dagnabbit

Lots of excellent advice here - I don't really have an original contribution to make, but I'll add my experience to the pile.
1. Basic knowledge of LaTeX (particularly math and BibTeX) is something you can pick up over the summer, and it proved to be really helpful for me when I started my program. Of course you can pick it up as you go, and many (most?) do, but a lot of my cohort-mates found it frustrating to have to struggle with LaTeX under the pressure of problem set deadlines.
2. If you have little to no familiarity with any statistical software/programming language, it would be beneficial to gain basic proficiency. The Coursera tutorial recommended above would be a great option for R, and I am also a big advocate of DataCamp's short courses. I had some prior knowledge of R before I started, and what was helpful wasn't so much my limited knowledge of how to conduct statistical analysis (the department wants to teach you this anyway) as much as simply being comfortable with programming terms and concepts.
3. If you don't already use a reference/citation manager (Mendeley, Zotero, etc), I would strongly recommend that you pick one now and learn how it works. Not only is it essential for keeping all of your readings organized, they also auto-update BibTeX files for each of your class/project folders. I wish I had started using Mendeley from the beginning of the first semester instead of picking it up halfway through and having to work backwards.

Wow. Long-time lurker. Went through last year's app cycle (with no success in the US) and ended up in a (good) non-US programme instead. Went through the cycle again this year. Almost lost hope and got a Duke offer, a Princeton rejection, and an NYU offer all within the space of two hours this evening. I'll need a few days to let this settle. I may actually move country and start a new programme, with rigorous quantitative training! Currently at 2a/0/1r, 4 pending (with Berkeley another presumptive rejection). I'm just incredibly relieved it worked out on the second try. 

In general, the programs that send out acceptances in January tend to be those who are competing for applicants that might have better options. The logic is that an early offer + early visiting weekend might cause prospective students to consider the program more seriously than they otherwise would have. These tend to be places ranked 15-30ish: Wisconsin, OSU, UT, Emory, and so forth. The CHYMPS schools typically don't send out decisions until mid-February to early-March, both because they receive a larger number of applications and because they don't have the same need to fight for good students. As @DreamersDay said, remain skeptical of any high-ranking admissions on the results page at least until next month.
On another note: please take care of yourselves in these upcoming weeks. Get some sleep, drink water, do whichever type of exercise you prefer. Keep busy with work if you can, and try to limit your daily visits to this site. Remember that the admissions process, while noisy and imperfect, is a matching exercise; you've identified the programs that seem to be the best fit for you based on public information (faculty, methodological approach, etc), and now it's time for admissions committees to identify which applicants fit them best based on a combination of public and private information (Prof. So-and-so isn't taking on new advisees this year, we're trying to expand our IR subfield, we're trying to become a more quantitative department, etc). There are two conclusions you should draw from this:
1. If you're rejected from a program that seemed perfect for you, there's a decent chance that it was due to one of the aforementioned private objectives. At this stage, being "above the bar" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for admission; you may have been edged out for an idiosyncratic reason that was beyond your control. Try not to let it get to you. After all, you didn't want to live in Palo Alto anyway - housing prices are ridiculous and it's too far away from your family.
2. If you're accepted to a program, it wasn't by mistake. The committee has read your writing sample, statement of purpose, and letters of recommendation, they've seen your transcripts, and they believe that you would be successful in their program. They're willing to invest substantial time and resources in you. Remember this if you begin to experience the imposter syndrome that afflicts so many incoming PhD students.
Best of luck to all of you!

I would strongly recommend that you go to the advising office and/or the career services office at your institution to get the answers you need.

In my experience, funding packages were sent out 2-3 weeks after formal notice of admission. I would wait to send an e-mail, as they probably don't even have details to give you at this point. If you're curious about the stipend, this is usually pretty easy to figure out - many programs list it on their website, and there is also a database that you can search.

In my experience, funding packages were sent out 2-3 weeks after formal notice of admission. I would wait to send an e-mail, as they probably don't even have details to give you at this point. If you're curious about the stipend, this is usually pretty easy to figure out - many programs list it on their website, and there is also a database that you can search.

