Thank you!

Thank you!! Your excellent Forum article on donor nationalization is cited!

Thank you friend!!

contributing to Discourse™️ must always remain priority one!!

The stark results have wide-ranging implications for many existing studies. Importantly, however, these new estimates allow us to be specific about *in which domains* different conclusions (re: extremism, polarization, responsiveness, nationalization, etc.) may or may not hold.

Q: Is extremism financially beneficial in primary elections?

A: Financial returns to extremism are comparable to electoral returns. While primary fundraising share decreases w/ $ network extremism, campaign platform extremism is, if anything, financially beneficial in primaries.

Q: Is extremism electorally beneficial in primary elections?

A: All else equal, Dems' & Reps' primary vote share decreases with $ network extremism. However, no penalty is apparent for Reps' campaign platform extremism, & platform extremism is actually *beneficial* to Dems.

Q: Are candidates still responsive to their districts?

A: Both Dem & Rep campaign platforms are more liberal in more heavily Dem districts. However, Dem $ networks are actually *less* liberal in more heavily Dem districts, & no relationship is apparent for Rep $ networks.

Using text scaling, I estimate campaign platform positions of the thousands of candidates who ran in House primaries from 2016-2024. These hand-collected data were a labor of love that occupied most of my PhD + my senior year of college (yes, I was fun at parties...)

🚨 TL;DR: I show that measuring candidates' positions more directly leads to vastly different conclusions about our current era than those reached with predominant measures.

❓Are candidates still responsive to their districts? Is extremism electorally & financially rewarded in primary elections? These questions are the subject of important ongoing debates, yet most existing (mixed!) evidence relies on indirect measures of candidates' positions.