| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
073841
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
BRANDON ROTTINGHAUS looks at an important but untold story of the origins, adaptations, and utility of public opinion mail sent to the White House as a political tool. He concludes that the apparatus for gauging public opinion by the mail predates but largely mirrors the institutionalization of opinion polling in the West Wing and serves as a valuable measure of opinion for presidents interested in understanding and managing public opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
131676
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
131671
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
153949
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Debates about presidential greatness have been with us for decades, facilitated in part by numerous systematic surveys of scholars with expertise in American history and politics. Nevertheless, the voice of political scientists in this debate has been relatively muted when compared particularly with the role that historians have had in making these determinations. This article introduces and assesses results of a recent effort to capture the attitudes of political science presidency experts about presidential greatness. By surveying the membership of the APSA Presidents and Executive Politics section, we could identify and then compare specifically the attitudes of political scientists against the growing body of ratings and rankings of a phenomenon with long-standing interest and importance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
173309
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
For generations, scholars have used surveys to examine presidential greatness. However, the rising tide of politicization calls these ratings into question. Can those who study the presidency offer fair judgments regardless of their political affiliation? Does their affiliation alter judgments of presidential greatness in historical or contemporary terms? Using a 2018 expert survey of political scientists who study the presidency, we find that party affiliation and ideological differences do alter—albeit slightly—perceptions of presidential greatness for both past and present presidents up to and including Donald Trump. Our results call into question such ratings insofar as they exist absent the political and ideological context of the reviewer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
117828
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
131550
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Which factors shorten or lengthen the survival of a scandal involving a chief executive? Using new data tracking scandals involving presidents and governors from 1972 to 2011, I chart the duration of each political, personal, and financial scandal faced by an elected official, their staff, or nominees. I specifically examine institutional, political, and economic factors to investigate what factors quicken a "negative" end to a scandal. National chief executives and their staff are more likely to survive a scandal when they have more partisans in the legislature but are less likely when there is greater political opposition, however there is no comparative effect at the state level. Positive economic growth and public approval have no effect on survival of a scandal at either the national or state levels. These findings clarify how the political environment shapes the duration of executive scandal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|