In general, the programs that send out acceptances in January tend to be those who are competing for applicants that might have better options. The logic is that an early offer + early visiting weekend might cause prospective students to consider the program more seriously than they otherwise would have. These tend to be places ranked 15-30ish: Wisconsin, OSU, UT, Emory, and so forth. The CHYMPS schools typically don't send out decisions until mid-February to early-March, both because they receive a larger number of applications and because they don't have the same need to fight for good students. As @DreamersDay said, remain skeptical of any high-ranking admissions on the results page at least until next month.
On another note: please take care of yourselves in these upcoming weeks. Get some sleep, drink water, do whichever type of exercise you prefer. Keep busy with work if you can, and try to limit your daily visits to this site. Remember that the admissions process, while noisy and imperfect, is a matching exercise; you've identified the programs that seem to be the best fit for you based on public information (faculty, methodological approach, etc), and now it's time for admissions committees to identify which applicants fit them best based on a combination of public and private information (Prof. So-and-so isn't taking on new advisees this year, we're trying to expand our IR subfield, we're trying to become a more quantitative department, etc). There are two conclusions you should draw from this:
1. If you're rejected from a program that seemed perfect for you, there's a decent chance that it was due to one of the aforementioned private objectives. At this stage, being "above the bar" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for admission; you may have been edged out for an idiosyncratic reason that was beyond your control. Try not to let it get to you. After all, you didn't want to live in Palo Alto anyway - housing prices are ridiculous and it's too far away from your family.
2. If you're accepted to a program, it wasn't by mistake. The committee has read your writing sample, statement of purpose, and letters of recommendation, they've seen your transcripts, and they believe that you would be successful in their program. They're willing to invest substantial time and resources in you. Remember this if you begin to experience the imposter syndrome that afflicts so many incoming PhD students.
Best of luck to all of you!

Claiming the Michigan State admit! I'm very excited about it. So much relief to hear from a school - particularly one with some great prospective advisors - and to be given at least one stick to beat back that impostor syndrome. 
If anyone else has a stake in this, it was an email telling me to check the grad portal, sent around 5 AM US Central. No info on funding or visits yet. 
Super hyped to know that I can throw out my backup plans, and ready to take on the rest of this application season.

In general, the programs that send out acceptances in January tend to be those who are competing for applicants that might have better options. The logic is that an early offer + early visiting weekend might cause prospective students to consider the program more seriously than they otherwise would have. These tend to be places ranked 15-30ish: Wisconsin, OSU, UT, Emory, and so forth. The CHYMPS schools typically don't send out decisions until mid-February to early-March, both because they receive a larger number of applications and because they don't have the same need to fight for good students. As @DreamersDay said, remain skeptical of any high-ranking admissions on the results page at least until next month.
On another note: please take care of yourselves in these upcoming weeks. Get some sleep, drink water, do whichever type of exercise you prefer. Keep busy with work if you can, and try to limit your daily visits to this site. Remember that the admissions process, while noisy and imperfect, is a matching exercise; you've identified the programs that seem to be the best fit for you based on public information (faculty, methodological approach, etc), and now it's time for admissions committees to identify which applicants fit them best based on a combination of public and private information (Prof. So-and-so isn't taking on new advisees this year, we're trying to expand our IR subfield, we're trying to become a more quantitative department, etc). There are two conclusions you should draw from this:
1. If you're rejected from a program that seemed perfect for you, there's a decent chance that it was due to one of the aforementioned private objectives. At this stage, being "above the bar" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for admission; you may have been edged out for an idiosyncratic reason that was beyond your control. Try not to let it get to you. After all, you didn't want to live in Palo Alto anyway - housing prices are ridiculous and it's too far away from your family.
2. If you're accepted to a program, it wasn't by mistake. The committee has read your writing sample, statement of purpose, and letters of recommendation, they've seen your transcripts, and they believe that you would be successful in their program. They're willing to invest substantial time and resources in you. Remember this if you begin to experience the imposter syndrome that afflicts so many incoming PhD students.
Best of luck to all of you!

