In a nationally representative study, we explore the public's views of the 2016 presidential nominees. Current measures generally focus on approval of given candidates with closed‐ended questions, but much can be learned by soliciting the public's unconstrained candidate preferences—not only in the direction of how they feel, but the depth of their views and who they really want to see in office. Employing open‐ended questions, we find that more than 75% of the voting public preferred an option other than what was offered. Even when constraining choices to politicians, the Democratic and Republican nominees were not preferred by the majority of the public, and this held true when restricting the analyses to partisans only. We further asked voters to express, in their own words, what they thought of the two candidates for president. The majority of the public described both candidates in negative terms. They spoke with deep disdain for the opposition's candidate, as well as their own party's candidate. The results add support to the view that US primary elections are failing to produce candidates who represent the public's interests and signal the potential for further instability in US government.
{"title":"Presidential candidates nobody wants?","authors":"Zoltán Fazekas, Peter K. Hatemi","doi":"10.1111/psq.12866","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12866","url":null,"abstract":"In a nationally representative study, we explore the public's views of the 2016 presidential nominees. Current measures generally focus on approval of given candidates with closed‐ended questions, but much can be learned by soliciting the public's unconstrained candidate preferences—not only in the direction of how they feel, but the depth of their views and who they really want to see in office. Employing open‐ended questions, we find that more than 75% of the voting public preferred an option other than what was offered. Even when constraining choices to politicians, the Democratic and Republican nominees were not preferred by the majority of the public, and this held true when restricting the analyses to partisans only. We further asked voters to express, in their own words, what they thought of the two candidates for president. The majority of the public described both candidates in negative terms. They spoke with deep disdain for the opposition's candidate, as well as their own party's candidate. The results add support to the view that US primary elections are failing to produce candidates who represent the public's interests and signal the potential for further instability in US government.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":"54 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138606627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What puts the president in the crosshairs of threats? By examining a new data set of threats made against the president in the incoming White House mail from 1961 to 1965, this study argues that domestic and international events, especially politically controversial issues, serve as a provocation for political threats. We find that outside civil rights events more than approval or economic conditions drive threats to the White House. Although limited in time span, the implications of this study suggest that specific events, some of which the White House has little control over, spur increased threats made against the president.
{"title":"What causes threats directed at the president?","authors":"Lucas J. Lothamer, Brandon Rottinghaus","doi":"10.1111/psq.12865","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12865","url":null,"abstract":"What puts the president in the crosshairs of threats? By examining a new data set of threats made against the president in the incoming White House mail from 1961 to 1965, this study argues that domestic and international events, especially politically controversial issues, serve as a provocation for political threats. We find that outside civil rights events more than approval or economic conditions drive threats to the White House. Although limited in time span, the implications of this study suggest that specific events, some of which the White House has little control over, spur increased threats made against the president.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139198464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Political scientists typically view unilateral action as the president “going it alone” in opposition to Congress. However, there is increasing recognition that, while such action may be unilateral with respect to Congress, its implementation relies on the cooperation of administrative agencies. In this article, unilateral action is considered an act of administrative delegation: in issuing a unilateral directive, a president is both authorizing an agency to act and indicating a discretionary window for such action. The article introduces the Administrative Delegation Dataset, which provides delegation and discretion scores for 1,641 presidential unilateral directives issued between 1936 and 2021. The scores are based on novel measures developed for the executive‐branch context, and the reliability and validity of the measures are discussed. I then use the dataset to show that the extent of delegation and discretion granted to administrative agents has shifted across modalities (executive orders, memoranda, proclamations) over time: the proportion of high‐scoring executive orders has been increasing, but that increase is offset by a corresponding decrease in high‐scoring memos. Additionally, I find that presidents use less administrative delegation in foreign policy than in domestic policy, which is consistent with existing literature on centralization of executive‐branch policymaking.
