Review: \u27The White House Vice Presidency: The Path to Significance, Mondale to Biden\u27

In his book, Joel K. Goldstein has made an ambitious attempt to explain “the most impressive development in American political institutions during the past four decades” (p. 301): the creation of the “White House vice presidency.” The essential features of this newly invigorated institution—historically hobbled by its limited constitutional role and divided institutional identity—entail serving as a senior adviser to, and troubleshooter for, the president, with the support of necessary resources. Key among those resources are regular access to the president and his staff, access to intelligence briefings and Oval Office paper flow, and the integration of vice presidential staff within White House operations

Social Issues, Authoritarianism, and Ideological Conceptualization: How Policy Dimensions and Psychological Factors Influence Ideological Labeling

Ideology\u27s crucial theoretical and empirical role in explaining political behavior makes it imperative that scholars understand how individuals conceptualize and apply ideological labels. The existing literature on this topic is quite limited, however, because it relies almost exclusively upon data from the 1970s and 1980s, and it does not examine how psychological factors influence conceptualizations of ideological labels. This article uses data from two original laboratory experiments to test the relative impact of four major policy dimensions on participants\u27 evaluations of candidate ideology and to test authoritarianism\u27s role in shaping ideological conceptualization. These analyses indicate that individuals most often define liberalism and conservatism primarily in terms of social policies closely associated with religious values, each of which invert traditional ideological orientations toward the appropriate size and role of government. The causal mechanism shaping this relationship is authoritarianism, because, I argue, the religious social policy dimension most clearly evokes the deep-seated value conflicts associated with an authoritarian view of political conflict

Ideological Social Identity: Psychological Attachment to Ideological In-Groups as a Political Phenomenon and a Behavioral Influence

Motivated by symbolic ideology research and Social Identity Theory (SIT), this article introduces an original measure of ideological social identity (ISI) designed to capture feelings of psychological attachment to an ideological in-group and facilitate analysis of their attitudinal and behavioral effects. Data from a nationally representative sample of survey experimental participants indicates that the ISI scale is empirically distinct from ideological self-placement, the standard measure of symbolic ideology, and it conditions the effects of self-placement on vote choice in actual and hypothetical election scenarios. ISI is also common within the American public, particularly among conservatives, and responsive to environmental stimuli that make ideology salient including electoral competition and “new media” news sources. In addition to its immediate contributions, this research represents a necessary first step toward more fully exploiting the profound theoretical and empirical implications of SIT in studies of ideological identification

What if Hillary Clinton Had Gone to Wisconsin? Presidential Campaign Visits and Vote Choice in the 2016 Election

Hillary Clinton’s failure to visit the key battleground state of Wisconsin in 2016 has become a popular metaphor for the alleged strategic inadequacies of her presidential campaign. Critics who cite this fact, however, make two important assumptions: that campaign visits are effective, in general, and that they were effective for Clinton in 2016. I test these assumptions using an original database of presidential and vice presidential campaign visits in 2016. Specifically, I regress party vote share on each candidate’s number of campaign visits, at the county level, first for all counties located within battleground states, and then for counties located within each of six key battleground states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The results of this analysis do not clearly support either of the assumptions made by Clinton’s critics. In general, none of the presidential or vice presidential candidates – including Clinton – significantly influenced voting via campaign visits. However, Clinton is one of only two candidates – along with Mike Pence, in Ohio – whose campaign visits had a significant effect on voting in an individual state. Specifically, Clinton’s visits to Pennsylvania improved the Democratic ticket’s performance in that state by 1.2 percentage points. Also, there is weak evidence to suggest that Clinton might have had a similar effect on voting in Michigan. It is unclear from this evidence whether Clinton also would have gained votes, or even won, in Wisconsin had she campaigned in that state. But two conclusions are clear. First, Clinton’s visits to Democratic-leaning battleground states did not have the “backfiring” effect that her campaign reportedly feared. Second, Donald Trump did not win in Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin as a direct result of his campaign visits to those decisive states

Partisan Defection and Change in the 2008 US Presidential Election

Party identification remained an important determinant of vote choice in the 2008 election. Indeed, the extent to which people voted according to their partisanship remained as exceptionally high as it had been in the 2004 election. The Democrats led in partisanship, with a greater lead than in 2004. The ANES four‐wave panel survey shows that some change occurred in the Democratic direction during 2008. The Democrats gained among most population groups, with the exception of older citizens. Obama\u27s victory margin was due to his carrying pure independents and the growth in strong Democrats as opposed to strong Republicans. Both candidates lost the votes of some partisans who disagreed with them ideologically. The rate of defection among major‐party identifiers to the other major party hit post‐1950 lows in 2004 and 2008, reflecting increased polarization in the electorate. The partisanship shifts of young people and Hispanics could portend realignment, although that depends on their satisfaction with the Obama administration

The Vice Presidential Home State Advantage Reconsidered: Analyzing the Interactive Effect of Home State Population and Political Experience, 1884-2008

Previous research has found that presidential tickets perform particularly well in a vice presidential candidate\u27s home state when that state is relatively low in population. In this article, we argue that selecting a vice presidential candidate from a small state is not sufficient to produce a large vice presidential home state advantage; rather, state population should matter only insofar as the vice presidential candidate has extensive experience within that state\u27s political system. Analysis of presidential election returns from 1884 through 2008 demonstrates the statistically significant interactive effect of home state population and political experience on the size of the vice presidential home state advantage. The models presented in the article perform much better than models that do not account for this interactive effect