In general, the programs that send out acceptances in January tend to be those who are competing for applicants that might have better options. The logic is that an early offer + early visiting weekend might cause prospective students to consider the program more seriously than they otherwise would have. These tend to be places ranked 15-30ish: Wisconsin, OSU, UT, Emory, and so forth. The CHYMPS schools typically don't send out decisions until mid-February to early-March, both because they receive a larger number of applications and because they don't have the same need to fight for good students. As @DreamersDay said, remain skeptical of any high-ranking admissions on the results page at least until next month.
On another note: please take care of yourselves in these upcoming weeks. Get some sleep, drink water, do whichever type of exercise you prefer. Keep busy with work if you can, and try to limit your daily visits to this site. Remember that the admissions process, while noisy and imperfect, is a matching exercise; you've identified the programs that seem to be the best fit for you based on public information (faculty, methodological approach, etc), and now it's time for admissions committees to identify which applicants fit them best based on a combination of public and private information (Prof. So-and-so isn't taking on new advisees this year, we're trying to expand our IR subfield, we're trying to become a more quantitative department, etc). There are two conclusions you should draw from this:
1. If you're rejected from a program that seemed perfect for you, there's a decent chance that it was due to one of the aforementioned private objectives. At this stage, being "above the bar" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for admission; you may have been edged out for an idiosyncratic reason that was beyond your control. Try not to let it get to you. After all, you didn't want to live in Palo Alto anyway - housing prices are ridiculous and it's too far away from your family.
2. If you're accepted to a program, it wasn't by mistake. The committee has read your writing sample, statement of purpose, and letters of recommendation, they've seen your transcripts, and they believe that you would be successful in their program. They're willing to invest substantial time and resources in you. Remember this if you begin to experience the imposter syndrome that afflicts so many incoming PhD students.
Best of luck to all of you!

In general, the programs that send out acceptances in January tend to be those who are competing for applicants that might have better options. The logic is that an early offer + early visiting weekend might cause prospective students to consider the program more seriously than they otherwise would have. These tend to be places ranked 15-30ish: Wisconsin, OSU, UT, Emory, and so forth. The CHYMPS schools typically don't send out decisions until mid-February to early-March, both because they receive a larger number of applications and because they don't have the same need to fight for good students. As @DreamersDay said, remain skeptical of any high-ranking admissions on the results page at least until next month.
On another note: please take care of yourselves in these upcoming weeks. Get some sleep, drink water, do whichever type of exercise you prefer. Keep busy with work if you can, and try to limit your daily visits to this site. Remember that the admissions process, while noisy and imperfect, is a matching exercise; you've identified the programs that seem to be the best fit for you based on public information (faculty, methodological approach, etc), and now it's time for admissions committees to identify which applicants fit them best based on a combination of public and private information (Prof. So-and-so isn't taking on new advisees this year, we're trying to expand our IR subfield, we're trying to become a more quantitative department, etc). There are two conclusions you should draw from this:
1. If you're rejected from a program that seemed perfect for you, there's a decent chance that it was due to one of the aforementioned private objectives. At this stage, being "above the bar" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for admission; you may have been edged out for an idiosyncratic reason that was beyond your control. Try not to let it get to you. After all, you didn't want to live in Palo Alto anyway - housing prices are ridiculous and it's too far away from your family.
2. If you're accepted to a program, it wasn't by mistake. The committee has read your writing sample, statement of purpose, and letters of recommendation, they've seen your transcripts, and they believe that you would be successful in their program. They're willing to invest substantial time and resources in you. Remember this if you begin to experience the imposter syndrome that afflicts so many incoming PhD students.
Best of luck to all of you!

In general, the programs that send out acceptances in January tend to be those who are competing for applicants that might have better options. The logic is that an early offer + early visiting weekend might cause prospective students to consider the program more seriously than they otherwise would have. These tend to be places ranked 15-30ish: Wisconsin, OSU, UT, Emory, and so forth. The CHYMPS schools typically don't send out decisions until mid-February to early-March, both because they receive a larger number of applications and because they don't have the same need to fight for good students. As @DreamersDay said, remain skeptical of any high-ranking admissions on the results page at least until next month.
On another note: please take care of yourselves in these upcoming weeks. Get some sleep, drink water, do whichever type of exercise you prefer. Keep busy with work if you can, and try to limit your daily visits to this site. Remember that the admissions process, while noisy and imperfect, is a matching exercise; you've identified the programs that seem to be the best fit for you based on public information (faculty, methodological approach, etc), and now it's time for admissions committees to identify which applicants fit them best based on a combination of public and private information (Prof. So-and-so isn't taking on new advisees this year, we're trying to expand our IR subfield, we're trying to become a more quantitative department, etc). There are two conclusions you should draw from this:
1. If you're rejected from a program that seemed perfect for you, there's a decent chance that it was due to one of the aforementioned private objectives. At this stage, being "above the bar" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for admission; you may have been edged out for an idiosyncratic reason that was beyond your control. Try not to let it get to you. After all, you didn't want to live in Palo Alto anyway - housing prices are ridiculous and it's too far away from your family.
2. If you're accepted to a program, it wasn't by mistake. The committee has read your writing sample, statement of purpose, and letters of recommendation, they've seen your transcripts, and they believe that you would be successful in their program. They're willing to invest substantial time and resources in you. Remember this if you begin to experience the imposter syndrome that afflicts so many incoming PhD students.
Best of luck to all of you!

