Final Flashcards
Howell and Pevehouse - Presidents, Congress, Use of Force
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
Congress constrains the President in foreign policy power
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Congressional leverage: can sway public opinion, budgetary controls (anticipated threat), if doesn’t back the enemy won’t think it’s serious
Pres party as principal backers: if pres unsuccessful, can hurt whole party/curry pres favor/use pres as heuristic, trusting of pres
What is their general approach to testing their theory?
Data: major/minor uses of force 1945-2000
What are their key results?
Pres exercise major force 45% more often during unified govt than divided
Association between president party support and major uses of force
Relationship was not found with minor uses of force
Baum and Groeling - Public Opinion on Iraq
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
New information most influential on public opinion at beginning of a war; effects decline over time
elite effects are greatest at outset
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Reality starts to matter more over time as info about events becomes available
Eventually ppl lock into their opinions and nothing affects them
Elite rhetoric matters less as reality becomes more apparent
Pres own party will be most responsive to pres rhetoric
What is their general approach to testing their theory?
Measured elite communication/press coverage and public opinion to see how they affected views on conflicts over time
Measured effects of pres communication in relation to war divided by party identification
NYT vs actual casualties
Eventually effects of reality emerge and then recede over time
Pres rhetoric/speeches to test how partisan groups experience increase of approval in war and diminishing responsiveness over time
Opposition starts out as approving but then fall the farthest when pres statements made/as reality becomes more obvious
President’s party still will eventually also tend toward reality just do it less quickly
What are their key results?
Rally effects occur in beginning, then decline as casualties go up/reality comes in
Differs by partisanship - Pres Party’s rally effect falls more gradually vs. out-party
Pres Partisans latch on more when the pres releases some PR statement
Eventually all ppl lock into their opinions and nothing affects them
Erikson, MacKuen, Stimson - The Macro Polity Ch2
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
global evaluation going on, not just one or two factors
Everyone’s ratings trend together for all govt officials - public evaluates Washington, not just president
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Overall approval of how things are going
What are their key results?
Principally economic - what Fed does has huge effect, but aren’t ones being judged
How pres is rewarded/punished for events - we attribute control to pres when things going well
Approval by party - used to not be as polarized, esp when econ was good or bad
Now unclear of partisans update at all
Two sided info flows - selective exposure/selective acceptance - won’t change thoughts due to biased info
Econ different - personal experience so can’t ignore
Politicians try to anticipate/get behind public opinion
Other important notes:
Approval - what doesn’t matter?
speeches/charisma, failing to connect, gaffes - much more systematic
Mysticism - why americans like ppl is mystical way
Dangers of interpretation - events as consequences, not causes - ascribe changes in approval to wrong things, like a speech
Creating dramatic narratives, post hoc storytelling, cherry picking outliers bc media likely to report on them
What does matter?
Honeymoons - temporary, reflects message flow - beginning of office, have highest approval
Bc opposition not criticizing as aggressively yet - reduces neg info flow to public
Now this doesn’t really happen tho bc of polarization, opposition don’t want credit claiming for midterms
Economic expectations - ongoing, affects entire system - trajectory/expectations of it - most of it
Crises, wars, other events (temporary, but size/decay rate may vary)
Dynamics - autoregressive, pattern of equilibration approval levels - gains and losses tend to decay
Erikson, MacKuen, Stimson - The Macro Polity Ch8
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
dynamic representation - politics as dynamic system that reacts to events
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Policy = function of policy, elections
opinion; elections = function of lagged opinion
Assumption: elected politicians sense mood of moment, assess its trend, anticipate its consequences for elections
What is their general approach to testing their theory?
Inputs: opinion - policy “mood” - public preference for more or less govt across issues, ie lib or conservative mood
Elections: party control of institutions of govt
Outcome - pres policy: liberalism of pres supporters in Congress, % liberal positions on key votes/on Supreme Court votes
What are their key results?
Results: when govt decreases ppl want more; when increases ppl want less
Ie, Reagan didn’t make ppl more conservative
Mood significantly related to liberalism of a president - influences policy directly and indirectly (indirectly via elections)
Presidency has the quickest response to public opinion shifts
87% of the gap between public’s demand & presidential activity is “corrected” within a year
Druckman and Jacobs - Who Governs Ch6
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
2 motivators for going public: prime issue importance (displace other issues) + persuade public to support policies
Effects = selective and conditional - ppl’s existing predispositions
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Pres history/credibility (approval) affects how messaging is received
If opposing political elite have more or less influence, if reality contradicts all effect
At times, this can be weaker/allow for priming and manipulation
What is their general approach to testing their theory?
Looked at Johnson Presidency’s attempt to shape public opinion - how successful their messaging was
What are their key results?
