cooperstreet

Why are you basing your decision on the sports division that schools are a part of?
GRE scores in the 150s will make it almost impossible to get into top programs. Some top programs are also in the Ivy League athletic conference, some are not.
Who do you want to work with at Brown? Columbia? Penn? AFAIK, Penn only has one person in IPE.

Keep in mind the above viewpoint is a highly idiosyncratic one.
 

You judge me arrogantly just because you are a senior here? Here is a really political place... 去你妈了个逼

Mentioning the massive amount of luck you had seems appropriate.  The data do not lie: the chances of getting a TT job coming out of a low ranked PhD program are very slim. Which is fine, but people need to know that going into it.

At Michigan?

Prestige matters. The bottom line is: if you want a tenure track job, only go to a top-10 program.

That should be the baseline realization of applying to PhD programs in political science. Below are placement statistics for the past few years from the APSA. 33% of applicants in any given year get tenure-track jobs. The placement is worst for political theory, where 16% get jobs. Note that this statistic only includes those people that actually tried to go on the academic job market, not those that didn't make it through grad school or saw the writing in the wall and didn't try. So the statistic for the percentage of those starting grad school to tenure track jobs is likely 33%*50%. 16 percent. 8 percent for theory.
http://www.apsanet.org/Portals/54/APSA%20Files/Data%20Reports/Employment%20Data/2014-15.APSAGraduatePlacementReport.pdf
Now, you may say, well, people still get post-docs or "non-tenure-track" jobs, like VAPs or Lectureships, etc. Maybe they can get something tenure-track afterward. True, but the 33% rule per year applies. With each passing year, you jump into a new pool with new people that's more and more competitive. That's what the statistics show. In five years, it's likely to be far more selective. 
Think about that for a bit and then reconsider what you're getting yourselves into. I'm one of the lucky ones that got a TT. Are you going to be?

In order: 1) has a neglible effect. 2) The GRE is learnable, presumably your verbal can be improved 3) Doesn't hold people back. No one has publications worht anything at this point 4) this has nothing to do with admissions

1) Those GREs are fine.  Obviously, a few more points wouldn't hurt, but your file definitely gets a read with those scores.  
2) Even if your school isn't well-known, graduating with a true 4.0 is impressive and that gives you a boost.  With a perfect GPA, I imagine you'll also have an easy time getting strong letters of recommendation, which is important.
3) Aim higher.  The ranking of your graduate program is a huge determinant of your later job prospects.  I know the application fees can really add up, but applying to the top programs that fit your interests most closely is a good investment (e.g., Berkeley for religion and politics).  The job prospects out of Berkeley are simply in a different league than those for someone coming from UVA.  There's a lot of randomness in the process and it's always worth taking a shot - nothing in your profile suggests that you can't get in at a top program.

Your GREs are too low for Ohio State and Penn State, especially the quant portion. I don't know about the other schools. If you get get your GREs up, that will help a lot, considering your GPA is great.

Because thats what PhD programs are designed to do: train people to be professors.
 
Yes and someone attending a lower ranked program needs to know that those positions are the most likely outcome. Its not a value judgment, its about information.
 
Keep in mind I never said anything normative.

I think that's an odd mix of schools. 1 top 20, a top 30, and then some that aren't even ranked? If you go to a school like, say, the University of North Texas or LSU, are you ok with most likely not getting a tenure-track job when you graduate? That's the reality of the situation and what you need to ask yourself.

Since when is an A- average a GPA that "is kind of a bummer"?? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.
If you know math is your weakness, work on it by taking a quant course and doing well in it.

3

In order: 1) has a neglible effect. 2) The GRE is learnable, presumably your verbal can be improved 3) Doesn't hold people back. No one has publications worht anything at this point 4) this has nothing to do with admissions

Please do not mention this on a SOP.

International Experience is nice but its that about it. I dont think its as important as the GREs, LORs, GPA, statement, etc.