{"title":"The administrative politics of unilateral action: Measuring delegation and discretion in the executive branch","authors":"Annie Benn","doi":"10.1111/psq.12862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12862","url":null,"abstract":"Political scientists typically view unilateral action as the president “going it alone” in opposition to Congress. However, there is increasing recognition that, while such action may be unilateral with respect to Congress, its implementation relies on the cooperation of administrative agencies. In this article, unilateral action is considered an act of administrative delegation: in issuing a unilateral directive, a president is both authorizing an agency to act and indicating a discretionary window for such action. The article introduces the Administrative Delegation Dataset, which provides delegation and discretion scores for 1,641 presidential unilateral directives issued between 1936 and 2021. The scores are based on novel measures developed for the executive‐branch context, and the reliability and validity of the measures are discussed. I then use the dataset to show that the extent of delegation and discretion granted to administrative agents has shifted across modalities (executive orders, memoranda, proclamations) over time: the proportion of high‐scoring executive orders has been increasing, but that increase is offset by a corresponding decrease in high‐scoring memos. Additionally, I find that presidents use less administrative delegation in foreign policy than in domestic policy, which is consistent with existing literature on centralization of executive‐branch policymaking.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139217369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
When does the United States normalize its diplomatic relations with its adversaries? This article introduces a theory of diplomatic normalization, focusing on the interaction between the hawkishness of presidents and their domestic popularity. I argue that dovish presidents are more likely to pursue normalization when their domestic approval ratings plummet, as this makes them shift their priorities toward policies they find themselves more comfortable and confident handling. Doves are less likely to pursue normalization when they enjoy high popularity, so as not to jeopardize favorable public support. In contrast, hawkish presidents typically do not support normalization, regardless of their domestic standing, as it does not align with their top policy priorities. The exception arises in the rare instance of a president with an exceptionally high degree of hawkishness who is able to pursue reconciliation without losing his support. I test my theoretical expectations using data on U.S. presidents' latent hawkishness and their diplomatic normalization decisions from 1950 to 2005. The empirical evidence supports all hypotheses, underscoring the importance of understanding the interaction between a leader's personal attributes and the domestic political climate when studying foreign policy decisions.
{"title":"Presidential hawkishness, domestic popularity, and diplomatic normalization","authors":"James D. Kim","doi":"10.1111/psq.12863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12863","url":null,"abstract":"When does the United States normalize its diplomatic relations with its adversaries? This article introduces a theory of diplomatic normalization, focusing on the interaction between the hawkishness of presidents and their domestic popularity. I argue that dovish presidents are more likely to pursue normalization when their domestic approval ratings plummet, as this makes them shift their priorities toward policies they find themselves more comfortable and confident handling. Doves are less likely to pursue normalization when they enjoy high popularity, so as not to jeopardize favorable public support. In contrast, hawkish presidents typically do not support normalization, regardless of their domestic standing, as it does not align with their top policy priorities. The exception arises in the rare instance of a president with an exceptionally high degree of hawkishness who is able to pursue reconciliation without losing his support. I test my theoretical expectations using data on U.S. presidents' latent hawkishness and their diplomatic normalization decisions from 1950 to 2005. The empirical evidence supports all hypotheses, underscoring the importance of understanding the interaction between a leader's personal attributes and the domestic political climate when studying foreign policy decisions.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":"5 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139275652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ceren Keser, James C. Garand, Ping Xu, Joseph Essig
Abstract Why has the relationship between partisan identification and Americans' trade attitudes shifted in recent years? We suggest that recent shifts in trade attitudes among partisans are driven by Donald Trump, who staked out a position on trade that is at odds with the position on trade traditionally held by Republicans. Using panel data from the Voter Study Group (VSG) surveys from 2011, 2016, and 2017, we conduct cross‐sectional analyses showing that the relationship between partisanship and trade attitudes has shifted dramatically from 2011 to 2016/2017; in 2011, Republicans were significantly more supportive of expanded trade, but by 2016/2017 the relationship had reversed, with Democrats significantly more supportive of trade. We link changes over time in trade attitudes with how Americans evaluate Trump: individuals with favorable attitudes toward Donald Trump are significantly more likely to shift their attitudes in an antitrade direction from 2011 to 2016. Because so many more Republicans have favorable attitudes toward Trump, the aggregate effect of Trump favorability is to shift Republicans as a group to be less favorable toward trade than Democrats. We suggest that Donald Trump has had a transformative effect on Americans' trade attitudes, with previous supporters (opponents) of expanded trade now expressing opposing (supporting) attitudes.
