Explore the vast range of titles available.

Development of a biologically active secondary metabolite into a useful medicine requires continuous access to meaningful quantities of material. Although any chemical synthesis is broadly useful for its versatility, identification of a synthesis route that can be economically scaled represents a greater challenge. Here we report a concise synthesis of the neurotrophic trace metabolite (−)-jiadifenolide and its production on a gram-scale. The brevity of the route and the structural similarity of a key intermediate to many potent Illicium terpenes make chemical synthesis the unquestionable method for accessing and modifying these potential therapeutics. A chemical synthesis of (–)-jiadifenolide, a small molecule neurotrophin, has been achieved in eight steps. The route relies on a stereoselective coupling of two simple butenolides to build the entire skeleton in a single step and produce one gram of the target for broad distribution to the biomedical community.

It is commonly believed by pundits and political elites that higher turnout favors Democratic candidates, but the extant research is inconsistent in finding this effect. The purpose of this article is to provide scholars with a methodology for assessing the likely effects of turnout on an election outcome using simulations based on survey data. By varying simulated turnout rates for five U.S. elections from 1960 to 2000, we observe that Democratic advantages from higher turnout (and Republican advantages from lower turnout) have steadily ebbed since 1960, corresponding to the erosion of class cleavages in U.S. elections.

This book represents an important step in bringing together various strands of research about attitudinal ambivalence and public opinion. Essays by a distinguished group of political scientists and social psychologists provide a conceptual framework for understanding how ambivalence is currently understood and measured, as well as its relevance to the mass public's beliefs about our political institutions and national identity. The theoretical insights, methodological innovations, and empirical analyses will add substantially to our knowledge about the nature of ambivalence in particular, and the structure and evolution of political attitudes in general.

Studies of American Jewish preferences in the 2020 US presidential election reveal striking variability in partisan choices from one survey to the next. We believe this variability is due in part to different approaches to the measurement of Jewishness across surveys and survey research firms. Drawing principally on social identity theory, we argue that surveys that classify respondents as Jewish only by their religious preference suffer both sample bias and coverage error. These problems arise when surveys omit persons of Jewish heritage who do not select “Jewish” as their religious preference but who still define themselves as Jewish by ethnicity, culture, and/or heritage. Analysis of nine surveys conducted between 2012 and 2021 show that omitting “Jews of no religion” has, as hypothesized, underestimated the liberal/Democratic political orientation of American Jews, with the bias growing increasingly powerful once Donald Trump entered the presidential contests. When considering the electoral behavior of the American Jews, we recommend conceptualizing Jews as members of an ethnoreligious community not defined solely by religious preference.

Elections are sometimes seen as legitimizing institutions, promoting system-level support among citizens by allowing them to have input into the political process. However, prior research has found that this is less true among supporters of losing candidates, who often exhibit lower levels of political trust and satisfaction with democracy. We analyze NES survey data from 1964 to 2004, as well as surveys from Florida and the nation following the controversial presidential election of 2000, and find that (1) losers exhibit lower levels of political trust, satisfaction with democracy, confidence that government is responsive to citizens, and in early 2001 were less inclined to extend legitimacy to the newly elected president; (2) losers also are more likely to endorse \"rationalizations\" as explanations of the election outcome, to be less satisfied with the choice of candidates offered in the election, and to perceive the electoral process as unfair; and (3) voter interpretations of the election mediate the relationships between winning/losing on the one hand, and trust, responsiveness, and satisfaction with democracy on the other. These findings suggest that the so-called legitimizing function of elections is far from a universal phenomenon.

Recent research has recognized that many people simultaneously hold positive and negative attitudes about important political issues. In this article, we review the concept of attitudinal ambivalence and propose a survey-based measure of ambivalence adapted from the experimental literature. Extending our earlier work on abortion, analysis of a statewide telephone survey of Florida residents reveals that (1) many people have ambivalent attitudes about issues related to gay and lesbian rights; (2) the amount of ambivalence varies according to the specific rights in question (military service, gay marriage and adoption, membership in youth organizations such as Boy Scouts, and others); (3) ambivalence on gay rights is to some extent a function of conflict among citizens' underlying core values; and (4) under certain circumstances, ambivalence appears to mediate the relationship between a person's issue preferences with regard to gay rights and his or her evaluation of political leaders and institutions.

Previous research has shown that mass perceptions about the sizes of minority populations are influenced by sociodemographic, threat, and context variables. This paper extends the analysis to a population group that has thus far received only limited attention, gays and lesbians. Our analysis of a statewide survey of Florida residents in 2002 shows that people in sociodemographic groups associated with low levels of political knowledge were more likely to report higher estimates of the gay population. Threat variables and objective context had relatively little impact, but estimates also were higher among individuals who reported personal contact with gays and lesbians.

The company has gotten 32 letters from state associations, according to Ford's dealer council chairman, and is working with the council to hammer out changes aimed at appeasing some of the concerns. [...]Ford may change how future EVs would be distributed. Giving Buick dealers the option to invest in EVs helped the brand's dealer council get behind the concept, said Bo Mandal, chairman of the Buick-GMC National Dealer Council.

A recent article by Barry Burden in Political Analysis alerts us to a steadily increasing gap during presidential election years between self-reported turnout in the NES (National Election Studies) and “official turnout” figures based on the voting-age population (VAP), and points to declining response rates as a culprit. Changing the baseline from the VAP to the VEP (voting-eligible population) significantly changes these conclusions, and point to panel effects as a culprit. The rise in the gap was not linear, but it does emerge rather suddenly in 1996. Gaps between NES self-reported turnout and VEP estimates are higher in presidential election years than in off-years, and self-reported turnout is higher among long-term panel participants than among cross-section respondents in multielection panels.

Recent research has recognized that many people simultaneously hold positive and negative attitudes about important political issues. This paper reviews the concept of attitudinal ambivalence and introduces a survey measure of ambivalence adapted from the experimental literature. An analysis of two statewide telephone surveys of Florida voters reveals that (1) a number of voters have ambivalent attitudes about abortion rights; (2) the amount of ambivalence varies according to the circumstances (elective versus traumatic) under which an abortion is obtained; (3) ambivalence about elective abortions is essentially unrelated to ambivalence about traumatic abortions; (4) voters who support abortion rights are more ambivalent about elective abortions than about traumatic abortions, whereas the pattern is reversed for abortion rights opponents; and (5) extreme views in support of or opposition to abortion rights can sometimes mitigate the amount of ambivalence felt by voters.