The Impact of Presidential Field Offices in Ohio, 2008-2012

Does a community’s proximity to a presidential field office impact presidential election results? Applying community-level data from the American Community Survey, we examine the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections in the battleground state of Ohio. Using spatial regression, we find that the number of Obama field offices within 10 miles significantly increased his share of the vote in 2012. While proximity to a McCain Victory Center statistically decreased a community’s Obama vote share, this result was not substantive. In 2012, a community’s proximity to a Romney field office did not influence the results. Proximity to an Obama field office also helped to increase voter turnout in both 2008 and 2012. These findings suggest that the Obama voter mobilization strategy was successful, particularly at the margins, and that future candidates should consider adopting a similar strategy. Further research is needed to delineate the differences between quality and quantity of field offices

Clearing the Field: How do Presidential Primary Candidates Win Big on Super Tuesday?

In presidential primaries, Super Tuesday elections play a significant role in winnowing candidate fields and establishing nomination frontrunners. Despite their importance, scholars know little about why and how candidates win or lose the states comprising these events. This study explores which factors help explain candidate performance in Super Tuesday primaries between 2008 and 2016. Using pooled cross-sectional time-series analysis, the results indicate three key drivers of Super Tuesday success: candidate viability, public attention, and media attention. These findings imply that presidential campaigns continue to be complex electoral events beyond the early primary states and suggest that underdog candidates can still win states under the right conditions. Future research should explore the interrelatedness of these three critical factors

The Impact of Presidential Field Offices in Ohio, 2008-2012

Does a community’s proximity to a presidential field office impact presidential election results? Applying community-level data from the American Community Survey, we examine the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections in the battleground state of Ohio. Using spatial regression, we find that the number of Obama field offices within 10 miles significantly increased his share of the vote in 2012. While proximity to a McCain Victory Center statistically decreased a community’s Obama vote share, this result was not substantive. In 2012, a community’s proximity to a Romney field office did not influence the results. Proximity to an Obama field office also helped to increase voter turnout in both 2008 and 2012. These findings suggest that the Obama voter mobilization strategy was successful, particularly at the margins, and that future candidates should consider adopting a similar strategy. Further research is needed to delineate the differences between quality and quantity of field offices

Inflectional instabilities in the wall region of bounded turbulent shear flows

The primary thrust of this research was to identify one or more mechanisms responsible for strong turbulence production events in the wall region of bounded turbulent shear flows. Based upon previous work in a transitional boundary layer, it seemed highly probable that the production events were preceded by an inflectional velocity profile which formed on the interface between the low-speed streak and the surrounding fluid. In bounded transitional flows, this unstable profile developed velocity fluctuations in the streamwise direction and in the direction perpendicular to the sheared surface. The rapid growth of these instabilities leads to a breakdown and production of turbulence. Since bounded turbulent flows have many of the same characteristics, they may also experience a similar type of breakdown and turbulence production mechanism

A Battleground No More: Cosmopolitanism, the Culture Wars, and the Urban-Rural Divide in Ohio Elections, 2004-2020

Long a battleground state in presidential elections, Ohio trended toward the GOP in both 2016 and 2020. Despite losing the national popular vote, Trump secured the state’s electoral votes by comfortable margins in both elections, sparking the question of what explains this shift? We ground this question broadly in the realignment literature, testing two slightly overlapping theoretical viewpoints: geo-cultural and socioeconomic/cosmopolitanism. The geo-cultural viewpoint emphasizes the urban-rural divide in American politics, arguing that the culture is completely different on opposite ends of the urban-rural continuum, resulting in disparate election results. The socioeconomic/cosmopolitan viewpoint acknowledges that culture and social issues play a role in elections, but that the global economy of the 21st century drives results. To test these viewpoints, we use data on Ohio’s communities from the American Community Survey. Running spatial regressions, we find that there is evidence for both viewpoints present in Ohio over the past 20 years. Specifically, both Democrats and Republicans made gains in their geographic strongholds, but Democrats have made larger inroads in more cosmopolitan communities. However, Republicans made huge gains along the cultural dimension, giving them a strong advantage throughout the state. These results have implications for not only future presidential campaigns and how they target Ohio’s persuadable voters, but also for down ballot races in both the primary and general elections

A Battleground No More: Cosmopolitanism, the Culture Wars, and the Urban-Rural Divide in Ohio Elections, 2004-2020

Long a battleground state in presidential elections, Ohio trended toward the GOP in both 2016 and 2020. Despite losing the national popular vote, Trump secured the state’s electoral votes by comfortable margins in both elections, sparking the question of what explains this shift? We ground this question broadly in the realignment literature, testing two slightly overlapping theoretical viewpoints: geo-cultural and socioeconomic/cosmopolitanism. The geo-cultural viewpoint emphasizes the urban-rural divide in American politics, arguing that the culture is completely different on opposite ends of the urban-rural continuum, resulting in disparate election results. The socioeconomic/cosmopolitan viewpoint acknowledges that culture and social issues play a role in elections, but that the global economy of the 21st century drives results. To test these viewpoints, we use data on Ohio’s communities from the American Community Survey. Running spatial regressions, we find that there is evidence for both viewpoints present in Ohio over the past 20 years. Specifically, both Democrats and Republicans made gains in their geographic strongholds, but Democrats have made larger inroads in more cosmopolitan communities. However, Republicans made huge gains along the cultural dimension, giving them a strong advantage throughout the state. These results have implications for not only future presidential campaigns and how they target Ohio’s persuadable voters, but also for down ballot races in both the primary and general elections

Providing for Capable Readers: Beyond the Basal Manual

This study was an attempt to better understand teacher practices for placement in basal reading series, particularly placement of capable readers. The following questions were addressed: 1. On what do teachers base their placement decisions? 2. What do teachers believe will happen to the skill development of capable students who skip basal reading levels? 3. In actual practice would a teacher allow a capable reader to skip levels in a basal reading series

Development of Pedagogical Knowledge Related to Teaching At-Risk Students: How Do Inservice Teachers and Preservice Teachers Compare?

This study examined the development of pedagogical knowledge of preservice and inservice teachers as they implemented newly learned assessment and instructional strategies with at-risk readers in clinical settings. The preservice teachers worked in pairs to tutor children during the regular semester at a university reading clinic; the inservice teachers worked for four days a week for six weeks in a special reading academy. Four stages of development emerged from the examination of the reflective responses of teachers that they wrote after each tutoring sessions with the at-risk readers. The stages identified were: novice, advance beginner, competent, and proficient