Please contact me for copies or more information!
Numerous studies find that transgender candidates face damaging stereotypes about their ideology, odds of winning, and issue priorities. Most of this research is based on hypothetical candidates in survey experiments, rather than real-world politicians facing actual voters. In this note, we examine perceptions of Sarah McBride, a high-profile transgender candidate who won Delaware’s 2024 Democratic primary and general election for the U.S. House. Using an embedded experiment in a survey of Delaware voters, fielded during the campaign, we test the effects of priming McBride’s gender identity on voter perceptions. Respondents primed with information about her transgender identity rated her as more liberal, and believed other voters were less likely to support her. We find no significant effects on perceptions of her electability or ability to represent average voters, however. These findings suggest that stereotypes about ideology and perceived voter bias persist, even when evaluating a well-known, highly qualified candidate. Our results help bridge the gap between experimental studies of hypothetical candidates and real-world electoral dynamics, highlighting both the durability of certain voter stereotypes and the limits of their impact when applied to prominent figures.
Research on the political implications of misinformation has tended to overlook its role in the abortion debate. Abortion attitudes have taken on new electoral significance following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’ s Health Organization which eliminated a constitutional standard for abortion rights. As issue salience has increased, so too has the complexity of the information environment surrounding abortion rights. Not only has the policy space become more complex and variable as policy making authority was reverted to the states, but misinformation about abortion seems to be increasingly prevalent in political discourse. In this paper, we use data from the 2023 Congressional Election Study (CES) to establish a baseline for belief in misinformation related to abortion, which we call abortion misperceptions. We find engaged partisans hold distinct patterns of abortion misperceptions consistent with motivated reasoning processes. We also evaluate the correlation between these misperceptions and abortion attitudes, testing the expectation that belief in misinformation is linked to more polarized views on abortion policy. These relationships are confirmed with data from a second survey, conducted by YouGov in 2025. Understanding the prevalence of abortion misperceptions and their link to abortion attitudes will help us to better account for the role this crucial issue might play in future elections and in the continued polarization of the American electorate.
Extensive research shows that LGBTQ candidates struggle to overcome voter stereotypes of them as liberal, unlikely to win, and overly focused on LGBTQ issues (among other attributes). Less well-researched is when these stereotypes are activated, or which candidates voters are most likely to stereotype. In this paper , I test the theory that cuing outdated social stereotypes of LGBTQ people — specifically , the belief that queer people are sexually promiscuous — activates the use of political stereotypes against LGBTQ candidates. Two survey experiments manipulate whether a gay candidate is described as engaged in an extra-marital affair or not. Portraying the candidate as promiscuous caused respondents to see them as having stereotypically consistent political attributes. Contrary to expectations, however , voters applied these stereotypes to straight candidates as well. This suggests that the effects of sex scandals are more far-reaching than previously thought, and that promiscuity serves as a cue for both straight and gay candidates’ political traits.
Despite a lack of evidence, the belief that voting fraud is common is widespread and support for requiring voters to show identification (ID) at the polls is high. Observers point to Americans’ racial and partisan predispositions as explanations, viewing support as reflective of Whites’ resentment toward minorities and/or Republicans’ desire to prevent likely Democrats from voting. In this study, I attempt to disentangle these two effects with a survey experiment that primes racial and partisan considerations. Non-Hispanic White respondents were exposed to an image of campaign activists that varied by both race (White vs. non-White) and party (Democrats vs. Republicans) before answering questions about voter fraud. Neither belief in the prevalence of fraud nor support for voter ID laws varied significantly by the image respondents were exposed to. There is some evidence that racial resentment moderates the effect, such that racially resentful Whites see fraud as more common when exposed to images of non-White Democrats. However, for the most part, there are few differences across conditions. I conclude by considering some potential explanations for these null results.
Scholars frequently suggest that high-quality challengers foster greater accountability in congressional elections: more experienced candidates should better educate the public about the incumbent’s record and encourage them to punish her for any “out of step” votes. To test these assumptions, I match survey data from the 2006–2010 U.S. Senate elections with multiple measures of challenger quality. The results show no effect of challenger quality on what constituents know about the incumbent’s record or how well they hold her accountable for it. The presence of high-quality candidates thus appears less critical for democratic accountability than many assume.