Alexander Agadjanian

@agadjanian.bsky.social

political science PhD candidate at UC Berkeley | Interests: race, identity, political psychology + behavior, public opinion | 🇦🇲🇸🇻 https://sites.google.com/view/alexander-agadjanian/home

My last APSA commitment ends right when Chelsea Arsenal begins. If you’re around and interested, please let me know if you’d like to catch the match somewhere! (And feel free to come to the great panel I’m on I guess)

BildBild

Interesting - not just one sign of partisan voting behavior and heuristic following (ticket splitting) diminishes in governor races, looks like party leader influence does too

Decision Desk HQ@decisiondeskhq.bsky.social · last mo.

President Trump got an endorsement win with Donalds, but his pick in the #WYGov GOP primary lost, as did 2 of his Florida congressional candidates. His lower win rate for governor really stands out vs. Senate and House races. Read our roundup here: decisiondeskhq.substack.com/p/florida-do...

I have reanalyzed polling microdata from two surveys in Wisconsin, generously shared with me by State Navigate, and put the results up Strength In Numbers for all to learn from. As far as I know this is the only public autopsy from Tuesday's miss www.gelliottmorris.com/p/2026-08-13...

I re-analyzed the raw data from Wisconsin's primary polls. Here's what actually went wrong.

What raw data from Wisconsin's Democratic primary reveals about demographic weighting, late movement, and who answers polls

gelliottmorris.com

Two very interesting papers on how minorities respond to exclusion (having IDs not represented in info + categories presented to them). Somewhat different treatments and outcomes, and diff populations, but I think very parallel in spirit -- one account of mobilization, the other demobilization

BildBild

Our conclusion is that survey professionalism is widespread on online panels, but these do not, by and large, distort inferences, making us cautiously optimistic about research using these online samples!

Biennial update on racial resentment trends in the CES: after a white Dems shift *away* from racially liberal trajectory in 2022, we're back in that direction in 2024.

Bild
Brian Schaffner@bfschaffner.bsky.social · last yr.

we have now posted the 2024 Cooperative Election Study common content dataset to the @harvarddataverse.bsky.social! data from 60,000 American adults interviewed before & after the election. thanks to @today.yougov.com & Caroline Soler for getting this data produced & posted doi.org/10.7910/DVN/...

Interesting new JEPS on POC solidarity building. Besides substantive contribution, another example of getting creative with experiments to learn about mechanisms (vs. conventional mediation analysis-only). On a very different topic, here's another good example along these methodological lines

BildBild

Super valuable new study that randomly assigns 7k+ Americans to old vs. new Census race formats. Among many interesting patterns: 1. White & "some other race" %'s ⬇️ by 6 and 4 pts. 2. No change in overall Hisp and Black %'s. 3. Small but detectable ⬇️ Black + Hisp responses.

Sociological Science@sociologicalsci.bsky.social · 2y ago

NEW: René D. Flores, Edward Telles, Ilana M. Ventura, "New OMB’s Race and Ethnicity Standards Will Affect How Americans Self-Identify"

Here's a nice new paper from the fully blueskyless author team of Philip Moniz, Rodrigo Ramirez-Perez, Erin Hartman, and Stephen Jessee, showing that survey exp. effects are similar for "eager" and "reluctant" respondents, with positive implications for generalizability doi.org/10.1017/pan....

Table 1 An analysis of treatment effect heterogeneity. We conducted an omnibus test provided in the grf R package. We also compared the estimates among eager and NRFU respondents. Most studies show no statistically significant treatment effect heterogeneity in either test (Neither). Ten show evidence of heterogeneity using the omnibus test, but it is not driven by differences between eager and NRFU respondents (Omnibus Only). Two studies show no evidence using the omnibus test, but do display NRFU-specific heterogeneity (NRFU Only), and two others display both general and NRFU-specific effect heterogeneity (Both).Figure 2 Standardized ATEs among reluctant and eager respondents closely resemble each other. Points show estimated treatment effects estimated separately among eager and reluctant respondents, with 95% confidence interval bars. Solid line shows Deming regression fit and shaded region shows its block-bootstrapped 95% confidence region.