总统候选人无人问津?

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Zoltán Fazekas, Peter K. Hatemi
{"title":"总统候选人无人问津?","authors":"Zoltán Fazekas, Peter K. Hatemi","doi":"10.1111/psq.12866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a nationally representative study, we explore the public's views of the 2016 presidential nominees. Current measures generally focus on approval of given candidates with closed‐ended questions, but much can be learned by soliciting the public's unconstrained candidate preferences—not only in the direction of how they feel, but the depth of their views and who they really want to see in office. Employing open‐ended questions, we find that more than 75% of the voting public preferred an option other than what was offered. Even when constraining choices to politicians, the Democratic and Republican nominees were not preferred by the majority of the public, and this held true when restricting the analyses to partisans only. We further asked voters to express, in their own words, what they thought of the two candidates for president. The majority of the public described both candidates in negative terms. They spoke with deep disdain for the opposition's candidate, as well as their own party's candidate. The results add support to the view that US primary elections are failing to produce candidates who represent the public's interests and signal the potential for further instability in US government.","PeriodicalId":46768,"journal":{"name":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","volume":"54 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Presidential candidates nobody wants?\",\"authors\":\"Zoltán Fazekas, Peter K. Hatemi\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/psq.12866\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a nationally representative study, we explore the public's views of the 2016 presidential nominees. Current measures generally focus on approval of given candidates with closed‐ended questions, but much can be learned by soliciting the public's unconstrained candidate preferences—not only in the direction of how they feel, but the depth of their views and who they really want to see in office. Employing open‐ended questions, we find that more than 75% of the voting public preferred an option other than what was offered. Even when constraining choices to politicians, the Democratic and Republican nominees were not preferred by the majority of the public, and this held true when restricting the analyses to partisans only. We further asked voters to express, in their own words, what they thought of the two candidates for president. The majority of the public described both candidates in negative terms. They spoke with deep disdain for the opposition's candidate, as well as their own party's candidate. The results add support to the view that US primary elections are failing to produce candidates who represent the public's interests and signal the potential for further instability in US government.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46768,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Presidential Studies Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"54 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Presidential Studies Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12866\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Presidential Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12866","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一项具有全国代表性的研究中,我们探讨了公众对2016年总统候选人的看法。目前的措施通常侧重于对给定候选人的认可,并提出封闭式的问题,但通过征求公众不受约束的候选人偏好,可以了解到很多信息——不仅是他们的感受,还有他们的观点的深度,以及他们真正希望看到谁执政。采用开放式问题,我们发现超过75%的投票公众更喜欢其他选项而不是提供的选项。即使把选择限制在政治家身上,民主党和共和党的候选人也不会受到大多数公众的青睐,而当把分析限制在党派人士身上时,情况也是如此。我们进一步要求选民用他们自己的话来表达他们对两位总统候选人的看法。大多数公众对两位候选人都持负面看法。他们对反对党的候选人以及本党的候选人都表示了深深的蔑视。这一结果进一步支持了这样一种观点,即美国初选未能产生代表公众利益的候选人,并表明美国政府可能进一步不稳定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Presidential candidates nobody wants?
In a nationally representative study, we explore the public's views of the 2016 presidential nominees. Current measures generally focus on approval of given candidates with closed‐ended questions, but much can be learned by soliciting the public's unconstrained candidate preferences—not only in the direction of how they feel, but the depth of their views and who they really want to see in office. Employing open‐ended questions, we find that more than 75% of the voting public preferred an option other than what was offered. Even when constraining choices to politicians, the Democratic and Republican nominees were not preferred by the majority of the public, and this held true when restricting the analyses to partisans only. We further asked voters to express, in their own words, what they thought of the two candidates for president. The majority of the public described both candidates in negative terms. They spoke with deep disdain for the opposition's candidate, as well as their own party's candidate. The results add support to the view that US primary elections are failing to produce candidates who represent the public's interests and signal the potential for further instability in US government.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Presidential Studies Quarterly
Presidential Studies Quarterly POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
47
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信