{"title":"Partisanship, Trump favorability, and changes in support for trade","authors":"Ceren Keser, James C. Garand, Ping Xu, Joseph Essig","doi":"10.1111/psq.12861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12861","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Why has the relationship between partisan identification and Americans' trade attitudes shifted in recent years? We suggest that recent shifts in trade attitudes among partisans are driven by Donald Trump, who staked out a position on trade that is at odds with the position on trade traditionally held by Republicans. Using panel data from the Voter Study Group (VSG) surveys from 2011, 2016, and 2017, we conduct cross‐sectional analyses showing that the relationship between partisanship and trade attitudes has shifted dramatically from 2011 to 2016/2017; in 2011, Republicans were significantly more supportive of expanded trade, but by 2016/2017 the relationship had reversed, with Democrats significantly more supportive of trade. We link changes over time in trade attitudes with how Americans evaluate Trump: individuals with favorable attitudes toward Donald Trump are significantly more likely to shift their attitudes in an antitrade direction from 2011 to 2016. Because so many more Republicans have favorable attitudes toward Trump, the aggregate effect of Trump favorability is to shift Republicans as a group to be less favorable toward trade than Democrats. We suggest that Donald Trump has had a transformative effect on Americans' trade attitudes, with previous supporters (opponents) of expanded trade now expressing opposing (supporting) attitudes.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":"47 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135315465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Political candidates choose to highlight morality in their campaign speeches in various ways. In particular, we expect presidential candidates to highlight moral principles in introducing themselves to voters early in the campaign. However, usage may not be the same across candidates. Existing research suggests that, in general, women focus on different moral values than men. The question is whether such findings in the mass public translate into rhetorical differences between men and women presidential candidates. We know little about whether such gender differences exist, and if so, how they might influence voters. We examine a unique data set of presidential candidate speeches given in Iowa in the 2016 and 2020 nomination campaigns, developing and testing hypotheses about gender, the use of moral language, and its effects on vote outcomes. Using automated text analysis, we find that all else equal, while women candidates do not use more moral language overall, they do emphasize care and fairness more than men, and in doing so, they may be disadvantaging themselves, especially when using language related to fairness.
{"title":"Gender and moral language on the presidential campaign trail","authors":"David P. Redlawsk, Jiwon Nam, Annemarie S. Walter","doi":"10.1111/psq.12856","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12856","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Political candidates choose to highlight morality in their campaign speeches in various ways. In particular, we expect presidential candidates to highlight moral principles in introducing themselves to voters early in the campaign. However, usage may not be the same across candidates. Existing research suggests that, in general, women focus on different moral values than men. The question is whether such findings in the mass public translate into rhetorical differences between men and women presidential candidates. We know little about whether such gender differences exist, and if so, how they might influence voters. We examine a unique data set of presidential candidate speeches given in Iowa in the 2016 and 2020 nomination campaigns, developing and testing hypotheses about gender, the use of moral language, and its effects on vote outcomes. Using automated text analysis, we find that all else equal, while women candidates do not use more moral language overall, they do emphasize care and fairness more than men, and in doing so, they may be disadvantaging themselves, especially when using language related to fairness.