What are the predictors of the five types of policy regimes on campus carry across the 50 U.S. states? This study explores the roles of problem environment, gun culture, state policy liberalism, region, and racial politics to answer that research question. We argue that morality policy, the role of region in the adoption of public policy, and the southern subculture of violence are useful theoretical lenses for examining campus carry. We find that the problem environment-measured as gun murders per 100,000 population and the violent crime rate on college campuses-is negatively related to the adoption of campus carry policy regimes, while the gun culture (measured as gun purchases per capita and the total number of gun-related interest groups) is positively related to the adoption of campus carry. State policy liberalism is a significant predictor of the type of policy regime adopted across the states, and the interaction term of percentage minority population and the South is a powerful predictor of adopting campus carry. The findings highlight the extant significance of the role of region, but it is conditioned by racial politics in the case of campus carry. Morality policy suggests that the rapid spread of concealed carry on college campuses may have hit a ceiling.

Objectives. Given the emerging literature on the connection between sports outcomes and election results, we replicate and extend previous scholarship while investigating if the relationship is most evident in the American South where sports is followed with a religious fervor. Methods. The first stage of our study replicates and extends the analysis by Miller (2013) of the relationship between professional sports records and incumbent vote share in mayoral elections. The second stage of this project updates the analysis by Healy et al. (2010) on the relationship between college football victories and incumbent party vote share through an exploration of the 2012 presidential election as well as senatorial and gubernatorial elections from 2010 to 2013. Results. In the first stage, we disaggregate the influence of professional football records and find no impact of those records on incumbent vote share in mayoral elections. For the second stage, we discover that college football victories in the two weeks before the election had no impact on presidential and senatorial elections but a powerful influence on incumbent party vote share for gubernatorial elections from 2010 to 2013. A college football team victory in the two weeks before the gubernatorial election contributes 3.2-4.5 percentage points to the incumbent party vote share after controlling for prior vote share as well as key demographic variables. In both stages of this study, we find the relationship is not amplified in the South. Conclusions. The findings of this study on college football wins and gubernatorial election results provide further support for the contention that voter well-being and happiness can influence retrospective voting, and the phenomenon is neither limited to the South nor confined to the power conferences. As elections move closer to the people, the impact of college football outcomes becomes more evident.The United States is clearly obsessed with professional and college football as evidenced by exploding revenue, game attendance, television ratings, and a cultural fascination with the sport. In the American South, football has been described as a way of life that is followed by some with a religious zealotry. College football rivalries such as Georgia versus Florida (World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party), Alabama versus Auburn (Iron Bowl), and Oklahoma versus Texas (Red River Rivalry) have become historical and cultural markers for many southerners. This passion can even bleed into the realm of electoral politics. We initially examine the growing scholarship on the intriguing connection between sports records and election results, and we survey the diverse literature from historical factors to civil religion to quantitative data on the cultural uniqueness of the South in terms of the passion for sports, especially college football.

Objective This article explores the factors that influence gun purchases in the United States with particular attention to regional differences between the South and non‐South. Methods We use data collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Instant Criminal Background Check System to conduct a time‐series cross‐sectional analysis of monthly firearm background checks, a proxy for gun purchases, in each state from January 1999 to May 2020. Results Throughout the data series, average gun purchases in the South dwarf those in the non‐South. Spikes in gun sales are positively associated with Democratic presidencies, Christmas holidays, mass shootings, and news coverage of mass shootings. Gun purchases have also spiked nationwide in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, though most notably in the South. Conclusion Our findings speak to the powerful role fear plays in motivating gun purchases, the magnitude of political polarization in the United States, and the regional distinctiveness of the South.

We use precinct-level data to examine two questions: how an incumbent’s “reelection constituency” changes following a party switch and whether incumbents who switch parties do worse than non-switchers. Our data come from four members of the U.S. House who switched parties between 1995 and 2004. Among this group, one switched parties prior to the enactment of a controversial redistricting plan, and thus we can assess how boundary changes mitigate the negative impact of party switching. We also compare each party switcher’s vote following the switch with that of non-switching incumbents running for reelection that year.

We use precinct-level data to examine two questions: how an incumbent’s “reelection constituency” changes following a party switch and whether incumbents who switch parties do worse than non-switchers. Our data come from four members of the U.S. House who switched parties between 1995 and 2004. Among this group, one switched parties prior to the enactment of a controversial redistricting plan, and thus we can assess how boundary changes mitigate the negative impact of party switching. We also compare each party switcher’s vote following the switch with that of non-switching incumbents running for reelection that year.