My article with @heingoemans.bsky.social and @miweintraub83.bsky.social is now out at @thejop.bsky.social! See how prospect theory applies (and doesn’t) to territorial disputes:

TL;DR: Trump is unlikely to pay significant political costs for attacking Venezuela because "America First" foreign policy preferences show little tension between isolationism and military hawkishness. And that's even before considering the impact of Trump’s messaging. (5/5)

Third, even if we look at just the pure isolationists vs. the pure hawks, there's a stark attention gap: hawks are far more likely than isolationists to "follow international events closely," so Trump's actions probably please hawks more than they disappoint isolationists. (4/5)

Second, these hawkish isolationists form the core of Trump's base. They rate him more favorably than either pure isolationists or pure hawks among the Republican rank and file. (3/5)

First, although isolationism and military hawkishness may seem to be in tension, a plurality of Republicans score highly in BOTH isolationism and hawkishness. (MA = militant assertiveness) (2/5)

I had been wondering how Trump can justify Venezuela to his isolationist "America First" base. A quick dip in the data suggests, however, that he won't have to. A tale in three plots, drawing on survey data I collected with Georgia Tech's Lincoln Hines in 2024: (1/5)

Congratulations Carly!!!

Loss Framing in Territorial Disputes | The Journal of Politics: Vol 0, No ja

A small ray of light: my paper with @heingoemans.bsky.social and @miweintraub83.bsky.social, “Loss Framing in Territorial Disputes,” is “just accepted” at @thejop.bsky.social! See what prospect theory can (and can’t) explain about territorial disputes: www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/...

Interesting. I wonder though if this creates a perverse incentive for Netanyahu to drag out the war as long as possible