Priming is easier than manipulation - rankings of importance more fluid than real opinions
Correlated emphasis to public opinion on issues positively - info gap on foreign policy used to pres advantage - more effective there than domestic
Johnson was able to get public on his side for some specific issues - anti poverty/vietnam - but not all
Johnson failed to manipulate public opinion to suit sweeping political objectives - dictate what issues americans considered important/manufacture support
WH did exert impact on public opinion but was selective and conditional
1) Low approval rating / bad standing
2) Competing messages can neutralize pres’ claims
3) Real world events undermining pres’ claims
4) Ppl might already have strong opinions & will reject opposing arguments
Johnson could prime on domestic and foreign affairs (but not Vietnam)
Johnson could persuade on domestic affairs but not foreign affairs
War on poverty where public didn’t have a lot of info - both primed and manipulated
All of this was limited
Clayman, Elliott, Heritage, Beckett - Watershed in White House Journalism
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
Press more aggressive during second terms - bad economy = more aggressive
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Following 1968 press became more aggressive bc Relationship between President and press corps strained by events such as Pentagon Papers
Journalist changed how they thought about their jobs
Went to Uncovering the truth, seeking justice etc. From trumpeting the president/carrying out his message - more adversarial
What is their general approach to testing their theory?
When does press challenge the press?
Measured on questions of accountability and adversarialism
Accountability = extent to which questions explicitly ask pres to justify policies or actions
“Why did you” or “How could you”
adversarialism = extent to which questions invite a particular answer and are opinionated rather than neutral - agenda in opposition to pres
What are their key results?
Press became more aggressive following 1968 - changing norms due to loss of trust in pres
Aggression correlated w high interest, high unemployment, 2nd term presidency
Not associated with partisan bias, high new management efforts, official discord
Clifford, Flynn, Nyhan, Rhee - Decider in Chief? Public Exaggerated Power of Presidency
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
Ppl overestimate the amount of power that president has
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
More pol knowledge = less overestimation
More they perceive pres as in control, more likely to blame pres for things they don’t like
What is their general approach to testing their theory?
Surveyed experts on a number of issues measuring how much influence they think the president had
Did the same for the public
Found the public consistently exaggerates presidential power compared to experts
They performed this survey over a number of waves during the Trump presidency
What are their key results?
Supporters of pres explain pres failures via institutions, opposition explain via pres himself
The Public holds coherent but exaggerated beliefs about Presidential power
Public opinion shifts considerably over time
Found the anticipated trends among Trump supporters
Undermines democratic accountability that the public isnt able to accurately assign blame to presidents
Why
Asymmetric information flows emphasize and de-emphasize presidential influence depending on which party is in control
Nyhan - Scandal Potential
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
News crowding and popularity with opposition determine what gets turned into a scandal by the media
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Nyhan = media scandal - reflects perception of misconduct among elites
Role of facts - range between crazy vs crackpot - in the middle is when politics determines if it’ll blow up
Press - seek to break news and attract audiences, audience demand from opposition, opportunity costs of covering scandal
Word choice by press is systematic
What is their general approach to testing their theory?
Measurement - onset (first front page story describing as scandal) and number of stories following
Predictors: opposition approval, news congestion, time in office/btwn scandals, control variables
News congestion: scandal may cause news pressure, pres may try to make news to divert attention
Approach - use incidence of disasters/tragedies to control - see how news crowding affects
What are their key results?
more popular w/ opposition = less likely for scandal
News pressure - when control for exogenous events, decreases scandal likelihood
Time variable: scandals more likely to occur at beginning of terms/farther removed from last one
Beginning of term bc nominations
News pressure crowds out intensity of scandals
Cohen, Karol, Noel, Zaller - The Party Decides 187-234 and 288-303
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
primaries determined by elites/party insiders, occurring before NH and Iowa
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Party-centered, not candidate oriented; invisible primary as coordination game among insiders
Combines strategic/ideological considerations
What is their general approach to testing their theory?
Evidence (1980-2004)- successful candidates have broad appeal to party insiders
What are their key results?
factional/outsider candidates struggle to build support
Campaigns built on small pools of insiders/activists; little capitulation to popular opinion, many candidates rejected
Endorsements can predict partisan vote, serve as cues to partisans
Also provide campaign resources - can ut own political machine to work for you
Cohen, Karol, Noel, Zaller - Party vs Faction in Reformed Nominating System
What is the author’s main concept?
Argue that the rise of new political media, flood of early money into noms, and conflict among party factions have made it easier for factional candidates/outsiders to challenge elite control of nominations
Explains Trump
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Level of intraparty harmony
Opportunity for insurgents to communicate w voters (new pol media)/mobilize base
Availability of funding to insurgents - can campaign earlier on better and gain more of a following, don’t rely on endorsements
What are their key results?
