FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2081239051> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2081239051 abstract "The Question of Approval This inaugural edition covers one troublesome data element: public approval. Does presidential public approval affect congressional support? The answer to this question constitutes a conundrum. To practitioners, the answer seems quite clear: Yes, certainly, why do you ask? When political scientists try to answer this question, their responses present a tumult. Empirical research has not consistently supported these arguments (see Collier and Sullivan 1995 for a review). While some studies have found evidence to support the impact of prestige (see Brace and Hinckley 1992; Edwards 1976, 1980, 1989, 1997; Ostrom and Simon 1985; Rivers and Rose 1985; Sullivan 1987), other studies have found little or no impact of public opinion on congressional support, especially when research focuses narrowly on just the administration's highest priorities (see Collier and Sullivan 1995; Lockerbie, Borrelli, and Hedger 1998; Cohen et al. 2000). Other research points to the complexity of the linkage between presidential popularity and congressional support, in which being popular leads to more support from the president's own party but in fact less support from the opposition (Bond and Fleisher 1980). Bond, Fleisher, and Wood (2002) suggest a theoretical rationale to account for approval's varying effects. As a profession, we are as unclear about the impact of public approval as the professionals are certain about its usefulness. One possible approach to explaining this conundrum goes to a measurement issue, challenging the use of national opinion polls, and is aided along by the release of a new data set. Two papers recently presented to the Midwest Political Science Association take this approach and use this new data. One, by a team of collaborators at Texas A&M and Fordham focused on senators and the electoral linkage assumed to drive the relationship between presidential leadership and congressional responsiveness (Bond et al. 2002). A second team of collaborators from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Minnesota, and Columbia focused on the House and whether more specific approval information affected the conversion of otherwise nonsupportive members (Hora et al. 2002). When we assume that legislative politics begins at the local level and never departs, reliance on national opinion thermometers, devoid of local contexts, seems a significant operational mistake. Until recently, we had little else to use but national opinion surveys. (1) Job Approval Ratings For decades, local organizations, mostly newspapers, have collected public opinion information focused on narrowly defined constituencies. A recent National Science Foundation-funded project at three universities began collecting and collating these statewide and sometimes city- or congressional district-sized public opinion surveys. While the bulk of the data (arranged in three data collections) focuses on governors, one data set presents approval ratings for presidents. The Job Approval Ratings OARS) database ranges over the core of the American century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt onward through Clinton, but presidential approval ratings concentrate mainly on the last three presidents. For example, Figure 1 presents the density of state-level polls for New York and Tennessee, two important states for the Clinton-Gore administration. Juxtapose that density with the fact that the data set holds only one state-level poll for New York during the Johnson administration. For the last three administrations, the database holds results from about 1,200 polls. For questions, like the Bond et al. (2002) examination of the electoral connection, this data set has a good deal to offer. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Minor Quibbles It does also have some problems. For example, the state codes in the data do not match the venerable Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) state codes that govern all congressional data sets. …" @default.
• W2081239051 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2081239051 creator A5082364691 @default.
• W2081239051 date "2002-09-01" @default.
• W2081239051 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2081239051 title "Source Material: Presidential Data Locator" @default.
• W2081239051 cites W2004679676 @default.
• W2081239051 cites W2005352421 @default.
• W2081239051 cites W2009376135 @default.
• W2081239051 cites W2044637571 @default.
• W2081239051 cites W2103295911 @default.
• W2081239051 cites W2109017144 @default.
• W2081239051 cites W2318017651 @default.
• W2081239051 cites W2332719825 @default.
• W2081239051 cites W4240531316 @default.
• W2081239051 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2002.tb00011.x" @default.
• W2081239051 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W2081239051 type Work @default.
• W2081239051 sameAs 2081239051 @default.
• W2081239051 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2081239051 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2081239051 hasAuthorship W2081239051A5082364691 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C134698397 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C197487636 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C2775925287 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C2780586970 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C2780668109 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C2781243023 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C56617239 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C134698397 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C144024400 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C17744445 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C190253527 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C197487636 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C199539241 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C2775925287 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C2780586970 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C2780668109 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C2781243023 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C3116431 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C39549134 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C56617239 @default.
• W2081239051 hasConceptScore W2081239051C94625758 @default.
• W2081239051 hasLocation W20812390511 @default.
• W2081239051 hasOpenAccess W2081239051 @default.
• W2081239051 hasPrimaryLocation W20812390511 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W11832247 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W1971099116 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W1997584536 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2018168884 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2020627272 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2027487555 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2033173297 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2034092225 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2057113005 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2089422409 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2096484282 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2102992148 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2120668522 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2132669846 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2322866015 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W2721376503 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W3121520029 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W3122376160 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W48126512 @default.
• W2081239051 hasRelatedWork W3123104589 @default.
• W2081239051 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2081239051 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2081239051 magId "2081239051" @default.
• W2081239051 workType "article" @default.