Will the Vice Presidential Candidates Matter this Year? Maybe, But Not the Way You Think

Veepstakes speculation is rampant as we approach the national conventions for both major political parties. Media reports have detailed the wide array of options available to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as they decide who will be their number twos for this campaign, and perhaps for four or eight years to come. Who will Trump and Clinton pick? That depends on each candidate’s goals – both for the remainder of the presidential campaign and after Nov. 8. Political observers widely agree that the most important characteristic to look for in a running mate is the ability to serve as president in the event of unforeseen circumstances, like a president’s death, incapacitation, resignation or impeachment. However, when campaign staff and trusted political advisers vet potential running mates, they are certain to also weigh political considerations. That is, whether a given running mate will help or hurt the presidential ticket, with voters in general or with a key voting group. Particularly if the campaign is at a competitive disadvantage, its strategists may look to the running mate as a potential “game changer.” The electoral advantage most commonly associated with vice presidential candidates is geographic. In other words, they are expected to deliver their home state or region in the Electoral College. But do they actually deliver? Usually not. In our book, “The VP Advantage: How Running Mates Influence Home State Voting in Presidential Elections,” we employed a multi-method approach to empirically test the purported home state advantage. We used both state-level election returns since 1884 and individual-level survey data since 1952 in our analysis. Ultimately, we found no evidence of a general vice presidential home state advantage, on average. Based upon the data, it is unlikely that Hillary Clinton’s or Donald Trump’s running mate will deliver a crucial battleground state, like Ohio or Virginia. Instead, the presidential candidates would be wise to select a respected running mate who can effectively serve as vice president

The VP Advantage: How Running Mates Influence Home State Voting in Presidential Elections

A widespread perception exists among political commentators, campaign operatives and presidential candidates that vice presidential running mates can deliver their home state\u27s electoral votes in a presidential election. In recent elections, presidential campaigns have even changed their strategy in response to the perceived VP home state advantage. But is the advantage real? And could it decide a presidential election? In the most comprehensive analysis to date, Devine and Kopko demonstrate that the VP home state advantage is actually highly conditional and rarely decisive in the Electoral College. However, it could change the outcome of a presidential election under narrow but plausible conditions. Sophisticated in its methodology and rich in historical as well as contemporary insight, The VP Advantage is essential and accessible reading for anyone interested in understanding how running mates influence presidential elections

Racial Attitude Effects in the 2008 Presidential Election: Examining the Unconventional Factors Shaping Vote Choice in a Most Unconventional Election

Every election has unique elements, but the 2008 U.S. presidential race had it all: an African-American presidential candidate who won his party’s nomination by defeating a former first lady, an historically unpopular outgoing president, two ongoing wars, a failing economy, and a war hero running for president with a female vice-presidential running mate. With so many unique elements to account for, disentangling their independent effects to identify the dominant factors shaping the 2008 election is a tremendous challenge. This paper explores a wide variety of factors potentially influencing the 2008 vote, but it devotes particular attention to two exceptionally relevant factors: racial attitudes and succession effects. We begin this paper with a discussion of racial attitudes and succession effects’ relevance to vote choice. Then we test the effects of racial attitudes and succession effects, as well as other important factors, on vote choice in 2008, by analyzing the 2008 American National Election Studies (ANES) traditional September–October pre-election survey and November–December post-election survey.1 Finally, we test whether the racial attitude effects found in our 2008 results are unique to the Obama candidacy, or if similar results would be obtained by comparable analysis of the two most recent elections not contested by an incumbent president, the elections of 1988 and 2000, or in the preceding election of 2004. Stated concisely, our analysis shows that, of all the unusual factors shaping vote choice in 2008, two particularly important ones were racial attitudes and dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration. The comparison with 1988 and 2000 shows that attitudes toward the previous administration generally affect voting even when the incumbent is not running, and regardless of whether the incumbent party’s presidential candidate was a member of the outgoing presidential administration. The comparison with previous elections, including 2004, also provides an important demonstration that the racial attitudes effect was specific to 2008. Clearly, the historic nomination of an African-American for the presidency made racial attitudes more important in voting than they had been in analogous elections

Home Court Advantage? An Empirical Analysis of Local Bias in U.S. District Court Diversity Jurisdiction Cases

In granting diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to the federal courts, there is an underlying assumption that federal courts will be less biased toward out-of-state litigants as compared with state courts. While this may be true, the assumption fails to consider an important empirical question: to what extent do federal courts favor home state litigants or disfavor out-of-state litigants when deciding diversity jurisdiction cases? Relying on the Integrated Database (IDB) compiled by the Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Offices of the U.S. Courts, we present an original, empirical analysis of diversity jurisdiction case outcomes in the U.S. districts courts from 1988 through 2021 to assess whether home state or out-of-state litigant status influences case settlements or case verdicts. The empirical analysis reveals that while diversity jurisdiction cases are more likely to settle than other cases heard in federal courts, these settlements are particularly likely to occur when both parties are out-of-state litigants. In addition, the analysis does not uncover systematic evidence of home state favoritism in judgments for the plaintiff. However, the results provide evidence that corporate litigants—who are most likely to have significant resources and serve as “repeat players” in the judicial system—are most likely to prevail in diversity cases. Given that the empirical results suggest that federal district courts do not systematically advantage or disadvantage litigants based upon in-state or out-of-state status, these findings have important implications for litigation strategy and forum selection