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":"13 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135462346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A historian of the 19th-century United States and the Civil War, Michael S. Green continues his scholarship on the American West with a focus on the relationship between President Abraham Lincoln and Native Americans. In a relatively short book, Green elucidates Lincoln's personal background, his politics, and his actions toward Native people in the United States during the Civil War. What Green has produced is a complicated narrative of Lincoln, a historical actor with power as president amidst a war, who attempted to maintain imperfection while acting foremost as a political figure in the nation. This book focuses on Lincoln and his policies toward Native people. Although Green includes some quotes from tribal leaders, he does not devote much attention to Native voices and scholarship in Native studies. Thus, Green's work makes a solid contribution in the historical field but leaves room for it to develop. Structurally, the book is comprised of six chapters in addition to the introduction and conclusion. The chapters are organized chronologically and thematically. The introduction situates this book broadly in the fields of Civil War history, political history, and presidential history. It begins with Lincoln's order of the largest mass execution in US history of 38 Dakota men in 1862. Green compares Lincoln's policies to that of President Andrew Jackson's Indian removal. Chapter 1 identifies the racial project of presuming Native peoples to be “savages” and how this led to failed attempts to convert Indigenous people to Christianity. This chapter also explores Lincoln's family backstory in moving to Illinois, and it identifies books that may have influenced Lincoln's perspective on Black enslavement in the Americas and on Native people. Chapter 2 examines the narrative of the Black Hawk War (1832) as Anglo-Americans seizing Native lands through treaties and removal. Green notes that “new treaties took more Native land, and in a harbinger of the next major removal, relocating Black Hawk's band to modern-day Iowa and Kansas cost more lives than the war did” (p. 17). He identifies Lincoln's relationship to politics and the West envisioned as a space of free laborers where Native Americans lived and where their removal by the government opened white homesteading and railroads. Chapter 3 grapples with Lincoln's treatment of Native Americans and federal Indian policy, including meetings with 12 tribal chiefs. Chapter 4 highlights differences between Lincoln's and Jefferson Davis's approach to Indian territory. Chapter 5 describes the hanging of 38 Dakota men as “America's largest execution ever” (p. 69), while, at the same time, the arguments in the chapter depict Lincoln as navigating a calculus of political decisions, including the rejection of 264 death sentences. Chapter 6 addresses the Sand Creek Massacre (1864) and the Diné (Navajo) Long Walk (1863−1864), and summarizes Lincoln's attitude in not condoning these actions, even if not leading to
Michael S. Green是一位研究19世纪美国和南北战争的历史学家，他继续研究美国西部，重点研究亚伯拉罕·林肯总统和印第安人之间的关系。在这本相对较短的书中，格林阐述了林肯的个人背景、他的政治立场以及他在内战期间对美国原住民的行为。格林的作品对林肯进行了复杂的叙述，他是一位在战争中拥有总统权力的历史演员，他试图在作为国家政治人物的同时保持不完美。这本书的重点是林肯和他对土著人民的政策。虽然格林引用了一些部落领袖的话，但他并没有过多关注原住民的声音和原住民研究的学术。因此，格林的工作在历史领域做出了坚实的贡献，但也留下了发展的空间。在结构上，本书除引言和结语外，共分为六章。这些章节是按时间和主题组织的。引言将这本书广泛地定位于南北战史、政治史和总统史等领域。它始于1862年林肯下令对38名达科他男子执行美国历史上最大规模的集体处决。格林将林肯的政策与安德鲁·杰克逊总统驱逐印第安人的政策进行了比较。第一章确定了假定土著人民是“野蛮人”的种族项目，以及这如何导致土著人民皈依基督教的失败尝试。这一章还探讨了林肯搬到伊利诺斯州的家庭背景故事，并确定了可能影响林肯对美洲黑人奴隶制和土著人民的看法的书籍。第二章考察了黑鹰战争(1832年)中英美人通过条约和迁移夺取土著土地的故事。格林指出，“新的条约占用了更多的土著土地，作为下一个主要迁移的预兆，将黑鹰的乐队迁移到今天的爱荷华州和堪萨斯州所付出的生命比战争所付出的生命还要多”(第17页)。他认为林肯与政治和西部的关系是一个自由劳工的空间，印第安人住在那里，他们被政府驱逐，开辟了白人的家园和铁路。第三章讲述林肯对待印第安人和联邦印第安人的政策，包括与12个部落首领的会面。第四章强调了林肯和杰斐逊·戴维斯在印第安领土问题上的不同。第五章将38名达科他男子的绞刑描述为“美国有史以来最大规模的处决”(第69页)，同时，这一章的论点将林肯描述为一个政治决策的计算者，包括拒绝264项死刑判决。第6章讲述了沙河大屠杀(1864)和纳瓦霍人的长步行(1863 - 1864)，并总结了林肯不宽恕这些行为的态度，即使没有直接导致这些行为:“当陷入困境的联邦试图向西扩展其帝国和权力时，美国人认为土著人民在当时和未来几十年都是阻碍”(第103页)。林肯和印第安人的照片是深思熟虑的，他们平衡了美国帝国人物和土著领导人的代表。其中一些照片包括索克和梅斯奎基族首领ma - ka - taii - me - shee - kia - kiah(黑鹰)等土著首领，以及国会图书馆提供的一张照片，照片上是白宫一个身份不明的土著首领代表团、切罗基族首领约翰·罗斯(John Ross)以及包括黑水壶在内的夏安族和阿拉帕霍族首领。格林在为《简明林肯图书馆》系列(http://www.siupress.com/series/concise-lincoln-library)撰写这篇整体叙事文章时并非易事。他指出，“对林肯和印第安人的任何考察都揭示了很多应该让他的粉丝们感到不安的东西”(第106页)。事实上，有一些林肯的支持者把他理想化到无视针对达科他人的暴力和种族灭绝行为的程度，达科他人在1862年为了保护他们的土地不受定居者的侵犯而牺牲。然而，格林也补充道，“但是一连串的谴责对林肯是不公平的”(第107页)。在这里，格林试图创造一种平衡，强调林肯与美国原住民领袖和原住民之间的政治关系，在美国向西发展的过程中，殖民者和殖民地的暴力事件不断增加。很明显，林肯在美国帝国的扩张中扮演了重要的角色，在种族和移民殖民等级制度的时代，所有这些都是以内战为背景的。作者声明不存在利益冲突。
