Are election outcomes driven by events beyond the control of politicians? Democratic accountability requires that voters make reasonable evaluations of incumbents. Although natural disasters are beyond human control, the response to these events is the responsibility of elected officials. In a county-level analysis of gubernatorial and presidential elections from 1970 to 2006, we examine the effects of weather events and governmental responses. We find that electorates punish presidents and governors for severe weather damage. However, we find that these effects are dwarfed by the response of attentive electorates to the actions of their officials. When the president rejects a request by the governor for federal assistance, the president is punished and the governor is rewarded at the polls. The electorate is able to separate random events from governmental responses and attribute actions based on the defined roles of these two politicians.S evere weather events provide unanticipated challenges to incumbent politicians. While weather is well beyond human control, the response of government is determined by politicians. Most voters use only the information at their fingertips to inform their vote choice, and both the severe weather as well as the response of politicians may influence that retrospection. If voters punish politicians for events beyond their control, then elections may result in competent leaders being victims of circumstance. When voters punish or reward their leaders for their actions and efforts, politicians are held accountable for their responses. We examine the extent to which voters are responsive to random weather events and compare that to the electoral attentiveness to the deliberate actions of their elected officials.When politicians preside over good times, they and their party tend to be reelected. When things go wrong, they are more likely to be voted out of office. Voters are retrospective. They look to the past to make a decision that will then influence the future. But what information do voters use to judge the incumbent? Do they distinguish between events beyond the control of a politician (e.g., a natural disaster) and areas where politicians can take action (e.g., the response to a natural disaster)?

I argue that presidents use unilateral powers for particularistic aims to gain electoral support. Specifically, I examine presidential disaster declarations, which allow presidents to unilaterally authorize potentially billions of dollars to specific constituencies. In an analysis extending from 1981 to 2004, I find that a state's electoral competitiveness influences whether they receive a disaster declaration from the president. A highly competitive state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations as an uncompetitive state. This relationship has existed since the passage of the 1988 Stafford Act, which expanded the disaster declaration powers of the president. Additionally, I find that these decisions have the intended electoral benefits-voters react and reward presidents for presidential disaster declarations. A president can expect over a one point increase in a statewide contest in return for a single presidential disaster declaration. Presidents and the Use of Disaster Declarations Many studies have developed theories and presented evidence of a strong institutional presidency (e.g.,

No abstract

W hen influencing the allocation of federal dollars across the country, do presidents strictly pursue maximally efficient outcomes, or do they systematically target dollars to politically influential constituencies? In a county-level analysis of federal spending from 1984 to 2008, we find that presidents are not universalistic, but particularistic-that is, they reliably direct dollars to specific constituents to further their political goals. As others have noted, presidents target districts represented by their co-partisans in Congress in the pursuit of influence vis-à-vis the legislature. But we show that, at much higher levels, presidents target both counties within swing states and counties in core states that strongly supported the president in recent elections. Swing state particularism is especially salient during presidential reelection years, and core partisan counties within swing states are most heavily rewarded. Rather than strictly pursuing visions of good public policy or pandering to the national median voter, our results suggest that presidents systematically prioritize the needs of politically important constituents.

This article explores mass attitudes toward unilateral presidential power. We argue that mass attitudes toward presidential power reflect evaluations of the current president as well as more fundamental conceptions about the nature of the office, which are rooted in beliefs about the rule of law. In four nationally representative surveys, we find low levels of support for unilateral powers, that these attitudes are stable over time, and that they are structured both by presidential approval and beliefs in the rule of law. In a fifth survey, we show that political context conditions support for unilateral power, and in a sixth we show that these attitudes are consequential for policy evaluation. Even during the Obama presidency, when presidential power is highly politicized, voters distinguish the president from the presidency. Our results have important implications for public opinion's role in constraining the use of presidential power.