Join Amazon Prime and ship Two-Day for free and Overnight for $3.99. Already a member? Sign in.
|
|||||||||
Better Together
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit by George C. Edwards III  (2)
$22.00
|
Editorial Reviews
From Booklist
The existence or absence of a "mandate" from the American people was one of the core issues activating demonstrators in Florida (and around the country) as the results of the 2000 presidential election were slowly and complicatedly determined. Northwestern University political scientist Conley demonstrates that there is a distinct pattern to the behavior of new presidents in claiming mandates. Analyzing election data since 1828 and a number of twentieth-century case studies, she argues that "a president claims a mandate when the election signals strong public support for his agenda or when doing battle with Congress will shift policy outcomes closer to his ideal point." In addition, she maintains, "Elections constrain politicians by signaling the boundaries of public opinion." Conley contrasts elections that produced popular mandates (1952, 1964, 1980) with victories that did not include mandates (1960, 1976, 1988) and with "bargained mandates" (1948, 1992). An enlightening study that substitutes thoughtful analysis for the easy generalizations of the TV chat shows. Mary Carroll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Product Description
See all Editorial Reviews
The existence or absence of a "mandate" from the American people was one of the core issues activating demonstrators in Florida (and around the country) as the results of the 2000 presidential election were slowly and complicatedly determined. Northwestern University political scientist Conley demonstrates that there is a distinct pattern to the behavior of new presidents in claiming mandates. Analyzing election data since 1828 and a number of twentieth-century case studies, she argues that "a president claims a mandate when the election signals strong public support for his agenda or when doing battle with Congress will shift policy outcomes closer to his ideal point." In addition, she maintains, "Elections constrain politicians by signaling the boundaries of public opinion." Conley contrasts elections that produced popular mandates (1952, 1964, 1980) with victories that did not include mandates (1960, 1976, 1988) and with "bargained mandates" (1948, 1992). An enlightening study that substitutes thoughtful analysis for the easy generalizations of the TV chat shows. Mary Carroll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Product Description
Presidents have claimed popular mandates for more than 150 years. How can they make such claims when surveys show that voters are uninformed about the issues? In this groundbreaking book, Patricia Conley argues that mandates are not mere statements of fact about the preferences of voters. By examining election outcomes from the politicians' viewpoint, Conley uncovers the inferences and strategies—the politics—that translate those outcomes into the national policy agenda.
Presidents claim mandates, Conley shows, only when they can mobilize voters and members of Congress to make a major policy change: the margin of victory, the voting behavior of specific groups, and the composition of Congress all affect their decisions. Using data on elections since 1828 and case studies from Truman to Clinton, she demonstrates that it is possible to accurately predict which presidents will ask for major policy changes at the start of their term. Ultimately, she provides a new understanding of the concept of mandates by changing how we think about the relationship between elections and policy-making.
Presidents claim mandates, Conley shows, only when they can mobilize voters and members of Congress to make a major policy change: the margin of victory, the voting behavior of specific groups, and the composition of Congress all affect their decisions. Using data on elections since 1828 and case studies from Truman to Clinton, she demonstrates that it is possible to accurately predict which presidents will ask for major policy changes at the start of their term. Ultimately, she provides a new understanding of the concept of mandates by changing how we think about the relationship between elections and policy-making.
See all Editorial Reviews
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