@sethbwa - I went to one of the schools that you're talking about for undergrad, and I can tell you that:
1. The placement list is not comprehensive. It isn't intentionally deceptive, but you certainly should not take away the idea that most grads get TT jobs.
2. Attrition rates were very high, due in part to lack of funding/resources and higher than average TA/teaching loads.
3. ...and, for the reasons mentioned in #2, the grad students who stuck around were pretty uniformly unhappy and overworked. Of course these are conditions common to all graduate programs, but it's much worse when you have no guaranteed funding/are made to TA for multiple courses per semester/have little access to departmental resources for conferences or otherwise.
My point is that attending a top program not only increases your chances of getting a fancy research job, it increases your chance of getting any job at all (including small teaching schools) and means that you'll likely have a less stressful/financially ruinous time in grad school.

C stands for Cal (Berkeley), not Columbia.

@sethbwa - I went to one of the schools that you're talking about for undergrad, and I can tell you that:
1. The placement list is not comprehensive. It isn't intentionally deceptive, but you certainly should not take away the idea that most grads get TT jobs.
2. Attrition rates were very high, due in part to lack of funding/resources and higher than average TA/teaching loads.
3. ...and, for the reasons mentioned in #2, the grad students who stuck around were pretty uniformly unhappy and overworked. Of course these are conditions common to all graduate programs, but it's much worse when you have no guaranteed funding/are made to TA for multiple courses per semester/have little access to departmental resources for conferences or otherwise.
My point is that attending a top program not only increases your chances of getting a fancy research job, it increases your chance of getting any job at all (including small teaching schools) and means that you'll likely have a less stressful/financially ruinous time in grad school.

It will be fine. Don't worry about it.

Here's a link to the program from a 2015 regulation school conference - might be able to find some US/Canadian scholars there: https://theorie-regulation.org/colloques/conference-rr-2015-en/program-rr-2015-en/
 
Do note that the reason that you're having trouble finding people is because regulation/accumulation theory isn't really something that (North American) political economy scholars study, and there are fairly few economists who do that kind of stuff anymore either. If you adopt that research program in grad school, know that you'll be fighting an uphill battle when it comes to getting an academic job. I will reiterate that I can only speak for US/Canadian political science, and that you may find more work being done in this area elsewhere.

I'm confused why you want to pursue a PhD only in poly sci.  It makes sense if you want to teach poly sci at the college/university level, but if your goal is to work in college administration then a doctorate in any field is acceptable.  A EdD in college admin is preferable since it usually takes less time to complete than a PhD and you don't need to transition from teaching to admin.  But if your primary goal is to teach poly sci, then your lack of prior coursework is problematic.  I would recommend that you apply for an MA first at a public in-state college/university which will be much cheaper than a private institution and will provide the poly sci training you need before you apply for a PhD.

I would agree with @Comparativist - this really isn't one of the parts of your application that will be scrutinized heavily. I would recommend listing whatever courses you wouldn't want the adcomm to miss while looking over your transcript, but chances are that if you made the shortlist they'll read the whole transcript anyway. If this is in regards to UT, my anecdotal evidence is that I didn't do the required template but got in anyway. But, YMMV.

Having never applied to/enrolled in a masters program, I can't speak from personal experience about this topic. However, my cohort-mates who had completed MAs prior to beginning the program mostly agree that the value-added of the MA was that it helped them to define a potential research agenda, which in turn helped them to decide which PhD programs would best accommodate their interests (as well as helping them to write convincing SOPs). If it's really the case that you already have a good idea of what your research interests are, and you don't need to compensate for a horrific undergrad GPA, I would advise you to seriously weigh the benefits of spending x amount of money on a masters program simply because you didn't get an offer this cycle. There are other options, such as applying for RA positions, that might add value to your future applications without putting you in debt.

