Tuesday, March 24, 2026
Statement from Scholars on the Independence and Methodological Integrity of Christian Grose
Dear USC President Kim,
We are scholars of political science and social science who study elections, campaigns, race, political research methodology, and other topics. We write to address recent public criticism of a social scientific candidate viability formula developed by Professor Christian Grose that was used by others to determine participation in USC’s California Gubernatorial debate on Tuesday, March 24, 2026.
We also write to address reckless attacks on Professor Grose’s professional reputation that we believe are baseless, unfounded, and damaging. We call on USC to publicly and unequivocally affirm Professor Grose’s integrity as a valued scholar. And we urge USC to stand firm in rejecting all efforts to apply political pressure on its faculty and its overall academic mission.
We encourage readers to peruse Professor Grose’s curriculum vitae (CV), linked here. The CV not only attests to his excellent credentials in this area of study but demonstrates his distinguished professional record, established over decades, of significant contributions to research, teaching, mentorship, and wide-ranging service in our field and the public square. Of particular note is Professor Grose’s exceptional dedication to developing the next generation of scholars and his commitment to objective and data-driven research that informs public and scholarly understanding. For those interested in learning more about the background behind Professor Grose’s minimal involvement with the gubernatorial debate, his formula’s grounding in peer-reviewed social science research, the details of its construction, its independence from political, partisan, or other influence, and the transparency of its results, we have included a detailed overview below.
Substantive disagreement over scholarship is the lifeblood of the university. All of us expect and welcome critical engagement from inside and outside the academy. What Professor Grose has faced, however, is not substantive or methodological debate. Attacks and insinuations from members of the political classes include completely baseless allegations of election-rigging, inconsistency, bias, and data manipulation. These are harmful character assassinations, not substantive debate. They are of a piece with other attempts to strong-arm or malign scholars that have become all too common in America. Whatever their intent, the effect of these attacks is to diminish academic freedom and chill scholarly willingness to add their voices to the public square. It is imperative that universities defend their faculties’ integrity when it is unfairly attacked
Signed,
Morris Levy, Associate Professor and Vice Chair, Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Southern California
Pamela Clouser McCann, Associate Professor of Public Policy, University of Southern California
Jarred Cuellar, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Joshua Aizenman, Dockson Chair in Economics and International Relations, University of Southern California and National Bureau of Economic Research
Marisa Abrajano, Professor of Political Science, University of California, San Diego
Jose J. Alcocer, Applied Research Statistician, Harvard Law School, Harvard University
Jeb Barnes, Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Southern California
Matthew N. Beckmann, Professor of Political Science, UC Irvine
Anthony Bertelli, Sherwin-Whitmore Professor of Public Policy and Political Science, Pennsylvania State University
Cristina Bodea, Professor of Political Science, Michigan State University
Graeme Boushey, Associate Professor of Political Science, UC Irvine
David Brady, Professor of Public Policy & Management, University of Southern California
Shaun Bowler, Professor of Political Science, UC Riverside
Brett Carter, Associate Professor, University of Southern California
David B. Carter, Professor, Washington University in St. Louis
Jason Casellas, Professor, University Of Houston
Raquel Centeno, Postdoctoral Scholar Teaching Fellow in Science, Society, and Policy, California Institute of Technology
Nathan Chan, Assistant Professor, Loyola Marymount University
Neil Chartuvedi, Professor, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Dennis Chong, Professor, Political Science and International Relations, University of Southern California
Jack Citrin, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley
David Ebner, Assistant Teaching Professor of Political Science, Arizona State University
David Fortunato, Associate Professor, School of Global Policy and Strategy, UC San Diego
Justin Fox, Associate Professor, Washington University in St. Louis
Sean Gailmard, Herman Royer addProfessor of Political Economy, University of California, Berkeley
Stephen Gent, Professor of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Benjamin Graham, Associate Professor, University of Southern California
Mario Guerrero, Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science, Cal Poly Pomona
Ange-Marie Hancock, ENGIE-Axium Endowed Professor of Political Science, The Ohio State University
Jacques Hymans, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations, University of Southern California
Indriði H. Indriðason, Professor, University of California, Riverside
Matthew Jacobsmeier, Associate Professor, West Virginia University
Jeffery Jenkins, Provost Professor of Public Policy, Political Science, and Law
Jane Junn, Professor, University of Southern California
Anthony Kammas, Professor, Politics and International Relations, University of Southern California
Saori Katada, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, University of Southern California
Alexander Kustov, Associate Professor, University of Notrea Dame
Jennifer L. Lawless, Leone Reaves and Geroge W. Spicer Professor of Politics, University of Virginia
Michael Latner, Professor of Political Science, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and Charles Hamilton Houston Institute, Harvard Law School
Tom Le, Associate Professor, Chair of Department of Politics, Co-coordinator of Asian Studies, Pomona College
Bahar Leventoglu, Associate Professor of Political Science and Economics, Duke University
Neil Malhotra, Edith M. Cornell Professor of Political Economy, Stanford Graduate School of Business
Natalie Masuoka, Professor of Political Science and Asian American Studies, University of California, Los Angeles
Wayde Z.C. Marsh, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Fernanda Alcantara Martinez, Ph.D. Student, University of California Los Angeles
Nolan McCarty, Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, Princeton University.
