I looked over your paper and have a few suggestions. Stylistically, the hypotheses should always come after the theory. That way, the paper flows better and the theory and hypotheses are in logical order.
Similar to your first paper, I’m still struggling to find the main point that you’re interested in studying. Your hypotheses talk about partisanship interacting with social welfare and corporate power, but these are extremely broad categories. If you want to stay with these two policies, I would order your theory to talk about what’s known about social welfare/ corporate policies and partisanship at the state level. It’s already there, but it should be ordered (potentially add subheadings?) for readability. I would also be very clear about what, exactly, your theory is outright. I find myself digging around to find your main argument. Finally, you don’t need the research design– we’re doing that for the 3rd paper!
I hope this is helpful to you.