Search results

In investigating the presidential campaigns and early administrations of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, Presidential Campaigns and Presidential Accountability shows how campaign promises are realized in government once the victor is established in the Oval Office. To measure correlations between presidential campaigns and policy-making, Michele P. Claibourn closely examines detailed campaign advertising information, survey data about citizen's responses to campaigns, processes that create expectations among constituents, and media attention and response to candidates. _x000B_Disputing the notion that presidents ignore campaign issues upon being elected, this book contends that candidates raise issues that matter and develop ideas to address these issues based on voter reactions. Based on comparisons of campaigns and the subsequent first years of presidential administrations, Claibourn shows how presidential action is constrained by campaign agendas.

The article first examines the ways in which Richard Neustadt's Presidential Power attempts to connect the activities of power-seeking presidents to the public ends their actions presumably further and then discusses what is problematic in these linkages. The critique focuses on the defects in Neustadt's concept of the "grain of history," the diminished sense of public purposes revealed by the standard of "viability," the difficulties in evaluating presidential actions with the criteria developed and the ways in which the failed linkage between the means to power and the ends served undermines Neustadt's own teaching. The paradoxical quality of Presidential Power, in which insightful analysis of the means to power is combined with unsatisfactory discussion of the purposes for which that power is to be employed, is seen as possibly rooted in Neustadt's tacit acceptance of positivist and historicist views, which are now increasingly called into question. The article contends that those concerned with the separation of the normative and the empirical begin efforts to reconnect presidential power to public purpose by going beyond the terms of Neustadt's argument and by reexamining the American Founding for what it may suggest about the intended ends of politics and the presidency.

The existence of a three-year presidential discourse through the 5th Amendment Bill to the 1945 Constitution does have advantages and losses, considering the considerable implications of a president who serves three terms. This study has two objectives, namely first to find out how the presidential system reacts to proposed changes, and second, how the debate around the 5th Constitution of 1945 affects changes in presidential mandates in 3 terms. This study is a standard legal research that uses three approaches, namely the legal approach, the historical constitutional approach, and the conceptual approach. There are two conclusions in this study, first, the presidential term of office more than 2 terms can be unconstitutional if it is not on the path of change, but if you want to make changes by extending the presidential term to 3 terms of change principle. may violate the principles of constitutional democracy and the constitutional presidential system. Second, because of the term of office of president.

Political observers and presidents alike are preoccupied with the notion of presidential legacy. Speculation about how presidential actions will be viewed by future generations weighs heavily on the minds of chief executives as well as historians and analysts who seek to devise standards and techniques by which to measure the concept of legacy. In this article, I examine survey data on retrospective assessments about ex‐presidential performance to examine developments over time. I also develop and empirically test a series of hypotheses to explain level of ex‐presidential approval. I find that the public's retrospective evaluations of former presidential performance in office are linked to presidential approval during their administrations, incumbent presidential approval, whether or not they are deceased, and the length of time former presidents have been out of office.

The seven elections since 1938 in which the incumbent president ran for reelection (in 1940, 1944, 1948, 1956, 1964, 1972, & 1976) are examined to compare presidential popularity-as assessed by the Gallup poll-with the percent of the popular vote won by the president. The correlation between these two variables is .737, & eliminating the results of the atypical election of 1972 (in which Nixon received 6.4% more votes than would have been predicted) leads to a correlation of .907. Prediction is made that if President Carter is renominated, a popularity figure of 40% or below would indicate little chance of reelection, a figure of above 50% would suggest a strong likelihood of reelection, & a figure in-between would mean that reelection would depend on Carter's capacity to get support from the Electoral college based on his popular votes. 2 Tables. D. Abrahams.