Words Speak Louder than Actions: Public Responsiveness to Elite Communication

Rogowski, Jon C.; Stone, Andrew

doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9497-x

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an era of intense partisan polarization, public attitudes toward the Court are not immune to the influence of partisanship, which shapes opinions on virtually every other facet of political life. More generally, our findings indicate that not only can political rhetoric shape the criteria respondents use to evaluate political officials (Rogowski and Stone Forthcoming); it can also have a direct effect on voter evaluations even in the presence of other relevant information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court

Rogowski

Stone

2019

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary US Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably and inevitably political. Although observers worry that political contestation over nominations undermines support for qualified nominees and threatens the Court's legitimacy, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. The authors argue that political contestation over judicial nominations provides cues that shape the public's impressions about nominees and the Court and polarizes public opinion across partisan lines. Data from a conjoint experiment administered in the first days of the Trump presidency support this argument. Political rhetoric attributed to President Trump and Senate Democrats substantially polarized partisans’ views of nominees and evaluations of the Court's legitimacy, with Republicans (Democrats) expressing significantly more (less) favorable attitudes. Additional analyses suggest that contestation generates divergent partisan responses by affecting views about the nominee's impartiality. These findings challenge existing perspectives that depict attitudes toward the judiciary as resistant to partisan considerations and have important implications for the Court's legitimacy in a polarized era.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court

Rogowski

Stone

2019

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like other political actors, populist incumbents in principle have considerable leeway in flexibly choosing and changing their rhetorical strategy. Faced with expectations to offer an authoritative crisis narrative, they may therefore choose to (re)frame the crisis, justify, claim credit for or otherwise communicate ideas and policies in hopes of garnering sufficient public support (Ansell et al 2014; Boin et al 2009; Condor et al 2013: 2; Rogowski and Stone 2020: 328). They may tailor their rhetoric to a specific audience or context, side with one audience, appeal to unity or remain ambiguous (Condor et al 2013: 18; Tomz and Houweling 2009).…”

Section: Right-wing Populism and Rhetorical Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Crisis, Rhetoric and Right-Wing Populist Incumbency: An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tweets and Press Briefings

Lacatus

Meibauer

2021

Gov. & oppos.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do right-wing-populist incumbents navigate rhetorical strategic choices when they seek to manage external crises? Relevant literature has paid increasing attention to the role of ‘crisis’ in boosting the electoral success of right-wing populist candidates. We know a lot less about the rhetorical strategies used by right-wing populist incumbents seeking re-election. We draw on literatures on populism, crisis management and political rhetoric to conceptualize the rhetorical strategic choices of right-wing populist incumbents in times of crisis. We propose a framework for the choice of rhetorical strategy available to right-wing populist incumbents and illustrate it with a qualitative content analysis of Trump's tweets and White House press briefings during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We find limited rhetorical adaptation to crisis and high degrees of continuity with previous rhetoric grounded in right-wing populism. This challenges prevalent assumptions regarding the likelihood of incumbent rhetorical flexibility in the face of crisis.

show abstract

“…Despite these limitations, the findings contribute to theories of credit claiming and the personal vote by expanding our understanding of the mechanisms through which elected officials might profit electorally through the distribution of government resources. The findings highlight the need for new research into not only narrative messaging (Grimmer, Messing, and Westwood 2012;Rogowski and Stone 2020) but also the types of symbols that elected officials may have available to link themselves to benefits in voters' minds. This avenue for research will yield further insight into clientelistic practices and political economy more generally.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In short, voters’ incomplete information about who is responsible can create attribution problems that could reduce officials’ incentive to supply goods that otherwise would seem to benefit them as well as the public (Keefer and Khemani 2005). One way that these attribution problems can be solved is by broadcasting credit-claiming messages through the media (Grimmer, Messing, and Westwood 2012; Rogowski and Stone 2020). Less attention has been given to the mechanism of interest in this article: physical personalization, or the literal attachment of politicians’ names to the very goods they supply to voters.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A “Terrific Symbol”: Physical Personalization of Pandemic Relief Enhances Presidential Support

Hale

2022

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced governments worldwide—many that previously prioritized austerity—to approve large relief packages. Political economy tells us that politicians will try to profit from this electorally, but much remains unknown about precisely how pandemic relief might influence voting intentions. Then-President Donald Trump foregrounded this question early in the pandemic by becoming the first US president to physically place his name on Internal Revenue Service relief checks mailed to citizens. By leveraging a nationally representative survey whose timing achieved quasi-experimental variation in the receipt of payments both with and without Trump’s name physically on them, this study asks: Can a president successfully win support through physical personalization of the payments? Yes, the study finds. Receiving a physically personalized check in the mail is associated with a much greater self-reported likelihood of voting for the president, with gains mainly from partisan outgroups. No clear effect is found for unpersonalized electronic transfers. These findings withstand multiple robustness checks.

show abstract

Words Speak Louder than Actions: Public Responsiveness to Elite Communication

Cited by 8 publications

References 44 publications

How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court

How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court

Crisis, Rhetoric and Right-Wing Populist Incumbency: An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tweets and Press Briefings

A “Terrific Symbol”: Physical Personalization of Pandemic Relief Enhances Presidential Support

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About