Why the Kaine vs. Pence Vice Presidential Debate Matters

Tim Kaine and Mike Pence both have been described as boring. Many Americans still don’t know who they are, and they share their parties’ tickets with two of the most controversial and unpopular presidential candidates in modern political history. So, it’s a safe bet that their first and only debate on Tuesday night will not draw the record-setting ratings of last week’s first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – or even come close. With the possible exception of 2008, when Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were vice presidential candidates, running mates simply are not the focal point of presidential elections. Their effect on vote choice is minimal. Research in our recently published book, “The VP Advantage: How Running Mates Influence Home State Voting in Presidential Elections,” shows that running mates generally do not influence voting in their home state, let alone at the national level. Even in the short term, Gallup polling data suggest that vice presidential debates rarely change voters’ opinions. So, why take these candidates seriously

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 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

Presidential Versus Vice Presidential Home State Advantage: A Comparative Analysis of Electoral Significance, Causes, and Processes, 1884-2008

This article compares the electoral significance, causes, and processes associated with presidential versus vice presidential home state advantages. Our analysis of presidential election returns from 1884 through 2008 demonstrates that presidential candidates generally receive a large, statistically significant home state advantage. However, vice presidential home state advantages are statistically negligible and conditioned on the interactive effect of political experience and state population. Furthermore, the results indicate that the mobilization of new voters primarily accounts for presidential home state advantage, while vice presidential home state advantage is mainly due to the conversion of existing voters. Although home state advantages do occur in presidential elections, according to our analysis, a presidential or vice presidential home state advantage has not changed the outcome of any presidential election since 1884

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

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

The Fulbright International Education Administrators Seminars: Pathways to International Partnerships

While the benefits of studying abroad are well documented (e.g., Braskamp et al.; Lewis and Niesenbaum; Ludlum et al.; McCabe; Williams), honors administrators face significant challenges in internationalizing their honors programs and colleges. The U.S. Fulbright Commission, by partnering with commissions in France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and Taiwan to host programs for international education administrators from around the United States each year, is addressing the challenges of internationalizing American higher education. According to the Institute of International Education, the seminar in Germany in 1984–1985 was the first of its kind. Other seminars were added in 1986 (Japan), 1999 (Korea), 2012 (India), 2013 (France), and 2017 (Taiwan) (“The Power”). This chapter provides an overview of the German-American Fulbright Commission’s IEA seminar and outlines the seminar’s benefits and the opportunities it offers honors administrators working to internationalize their programs. The IEA application process requires a project statement, institutional statement, and letters of recommendation, including one from the applicant’s direct supervisor. Effective applications demonstrate an applicant’s “desire to learn about the host country’s education system as well as establish networks of U.S. and international colleagues” (“IEA Review Criteria”). The applicants’ administrative positions and willingness to share knowledge gained through the seminar are other important selection criteria. All applications are initially reviewed by a panel consisting of U.S. Fulbright IEA alumni. Applications are then forwarded to the specific country commission (in our case the German-American Fulbright Commission), which makes the final selection. All travel, accommodations, and program costs are covered by the Fulbright IEA Program

What Trump’s Picks for the Presidential Medal of Freedom Say about Him

President Donald Trump awarded his first ever Presidential Medals of Freedom this month to seven recipients: Babe Ruth, Elvis Presley, Antonin Scalia, Orrin Hatch, Roger Staubach, Alan Page and Miriam Adelson. It is the nation’s highest civilian honor. These ceremonies, which normally occur once or twice per year, provide Americans with an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of various people who have made an important contribution to U.S. culture. Because the president selects recipients with total discretion – American or otherwise, living or dead –- this award also says a lot about the president himself. What achievements or contributions does the president consider important? What groups of people most easily win his favor? And how does he hope to shape his legacy, judging by the company that he chooses to keep? To find out, we’ve analyzed every Presidential Medal of Freedom ever awarded, and the presidents who awarded them – including Trump