Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1. Ideological Protests: The Protest Ties That Bind Us Together -- 2. The Making of Ideological Protests -- 3. Political Primaries: Protest's Ideological Connection at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions -- 4. Campaign Contributions: Following the Money to Find the Financial Benefits of Protest -- 5. Voter Turnout: Does Protest Lead to Voter Support or Public Backlash? The Case of Black Lives Matter -- 6. Election Results: A Protest Political Climate That Shapes Electoral Opportunities and Candidates' Fortunes -- Conclusion: A Change Is Gonna Come . . . a Protest Change Is Always Gonna Come -- References -- Index.

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1. Ideological Protests: The Protest Ties That Bind Us Together -- 2. The Making of Ideological Protests -- 3. Political Primaries: Protest's Ideological Connection at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions -- 4. Campaign Contributions: Following the Money to Find the Financial Benefits of Protest -- 5. Voter Turnout: Does Protest Lead to Voter Support or Public Backlash? The Case of Black Lives Matter -- 6. Election Results: A Protest Political Climate That Shapes Electoral Opportunities and Candidates' Fortunes -- Conclusion: A Change Is Gonna Come . . . a Protest Change Is Always Gonna Come -- References -- Index

"Rather than considering political discussions and rhetoric as symbolic, inconsequential forms of politics, Governing with Words conceptualizes them as forms of government action that can shape institutions and societal norms. Daniel Q. Gillion refers to this theory as 'discursive governance'. Federal politicians' statements about racial and ethnic minority concerns aid the passage of minority public policies and improve individual lifestyle behaviors. Unfortunately, most of the American public continues to disapprove of politicians' rhetoric that highlights race. The book argues that addressing racial and ethnic inequality continues to be a tug-of-war between avoiding the backlash of the majority in this nation while advocating for minority interests. Even though this paradox looms over politicians' discussions of race, race-conscious political speech, viewed in its entirety, is the mechanism by which marginalized groups find a place in the democratic process. Such race-conscious discussions, the book argues, have ramifications both within and outside of government"--

"This book demonstrates the direct influence that political protest behavior has on Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court, illustrating that protest is a form of democratic responsiveness that government officials have used, and continue to draw on, to implement federal policies. Focusing on racial and ethnic minority concerns, this book shows that the context of political protest has served as a signal for political preferences. As pro-minority rights behavior grew and anti-minority rights actions declined, politicians learned from minority protest and responded when they felt emboldened by stronger informational cues stemming from citizens' behavior, a theory referred to as the "information continuum." Given the influence that minority protest actions have wielded over national government, the book offers a powerful implication. Although the shift from protest to politics as a political strategy has opened the door for institutionalized political opportunity, racial and ethnic minorities have neglected a powerful tool to illustrate the inequalities that exist in contemporary society"--

Gillion demonstrates the direct influence that political protest behavior has on Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, illustrating that protest is a form of democratic responsiveness that government officials have used, and continue to draw on, to implement federal policies. Focusing on racial and ethnic minority concerns, this book shows that the context of political protest has served as a signal for political preferences. As pro-minority rights behavior grew and anti-minority rights actions declined, politicians learned from minority protest and responded when they felt emboldened by stronger informational cues stemming from citizens' behavior, a theory referred to as the 'information continuum'. Although the shift from protest to politics as a political strategy has opened the door for institutionalized political opportunity, racial and ethnic minorities have neglected a powerful tool to illustrate the inequalities that exist in contemporary society

Did President Barak Obama's discussion of racial policies lead to a public backlash and invoke sentiments of racial resentment? Previous studies of citizens' racial attitudes suggest that the American public tends to have an unfavorable view of race‐specific policies that provide advantages and unique resources to minorities. Moreover, these programs invoke sentiments of racial resentment. However, I argue that when the president leads on racial issues by implementing and discussing race‐specific policies, he can guide perceptions on race in the direction of the public policy that was enacted. Through original experiments, I find strong support for this claim. I conclude with a discussion of the implications this work has for rhetorical approaches presidents take to address inequality from the Oval Office.

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to understand the effect of citizen mobilization on both electoral outcomes and on the likelihood that new candidates will enter races to challenge incumbent politicians.MethodsThis study uses quantitative, longitudinal data (at the congressional‐district level) on protest, electoral outcomes, and challengers entering races, which are analyzed using an autoregressive distributed lagged regression model.ResultsResults show that protests that express liberal issues lead to a greater percentage of the two‐party vote share for Democratic candidates, while protests that espouse conservative issues offer Republican candidates a greater share of the two‐party vote. Additionally, results indicated that protest shines a light on incumbent politicians' failure to address constituent concerns, which leads quality candidates to enter subsequent races to challenge incumbent politicians.ConclusionsCitizen activism, which has been shown to impact state and firm policy decisions, also impacts electoral outcomes.

This article argues that the modern American partisan gender gap – the tendency of men to identify more as Republicans and less as Democrats than women – emerged largely because of mass-level ideological party sorting. As the two major US political parties ideologically polarized at the elite level, the public gradually perceived this polarization and better sorted themselves into the parties that matched their policy preferences. Stable pre-existing policy differences between men and women caused this sorting to generate the modern US partisan gender gap. Because education is positively associated with awareness of elite party polarization, the partisan gender gap developed earlier and is consistently larger among those with college degrees. The study finds support for this argument from decades of American National Election Studies data and a new large dataset of decades of pooled individual-level Gallup survey responses.

AbstractThis paper utilizes original survey data to examine whether individuals believe they share views on public policy with members of their own racial or ethnic group and whether they place an importance on living in legislative districts with people from their own racial or ethnic group. We find strong evidence that Latino and African-American respondents have a sense of shared policy preferences within their own group. Our results also indicate white Republicans are very likely to view themselves as having shared policy preferences within their group. Respondents who have a strong sense of shared policy preferences with their racial group are also the most likely to think it is important to live in legislative districts with others from their own racial or ethnic group. This paper affords a deeper understanding of the extent to which voters express commonality with their racial and ethnic minority group on matters related to public policy.