Become strong enough to where it becomes inevitable
If party is broken up and an outsider becomes super popular have more opportunity to win
Disruptive force of party factions/revolution in political communication is what caused trump
Reforms to the nominating process may also play a role
Under the old system, state and local party officials chose most delegates to national party nominating conventions, favoring candidates with broad appeal
New system, which allows for much more voter input through primary and caucus elections, lacks “consensus-inducing mechanisms” and may contribute to the uptick in factional candidate success
Stimson - Tides of Consent Ch4
What is the author’s main concept?
three stories
The press - day to day campaigns, campaign events reflect skill/organization of campaign
wins/losses reflect skill or lack thereof - but this isn’t really how it is, press selectively tells stories - sometimes losers will try anything to get elected
Political professionals - TV ad war
punch/counterpunch dynamic; little evidence on effectiveness - a lot of money for few votes
Political science - campaigns drive voters to predictable outcomes as non attitudes to attitudes
Election as referendum of incumbent driven by hard to spin facts like how economy is doing
Campaigns make ppl end up where we expect - don’t push ppl to where they wouldn’t have already gone
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Factors outside candidate control determine elections - ie economy is what drives elections
What are their key results?
Conventions matter more than debates even though not as exciting
Conventions increase approval and enthusiasm for a candidate - rallies entire party around one candidate
Candidate at convention lets party/candidate speak unfiltered bc opposition not campaigning there
Debates - ppl see what they want to, selective interpretation
Decided voters cheering on their side, no undecideds
Polling only informative later in race when matters less
Abramowitz - Will Time for Change mean Time for Trump?
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
Incumbent does better in first term, worse in 2nd
After 2 terms it is highly likely that the public will perceive that its time for a change and vote in non-incumbent party
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Model based on three predictors:
incumbent pres approval rating at midyear
growth rate of real GDP in second quarter of election year
whether incumbent party held WH for one term or more than one term
What is their general approach to testing their theory?
Model based on three predictors:
incumbent pres approval rating at midyear
growth rate of real GDP in second quarter of election year
whether incumbent party held WH for one term or more than one term
What are their key results?
TfC predicted Trump’s win - Obama had low approval rating, low GDP increase, Hillary would be third consecutive dem term
Abramowitz said to be skeptical about this though - bc Trump wasn’t mainstream, lagged Clinton in fundraising/organizing, bad favorability
Still accurately predicted his win
Levitsky and Ziblatt - How Democracies DIe - Intro, Ch1 Ch8
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
Democracy kept in place by Dependence on elite gatekeeping/unwritten norms - have to support democracy over party
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
How polarization limits elite/public sanction
Standards we had been using would say dem collapse unlikely, but pol scientists identified risks in Trump behavior
Many was statements rather than actions
Trump still had trouble getting things passed in congress, but dem erosion happens slowly
Pol scientists predicted erosion of democracy in USA slowly - worrying
What are their key results?
Two key norms for preserving democracy: acknowledge legitimacy of other side, respectful forbearance to opposition for turnover
Forbearance important bc fear of pres using power to harm political adversaries
Many anti democratic practices aren’t illegal, norms based
Ie investigating political opponents, undermining election legitimacy
Polarized congress - governing partisans have to stay with party and president
Need them to stand up to an antidemocratic president to preserve democracy
Carey, Helmke, Nyhan, Sanders, Stokes - Searching for Bright Lines in Trump Presidency
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
Public partisans share democratic values, but diverge in how well they view these values are being carried out today
Bright line = a principle that is highly valued but widely regarded as being betrayed
Serves as potential candidate for coordinated defense of democracy
In a perfect world everyone agrees on democratic principles and could coalesce under them (but we won’t do this)
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Political knowledge correlated to knowledge on what makes democracy meaningful
Saw divergence in how parties viewed democracy
What is their general approach to testing their theory?
Asked two questions
What conditions impt for democracy?
How well is American democracy doing today (under trump?
Compared answers between public and experts (control), then parties w/in public
What are their key results?
Experts and public diverged slightly bc public more forgiving on conditions
Public partisans barely diverged, saw the conditions as basically the same
Experts/public diverged a lot on performance
Partisans also diverged a lot - republicans way more forgiving of trump
While all americans roughly believe in same dem principles, don’t see them being carried out in same ways
False negative - real lines crossed but public doesn’t react
False positive - real lines not crossed but public thinks they are
Both of these are happening and that is the issue
Many think the other side is out to get them which creates animosity
Each side thinks other will take away democracy
Howell and Rogowski - War the Presidency and Legislative Voting Behavior
What is the author’s main hypothesis?
pres influence may be greatest during war
What is the mechanism that they believe would generate such an outcome?
Rallying around the flag effect - when enter wars, congress members more likely to support president/unity over partisanship
What is their general approach to testing their theory?
Was previously tested incorrectly - looking at pres position taking w/ congress is too narrow/selection bias - pres takes positions on things he knows is likely to win
Need to research all congress votes, not just ones w pres positions
Compare war/peace estimates of leg liberalism/conservatism, estimate shifts relative to fixed bridge actors - used bridge actors as control bc less likely to shift due to war effects
Sampled major wars: WWI & II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan
What are their key results?
Shifts bigger in senate than in house, but everyone shifted right post 9/11 with Bush
Shifts also occur on domestic policy closer to pres
True for even California legislature (shows that it’s not just about the rise of conservatism among the public)
When enter war, congress swings toward pres - when exits swings away
Mixed results for Korea & Vietnam: Members of congress not likely to change vote probs bc they were generally unpopular wars