Its simply very unlikely that anyone with a 153 on the math portion of the GRE will get into a top (read: top 10 program). Its not really about 'making up in other areas', its that the adcom is operating under incomplete information and has a lot of candidates to pick from.

The admissions process isn't a trial: no one is trying to assess whether you actually have potential or not. Its about selecting the best applicants: and an applciant with good grades and good GREs is going to be more attractive to the committee than an applicant with good grades and a very low quant GRE score, especially when they want to do quantitative work. Your best bet is to simply retake them and reapply. If it means pushing your application season back a year, then so be it. Its worth it in the long run. You need to go to the best PhD program you can get in to. 
Also, having unrealized potential that could be realized if you tried harder is a bad thing. The fact that you got an A in a Master's stat course further confirms that you need to retake the GREs. Adcoms will think the same thing too: why did this applicant, who can clearly do advanced quantitative work, do horribly on this test? Are they lazy and didn't study? Why didn't they retake them? Did they not plan well in advance? There's a lot of uncertainty here, so lets pick someone else!
Good math grades and low math GREs send a signal.

All other things equal, the marginal effect of a 151 verbal GRE score will make the chances of acceptance to a top 10 program very very low.

All other things equal, the marginal effect of a 151 verbal GRE score will make the chances of acceptance to a top 10 program very very low.

All other things equal, the marginal effect of a 151 verbal GRE score will make the chances of acceptance to a top 10 program very very low.

The admissions process isn't a trial: no one is trying to assess whether you actually have potential or not. Its about selecting the best applicants: and an applciant with good grades and good GREs is going to be more attractive to the committee than an applicant with good grades and a very low quant GRE score, especially when they want to do quantitative work. Your best bet is to simply retake them and reapply. If it means pushing your application season back a year, then so be it. Its worth it in the long run. You need to go to the best PhD program you can get in to. 
Also, having unrealized potential that could be realized if you tried harder is a bad thing. The fact that you got an A in a Master's stat course further confirms that you need to retake the GREs. Adcoms will think the same thing too: why did this applicant, who can clearly do advanced quantitative work, do horribly on this test? Are they lazy and didn't study? Why didn't they retake them? Did they not plan well in advance? There's a lot of uncertainty here, so lets pick someone else!
Good math grades and low math GREs send a signal.

The admissions process isn't a trial: no one is trying to assess whether you actually have potential or not. Its about selecting the best applicants: and an applciant with good grades and good GREs is going to be more attractive to the committee than an applicant with good grades and a very low quant GRE score, especially when they want to do quantitative work. Your best bet is to simply retake them and reapply. If it means pushing your application season back a year, then so be it. Its worth it in the long run. You need to go to the best PhD program you can get in to. 
Also, having unrealized potential that could be realized if you tried harder is a bad thing. The fact that you got an A in a Master's stat course further confirms that you need to retake the GREs. Adcoms will think the same thing too: why did this applicant, who can clearly do advanced quantitative work, do horribly on this test? Are they lazy and didn't study? Why didn't they retake them? Did they not plan well in advance? There's a lot of uncertainty here, so lets pick someone else!
Good math grades and low math GREs send a signal.

The admissions process isn't a trial: no one is trying to assess whether you actually have potential or not. Its about selecting the best applicants: and an applciant with good grades and good GREs is going to be more attractive to the committee than an applicant with good grades and a very low quant GRE score, especially when they want to do quantitative work. Your best bet is to simply retake them and reapply. If it means pushing your application season back a year, then so be it. Its worth it in the long run. You need to go to the best PhD program you can get in to. 
Also, having unrealized potential that could be realized if you tried harder is a bad thing. The fact that you got an A in a Master's stat course further confirms that you need to retake the GREs. Adcoms will think the same thing too: why did this applicant, who can clearly do advanced quantitative work, do horribly on this test? Are they lazy and didn't study? Why didn't they retake them? Did they not plan well in advance? There's a lot of uncertainty here, so lets pick someone else!
Good math grades and low math GREs send a signal.