Suchergebnisse

"Change and Continuity in the 2020 and 2022 Elections analyzes the most recent presidential and congressional elections, voter turnout, and the social forces, party loyalties, and issues that affect voting behavior. This accessible, data-driven text helps readers understand the elections and what the results mean for the future of American politics"--

Introduction -- Part 1. The 2020 Presidential Election. The Nomination Struggle -- The General Election Campaign -- The Election Results -- Part 2. Voting Behavior in the 2016 Presidential Election. Who Voted? -- Social Forces and the Vote -- Party Loyalties and the Vote -- Candidates, Issues, and the Vote -- Presidential Performance and Candidate Choice -- Part 3. The 2020 Congressional Elections. Candidates and Outcomes in 2020 -- The Congressional Electorate in 2020 -- The 2020 Elections and the Future of American Politics.

The year 2018 has been dubbed the Year of the Woman because of the increased number of women who ran for office. What helps explain the dramatic increase in the number of women running for office? This paper examines how the political environment shapes white women's emotional reactions to politics and in turn their political ambition. We focus on major aspects of the 2016 election: Trump's treatment of women, Clinton's historic run for office, the Women's March, and the #MeToo movement. We argue that each of these factors leads to distinct emotional reactions, and that some of these reactions can increase political ambition. We explore support for these arguments with an experiment conducted with a sample of highly educated white women, an experiment fielded on the 2019 CCES, and with in-depth interviews conducted with first-time women candidates in 2018. We find that Trump's treatment of women and Clinton's historic run for office inspired political ambition, but through different emotional pathways. Trump's treatment of women increased anger and in turn political ambition, while Clinton's historic run increased ambition through enthusiasm. We find more muted effects for the Women's Marches and the #MeToo movement.

AbstractOver the last several decades, Gallup data shows an increased willingness among members of the public to support presidential candidates from a wide range of religious backgrounds, though a nontrivial proportion of the public is still unwilling to vote for an Atheist, Mormon, or Muslim. What underlies this opposition? We argue that voters evaluate candidates from religious out-groups more negatively on a wide range of dimensions considered desirable for political office, and that this bias should be more pronounced among the highly religious. We show support for these arguments using a survey experiment fielded with YouGov. Atheists and Muslim candidates were perceived more negatively on a large set of traits considered desirable for political office compared to candidates from religious in-groups, and Mormon candidates fall somewhere in between. The Atheist and Muslim candidates were also perceived as less competent on a diverse set of issues.

Menacing news inclines individuals to acquire information, and research has explored how emotional reactions such as fear or anger condition this process. While scholars have debated the relevance of fear and anger for levels of attentiveness and learning in politics, fewer studies consider how variation in emotional responses can shape the substance of information searches in times of threat. We posit that heightened fear motivates interest in defense-oriented information among threatened individuals, while heightened anger motivates interest in aggression-oriented information. To test these hypotheses, we focus on international terrorist threat because of its known tendency to elevate both anger and fear. We use data that permit a behavioral measure of information seeking, via an experiment embedded within a Dynamic Process Tracing Environment (DPTE) platform. Within this information-rich context, exposure to terrorist threat motivates a search for relevant information. Furthermore, we find that while an induction to elevate anger prompts more immediate attention to aggression-oriented information, an induction to elevate fear is more effective in steering attention toward defense-oriented information.

This paper examines if, when, and to what extent U.S. minor party labels influence individual opinions over a range of political issues. Based on data from an experimental study, we reach three general conclusions. First, as cues, party labels are more likely to influence opinions over complex issues. Second, familiarity with and trust in a party condition cue acceptance. Third, as a whole, minor party labels act as effective cues less consistently than major parties. This finding, we suggest, indicates that there exists some threshold level of familiarity and trust that minor parties must reach in the mass public in order to be effective cues. This research is valuable because it extends current work on party labels as heuristic devices and more general work on cues; our findings are additionally important given recent trends in public opinion data, which indicate that the U.S. public is becoming more accepting of minor parties as permanent features of the political system.

Abstract
Using original data collected from YouGov panelists in July of 2021, we examine caregiving experiences and attitudes toward caregiving policies, taking into consideration how intersecting identities shape the perspectives of caregivers. We examine the racial, ethnic and gender dimensions of who provides care, and how the pandemic affected caregiving commitments. We find that communities of color, especially women of color, experienced pandemic caregiving pressures differently than their White counterparts. We further consider public opinion on caregiving policies and explore whether and how these attitudes vary between men and women and across racial, ethnic groups and partisan groups. We find that while interesting differences do exist among different populations, and these differences are worth reflection, policies that support caregivers and caregiving recipients are, on balance, very popular.

AbstractThis article explores the effect of explicitly racial and inflammatory speech by political elites on mass citizens in a societal context where equality norms are widespread and generally heeded yet a subset of citizens nonetheless possesses deeply ingrained racial prejudices. The authors argue that such speech should have an 'emboldening effect' among the prejudiced, particularly where it is not clearly and strongly condemned by other elite political actors. To test this argument, the study focuses on the case of the Trump campaign for president in the United States, and utilizes a survey experiment embedded within an online panel study. The results demonstrate that in the absence of prejudiced elite speech, prejudiced citizens constrain the expression of their prejudice. However, in the presence of prejudiced elite speech – particularly when it is tacitly condoned by other elites – the study finds that the prejudiced are emboldened to both express and act upon their prejudices.

Scholars and Southern Californian Immigrants in Dialogue: New Conversations in Public Sociology employs public sociology to bring together academics and undocumented voices in vibrant conversation about immigration in Southern California. The dialogue offers compelling insights concerning reasons for immigration and what happens to Latinos/as when they migrate to the United States.