{"title":"Lincoln and Native Americans By Michael S.Green, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. 2021. pp. 176","authors":"Holly M. Guise","doi":"10.1111/psq.12858","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12858","url":null,"abstract":"A historian of the 19th-century United States and the Civil War, Michael S. Green continues his scholarship on the American West with a focus on the relationship between President Abraham Lincoln and Native Americans. In a relatively short book, Green elucidates Lincoln's personal background, his politics, and his actions toward Native people in the United States during the Civil War. What Green has produced is a complicated narrative of Lincoln, a historical actor with power as president amidst a war, who attempted to maintain imperfection while acting foremost as a political figure in the nation. This book focuses on Lincoln and his policies toward Native people. Although Green includes some quotes from tribal leaders, he does not devote much attention to Native voices and scholarship in Native studies. Thus, Green's work makes a solid contribution in the historical field but leaves room for it to develop. Structurally, the book is comprised of six chapters in addition to the introduction and conclusion. The chapters are organized chronologically and thematically. The introduction situates this book broadly in the fields of Civil War history, political history, and presidential history. It begins with Lincoln's order of the largest mass execution in US history of 38 Dakota men in 1862. Green compares Lincoln's policies to that of President Andrew Jackson's Indian removal. Chapter 1 identifies the racial project of presuming Native peoples to be “savages” and how this led to failed attempts to convert Indigenous people to Christianity. This chapter also explores Lincoln's family backstory in moving to Illinois, and it identifies books that may have influenced Lincoln's perspective on Black enslavement in the Americas and on Native people. Chapter 2 examines the narrative of the Black Hawk War (1832) as Anglo-Americans seizing Native lands through treaties and removal. Green notes that “new treaties took more Native land, and in a harbinger of the next major removal, relocating Black Hawk's band to modern-day Iowa and Kansas cost more lives than the war did” (p. 17). He identifies Lincoln's relationship to politics and the West envisioned as a space of free laborers where Native Americans lived and where their removal by the government opened white homesteading and railroads. Chapter 3 grapples with Lincoln's treatment of Native Americans and federal Indian policy, including meetings with 12 tribal chiefs. Chapter 4 highlights differences between Lincoln's and Jefferson Davis's approach to Indian territory. Chapter 5 describes the hanging of 38 Dakota men as “America's largest execution ever” (p. 69), while, at the same time, the arguments in the chapter depict Lincoln as navigating a calculus of political decisions, including the rejection of 264 death sentences. Chapter 6 addresses the Sand Creek Massacre (1864) and the Diné (Navajo) Long Walk (1863−1864), and summarizes Lincoln's attitude in not condoning these actions, even if not leading to ","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136014702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Black president: Hope and fury in the age of ObamaBy Claude A.Clegg, III, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2021. pp. 672.","authors":"Kevin Greene","doi":"10.1111/psq.12860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12860","url":null,"abstract":"The author declares no conflict of interest.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136211193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Fundraiser in chief: Presidents and the politics of campaign cashBy Brendan J.Doherty, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 2023. pp. 197.","authors":"Paul S. Herrnson","doi":"10.1111/psq.12857","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12857","url":null,"abstract":"The author declares no conflict of interest.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136352781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The last liberal republican: An insider's perspective on Nixon's surprising social policy By John RoyPrice, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 2021. pp. 400","authors":"Stephen F. Knott","doi":"10.1111/psq.12859","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12859","url":null,"abstract":"The author declares no conflict of interest.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135092823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：