Do you still have a chance at any school at all? Yes. That being said, your current score will probably not make it past the first cut at many places. From what I've heard, admissions committees often use stats like GRE/GPA to make a long list out of the initial application pool, and a very low Q score might lead to your app being thrown out before they even see your application materials. Your GRE score is not the defining element of your application by a long shot, but the truth is that many programs have score cutoffs/quotas/etc., and you don't want to be rejected simply because you fell on the wrong side of these. There are a lot of good arguments out there about why the continued use of the GRE in graduate admissions is problematic, but for now it's still part of the dance. You should retake the test if it is within your means to do so. I would recommend purchasing/renting/obtaining the Manhattan Prep series on the quantitative section, as they really try to provide a complete understanding of the mathematical/logical concepts that underlie the questions on the test.
One last thing: I disagree with your postscript. Political science is a pretty quantitative discipline, and IR is probably the second most quant-heavy subfield behind American politics. Everyone who studies IR at the graduate level will at least be required to read and understand quant research, and admissions committees will be looking for signals of quantitative literacy regardless of your specific research interests. Of course you can do qualitative IR research, but I just wanted to make the point that it's probably best to get comfortable with quantitative analysis instead of writing it off.

I have personally never heard of such a program, and have no knowledge of anybody who has completed such a program. I can think of a few examples of scholars who have completed both a political science PhD and an economics PhD, though not at the same institution and not at the same time. If somebody has two PhDs, it is usually because their interests changed and they needed the second one to work in the desired field (though I have heard of math PhDs going on to do econ PhDs due to the terrible job market for mathematicians). It is not unheard of for political science doctoral students to acquire an economics MA, though I would not say that it's common.
 
The real question is this: what is your desired career path? If you want to study IPE/CPE from the perspective of a political scientist/using political science research methods (and seek employment as an academic political scientist), you should aim for top political science PhD programs that are strong in these areas. If you want to study issues of political economy from the perspective of an economist/using economics research methods (and seek employment as an economist, academic or otherwise), you should target economics PhD programs that are strong in political economics. The top political economy programs (Stanford/Harvard) do place their PhDs into academic/non-academic positions in both fields, but their admission rates are extremely low - it would be unwise to place all of your eggs in that basket. It's also worth noting that the political economy programs (as well as most top econ programs) will expect you to have taken specific math courses as an undergrad, unlike most political science programs.

I have personally never heard of such a program, and have no knowledge of anybody who has completed such a program. I can think of a few examples of scholars who have completed both a political science PhD and an economics PhD, though not at the same institution and not at the same time. If somebody has two PhDs, it is usually because their interests changed and they needed the second one to work in the desired field (though I have heard of math PhDs going on to do econ PhDs due to the terrible job market for mathematicians). It is not unheard of for political science doctoral students to acquire an economics MA, though I would not say that it's common.
 
The real question is this: what is your desired career path? If you want to study IPE/CPE from the perspective of a political scientist/using political science research methods (and seek employment as an academic political scientist), you should aim for top political science PhD programs that are strong in these areas. If you want to study issues of political economy from the perspective of an economist/using economics research methods (and seek employment as an economist, academic or otherwise), you should target economics PhD programs that are strong in political economics. The top political economy programs (Stanford/Harvard) do place their PhDs into academic/non-academic positions in both fields, but their admission rates are extremely low - it would be unwise to place all of your eggs in that basket. It's also worth noting that the political economy programs (as well as most top econ programs) will expect you to have taken specific math courses as an undergrad, unlike most political science programs.

Certainly not problematic to highlight APs that you would like to work with - I did this, and I know that many others did as well. However, I would advise against identifying them as your prospective advisor (or planning on them being your advisor), largely due to the reasons that you mentioned. Additionally, you want your advisor to be somebody with enough clout in the discipline that he or she can adequately promote you and your work, both before you go on the job market (introductions at conferences, etc) and while you are on the job market (making calls for you, writing letters that carry weight); senior faculty are typically better at this than junior faculty.

Honestly, I think that you should start by seeking guidance from your former professors. GradCafe is very helpful regarding certain aspects of the application process (GRE studying tips, SOP advice, Interview advice, etc), but not so much when it comes to something as major as choosing a field of study. Sure, we can list all of the best places to study political psychology, but we can't really tell you whether you should be studying political psychology or not. You should contact a professor who knows you and knows your work and have a conversation with them regarding your research interests and how to best pursue them.