Clinton — by a lot.
London thrived because it was part of the E.U. So what now?
The answer might be showing us the future of national politics.
The logic of the argument is that if parties want to win elections, they will back more moderate candidates, so giving them more power will bring more centrist politics. But does this really hold up?
Everyone agrees that Washington is run by corporate interests. But is it so?
The trend toward earlier retirement announcements and the growth of the permanent campaign were not goals of campaign finance reformers in the 1970s.
Unlike others, we find no relationship at all between public funding and legislative polarization.
Money may not "buy" politicians. But it still matters.
Changes in the media, the dynamics of elections, and the purposes of political spending suggest that reformers should focus on more modest reforms.
is it possible to convince Americans who don't typically donate to campaigns to actually do so?