Jeffrey M. Stonecash
Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Political Science
Degree
Ph.D., Northwestern University, 1975
Specialties
Political parties, realignment of their electoral bases, and the impact of changing alignments on the nature of policy debates
Courses
Biography
Degrees:
B.A., Muskingum
College, Economics and Political Science, 1969
M.A.,
University of Virginia, Economics, 1970
M.A.,
Northwestern University, Political Science, 1973
Ph.D., Northwestern
University, 1975
Publications
- The Battle over Personal Responsibility in American
Politics (with Mark D. Brewer; Oxford
University Press, 2015)
- Party Pursuits and the Presidential-House Election
Connection, 1900-2008, (Cambridge,
2013)
- Understanding American Political Parties: Democratic
Ideals, Political Uncertainty, and Strategic Positioning,
(Routledge, 2012)
- Counter Realignment: Political Change in the Northeast. (with Howard L. Reiter: Cambridge, 2011)
- New Directions in Party Politics, Editor (Routledge, 2010)
- The Dynamics of the American Party System (with Mark D. Brewer; Cambridge, 2009)
- Reassessing the Incumbency Effect (Cambridge, 2008)
- Split: Class and Cultural Divisions in American
Politics (with Mark D. Brewer; CQ
Press, 2007) Parties
Matter: Realignment and the Return of Partisanship
(Lynne-Rienner, 2006)
- Governing New York State (SUNY Press, 2006)
- Political Polling
(Roman and Littlefield, 2003, 2009)
- The Emergence of State Government: Parties and New
Jersey Politics, 1950-2000
(Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002)
- Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment, and
Party Polarization (Westview
Press, 2002)
- Class and Party in American Politics (Westview Press, 2000)
Research Projects
The
Curious Pursuit of the Incumbency Effect. In the 1970s
academics began a persistent effort to explain the rising incumbency effect, or
the ability of incumbents to increase their vote percentage and ward off
challengers. The presumption was that an increase began in the
1960s. Subsequent analyses indicate that there was little increase and
that which did occur was only for Republicans. It was partisan and not
general. The focus of this book is how and why could academics have spent
40 years seeking to explain a change that did not occur. It is a study of
the sociology of knowledge and how that creates a consensus on research
questions, even when supporting empirical evidence is questionable.