As our campaign blog winds toward its demise, let’s revisit a few of the political scientists who have been featured in The Chronicle this fall:

1. Two weeks ago, we profiled Andrew Gelman, a political statistician at Columbia University. At the end of that article, we quoted Gelman saying that on election night, he’d stay up late like the rest of the world.

Indeed he did. At 3:01 on Wednesday morning, Gelman sent an e-mail message announcing that he had posted a quick-and-dirty analysis of the exit polls.

The most interesting shift, in Gelman’s eyes: The sharp leftward movement among younger voters.

On Wednesday, Gelman also posted items on income and voting, the Congressional sweepstakes, and voter turnout since 1948.

Today he seems to be catching up on sleep.

2. Back in September, we looked at the stylized election forecasts being peddled by eight political scientists.

The goal of their exercises is to predict the share of the popular vote (excluding minor parties’ votes) that each presidential candidate will earn – and to make those predictions as early as possible, with as few variables as possible. (One scholar’s model, for example, uses just three variables: economic growth during the second quarter of the election year, the incumbent president’s approval rating, and the number of terms that the incumbent party has held the White House.)

According to this morning’s tallies, Barack Obama has won 53.1 percent of the two-party vote. So the winners appear to be Robert S. Erikson of Columbia University and Christopher Wlezien of Temple University, who at the end of August predicted a 52.2 percent share for Obama.

3. Last month we published an essay about Unequal Democracy, a new book by Larry M. Bartels, a political scientist at Princeton University.

Bartels doesn’t seem to have issued any post-election pronouncements, but in Monday’s Los Angeles Times, he wrote about voters’ ignorance and myopia. (A longer version of that essay is here.)

And two weeks ago, Bartels lectured at Harvard on economics, social class, and the fortunes of the Democratic Party:

(For a critique of Bartels’s analysis of the voting behavior of the white working class, see this new paper by David Brady and Benjamin Sosnaud of Duke University and Steven M. Frenk of Harvard University.)