The authors of this book demonstrate that compared to other citizens, ambivalent partisans perceive the political world accurately, form their policy preferences in a principled manner, and communicate those preferences by making issues an important component of their electoral decisions.

Taking aim at decades of received wisdom, the central claim of this book is that high-quality political judgment hinges less on citizens' cognitive ability than on their willingness to temporarily suspend partisan habits and follow the 'evidence' wherever it leads. This occurs most readily when citizens experience a disjuncture between their stable political 'identities' and their contemporary 'evaluations' of party performance, a state the authors refer to as 'partisan ambivalence'.

This book explores the weird and mean and in-between that characterize everyday expression online, from absurdist photoshops to antagonistic Twitter hashtags to deceptive identity play. Whitney Phillips and Ryan M. Milner focus especially on the ambivalence of this expression: the fact that it is too unwieldy, too variable across cases, to be essentialized as old or new, vernacular or institutional, generative or destructive. Online expression is, instead, all of the above. This ambivalence, the authors argue, hinges on available digital tools. That said, there is nothing unexpected or surprising about even the strangest online behavior. Ours is a brave new world, and there is nothing new under the sun – a point necessary to understanding not just that online spaces are rife with oddity, mischief, and antagonism, but why these behaviors matter. The Ambivalent Internet is essential reading for students and scholars of digital media and related fields across the humanities, as well as anyone interested in mediated culture and expression.

This 1992 book explains how people acquire political information from elites and the mass media and convert it into political preferences.

Explains when, why, and how citizens try to limit the Supreme Court's independence and power-- and why it matters.

"Some of us have been here for three hundred years, some for three days." This comment, often repeated by Mexican Americans, affirms their status as one of America's oldest ethnic groups, as well as one of its newest and fastest growing. Not surprisingly, many observers (including some Mexican Americans) are concerned about the impact of the burgeoning number of Mexican immigrants on our society - anxieties exacerbated by leaders whose demands for bilingual schools and ballots challenge the goal of assimilation. Yet for Skerry the critical question is not whether Mexican immigrants will join the American mainstream, but how - on what terms. Those terms, he argues, will be forged in the political arena, where enormous changes have been wrought during the past twenty-five years. Gone are the strong local party organizations that once helped newcomers adapt. In their stead are nationalized parties with weak local roots, and civil rights efforts such as the Voting Rights Act, which offer Mexican Americans powerful incentives to define themselves not as an aspiring immigrant ethnic group but as a racially oppressed minority. These divergent political styles emerge from Skerry's comparison of the two American cities with the most visible Mexican American communities, San Antonio and Los Angeles. In Texas, where Mexican Americans have indeed been racially subjugated, traditional political institutions and effective community organizing have afforded them much political success, and moderated their deep-seated resentments. Paradoxicallyin California, where Mexican Americans have enjoyed considerable social and economic mobility, their political efforts have been much less successful andcharacterized by angry protest and racial claims. Noting that the California model of politics, detached from local communities and propelled by money and media, is setting the national norm. Skerry warns that Mexican Americans are being encouraged to dwell on the undeniable injustices