Seth McKee, Professor, Oklahoma State University
Jennifer Merolla, Professor of Political Science, University of California, Riverside
Keesha Middlemass, Associate Professor of Political Science, Howard University
Michael Minta, Professor and Chair of Political Science, University of Minnesota
Gerardo L. Munck, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, University of Southern California
Robert Nyenhuis, Associate Professor, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Diana O’Brien, Professor, Washington University
Stan Oklobdzija, Assistant Professor, School of Public Policy, University of California, Riverside
Gideon Ondap, PhD Student, Department of Government & Politics, University of Maryland
Brian Palmer-Rubin, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations, University of Southern California
Efrén Pérez, Professor of Political Science and Psychology, UCLA
Jordan Carr Peterson, Assistant Professor, University of Tennessee
Christian Dyogi Phillips, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Southern California
Davin L. Phoenix, Associate Professor of Political Science, UC Irvine
Matthew Platt, Associate Professor of Political Science, Morehouse College
Ricardo Ramírez, Associate Professor, University of Notre Dame
William Rosales, Associate Professor, California State University, Los Angeles
Stanley Rosen, Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Southern California
Carrie Archie Russell, JD, PhD, Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University
Sebastian M. Saiegh, Professor of Political Science, University of California San Diego
Joseph Saraceno, Post-Doctoral Quantitative Researcher
Marcos S Scauso, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
Daniel Schnur, USC and University of California, Berkeley
Jefferey M. Sellers, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, University of Southern California
J. Andrew Sinclair, Assistant Professor, Department of Government, Claremont McKenna College
Betsy Sinclair, Thomas F. Eagleton University Professor of Political Science, Washington University
Emily Tanji (Woo) Ph.D Student, University of California Los Angeles
Michael Tesler, Professor of Political Science, UC Irvine
Michael Thom, Teaching Professor of Public Policy and Doctor of Policy, Planning, and Development Program Director, University of Southern California
Danielle M. Thomsen, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of California, Irvine
Jefferey M. Sellers, Professor of Political Science, University of Southern California
Michael Tesler, Professor of Political Science, UC Irvine
Danielle M. Thomsen, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of California, Irvine
Rachel VanSickle-Ward, Professor of Political Studies, Pitzer College
Zabdi R. Velásquez Zavalza, Ph.D. Student, University of California Los Angeles
Nicholas Weller, Associate Professor and Vice Chair, University of California, Riverside
Carol Wise, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, University of Southern California
Abby K. Wood, George T. and Harriet E. Pfleger Chair in Law and Professor of Law, Political Science, and Public Policy, University of Southern California
Janelle Wong, Professor of American Studies and Government and Politics, University of Maryland
Marcos S Scauso, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Marisa Abrajano, Professor of Political Science, UC San Diego
Wayde Z.C. Marsh, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Additional Background on Professor Grose’s Involvement with Establishing a Blinded-Metric for Organizers of the ABC-USC Debate and Unfounded Attacks Against Professor Grose (we are not asking scholars to sign on to the below, but simply provide details for those unfamiliar with the situation):
California’s gubernatorial field includes more than 60 declared candidates. We understand that the USC Center for the Political Future asked Professor Grose to independently create a formula that would be used to score and rank order candidates on candidate viability for a debate to be held at USC. Based on peer-reviewed political science research on candidate viability and candidate exit, and closely resembling others conventionally used for this purpose, this formula was created blind to the outcome and the data. This formula was approved by debate sponsors. Professor Grose did not organize the debate, is not part of the debate, has no prior relationship with any candidates for Governor, and did not choose the final number of candidates invited to participate in the debate.
Construction and Grounding of Candidate Viability Formula and Generation of Scores
Established Measures of Candidate Viability
The formula relies on two core indicators:
- Polling performance
- Fundraising performance, adjusted using time-and-all-candidates normalization
These are not novel or controversial choices. They are among the most widely accepted indicators of candidate viability in both academic research and applied practice. A substantial body of political science scholarship demonstrates that polling captures current electoral support, while fundraising reflects organizational capacity, elite backing, and candidate choice to exit or persist in an election campaign.
