I just hope that both the paper and a few foods for thought shared here will be of some use to us all to move forward. All the best. (11/11)

It could also be very stimulating to contrast, interpret, and contextualize different sets of results with alternative modeling choices, such as LGMs, especially if they reveal Lord’s (1967) paradox. (10/11)

“LISS Panel” from the Netherlands (www.lissdata.nl), on the pathway between affective polarization and democratic satisfaction, with all 15 waves. (9/11)

“GLES Panel” from Germany (shorturl.at/blnuv) on the link between ideological polarization and democratic satisfaction, with at least three waves (12, 14-15); (8/11)

“British Election Study” from the United Kingdom (shorturl.at/EHB1l; shorturl.at/VRfKz), on the relationship between affective and ideological polarization and satisfaction with democracy, with two waves (21 and 23 internet panel); (7/11)

“VOTER Survey” from the US (shorturl.at/cpw46) on the alignment between affective polarization and satisfaction with democracy, with two-wave in 2017 and 2019 (November); (6/11)

I have some panel datasets in mind to name for the time being: (5/11)

Yet, I do want to let fellow researchers invested in the subject matter, theoretically as well as methodologically, know that we may need to stab at (RI-)CLPMs more, at least to sort out the temporal precedence between polarization (broadly speaking) and democratic satisfaction. (4/11)

Causal direction still remains to be resolved. Despite the will, I am unable to devote adequate resources in the short term to (quasi-)experimental works to disentangle the complex relationship between (ideological and affective) polarization and democratic satisfaction. (3/11)

Feel free to drop me a line if you are interested in a free limited online copy: ferol@arizona.edu (2/11)