Combining these measures is consistent with best practices in the field. Recent research further emphasizes that multi-factor indicators of viability outperform single-metric thresholds, particularly in complex, multi-candidate fields.
Candidates were invited by the debate organizers based on these independent and objective criteria. Candidate viability scores, which Professor Grose shared with debate organizers, were as follows (based on data from February 2026), quoting what was transparently placed on USC’s web site with the top six candidates invited by debate organizers:
- Steyer, 28.96
- Hilton, 10.23
- Swalwell, 9.37
- Porter, 9.01
- Mahan, 8.70
- Bianco, 8.09
- Becerra, 3.73
- Villaraigosa, 3.72
- Yee, 3.44
- Thurmond, 1.40
- Ware, 1.30
- All other candidates, <1.00
Scores could theoretically range from 0 to 100, and are based on polling and fundraising. More information about the criteria and the complete formula can be found here, which was published on USC’s web site and developed blind to the outcomes and the data, as well as prior to analyzing any data.
These scores were validated again on March 12, 2026 with more recent data, showing the same top six candidates. Data used included semi-annual reports and late reports that provide the most-up-to-date fundraising numbers in 2026.
Methodological Soundness of Time-and-Candidates Normalization
A central issue from non-academic political actors has focused on how fundraising is adjusted in the measure.
The formula employs a time-and-all-candidates normalization, which addresses two well-known sources of bias:
- Time in the campaign: Candidates who enter earlier accumulate more total fundraising simply due to longer exposure. Adjusting for time captures fundraising intensity, not just duration.This is critical for fairness as many candidates entered at different times in the campaign.
- Relative position within the candidate field: Campaign viability is inherently comparative. Fundraising must be interpreted relative to other candidates, not in isolation. Normalizing across all candidates captures competitive standing within the field.
This approach is directly supported by recent scholarship:
- Case & Porter (2025) show that relative, field-normalized fundraising measures are among the strongest predictors of campaign viability, outperforming raw totals.
- Thomsen (2025) demonstrates that temporal dynamics—potentially including time in the race—are critical for accurately measuring candidate strength and momentum. Bonica (2017) also is an important citation here, among others.
In combination, these insights strongly support the use of time-and-candidates normalization as a more accurate measure of campaign viability than raw fundraising totals.
Failing to adjust for both factors would introduce systematic and well-documented biases into the analysis.
Use of the PPIC Poll
The fundraising variable accounted for only 35% of the final candidate scores. The candidate viability scores also involved weighting poll results for each candidate at 65%.
Another issue raised by outside political actors is that the poll relied on the PPIC poll instead of other polls. This poll was chosen prior to the results of the poll being published due to its record of accuracy in predicting California election results. Outside political actors also have misrepresented which candidates are ahead and behind without accounting for or understanding statistical margin of error.
Misinterpretation of Outcomes as Evidence of Flaws
Much of the public criticism centers on whether the formula produced outcomes that align with expectations from candidates.
This is not a valid basis for evaluating a model. In social science, methods are assessed based on their logic, inputs, and consistency and not on whether their results conform to the political preferences of candidates or campaign staff.
Multi-factor approaches will often produce results that differ from single-metric measures or qualitative impressions common in political reporting.
Grose’s Independence and Lack of Conflicts of Interest
We also emphasize the importance of scholarly independence.
Based on available information:
- The formula was developed independently by Professor Grose.
- There is no evidence of influence from campaigns, donors, or external or internal actors on Professor Grose.
- Assertions of conflict of interest from Professor Grose are unsupported by verifiable facts.
In academic practice, independence is defined by control over research design and the absence of external interference. Those standards appear to have been met for Professor Grose’s public service in providing this formula to debate organizers.
Distinguishing Methodological Evaluation from Political Reaction
It is important to distinguish between:
- Methodological validity and
- Political or strategic disagreement with outcomes
The attacks on Professor Grose are driven, to a significant degree, by the latter (political or strategic disagreement with outcomes). Critiques have not demonstrated that the underlying variables are inappropriate, nor that the methodology violates established principles.
Instead, many objections focus on the consequences of applying objective criteria—particularly from candidates and campaigns directly affected by those criteria.
Conclusion
In our professional judgment, the debate inclusion formula developed by Christian Grose is:
- Grounded in established political science research
- Methodologically defensible
- Improved through time-and-candidates normalization and the heavier weight of polling over fundraising, consistent with recent scholarship
- Developed and applied independently with no undue influence on Professor Grose
The controversy does not arise from a flawed method. It arises because a defensible, objective method produced results that certain candidates and campaigns do not prefer.
We believe it is essential to maintain a clear distinction between evidence-based methodological evaluation and outcome-driven criticism, and to uphold the role of independent, research-based standards in public-facing institutional decisions.