Browsing by Subject "elections"
Now showing 1 - 12 of 12
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Breaking Down the Minneapolis Election(2013-11-11) Rybak, R.T.; Tribune, Star; Roper, Eric; Jacobs, LawrenceItem Election 2016 – A View from Inside the Polling Place Webinar(2016-07-13) Jacobs, Lawrence R.Item "Is this All a Joke to You?": Metacommunication, Advocacy, and the Serious Side of Satire during the 2020 Election(2021-07) Graham, LandonPolitical humor assumes some level of seriousness from politicians. The establishment of political norms allows comedians to level critiques through laughter and provide new perspective on the status quo. But Donald Trump disrupted political and democratic norms during his presidency, relying on an entertainment aesthetic and using an insult-comic style to mock his opponents. This nonseriousness from the president disrupted the traditional process of political humor. This study examines how five U.S. television satire shows—Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, Saturday Night Live, Last Week Tonight, and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert—balanced seriousness and nonseriousness in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election. Comedians contextualized Trump as a threat to democracy and focused on the election as a moment for potential political change. With this backdrop, comedians engaged in earnest advocacy against Trump while also engaging in metacommunication about their social role. This shift toward discourses of outrage and earnest advocacy has implications for the role of detached irony as the main mode of political humor.Item Programmatic Political Competition in Latin America: Recognizing the Role Played by Political Parties in Determining the Nature of Party-Voter Linkages(2015-10) Lucas, KevinIn their examination of party-voter linkages in twelve Latin American democracies, Kitschelt et al. (2010) find evidence of programmatic political competition in only two countries: Chile and Uruguay. However, while my own analysis of party-voter linkages in contemporary Latin America confirms the presence of programmatic political competition in Chile and Uruguay, it also reveals that programmatic party-voter linkages are stronger in El Salvador – one of the region’s poorest countries, and a country with scant democratic history – than they are in either Chile or Uruguay. The fact that El Salvador contradicts the standard “sociological” model of party system development, which identifies both a long democratic history and a relatively high level of socioeconomic development as prerequisites for the development of programmatic political competition, is the primary empirical puzzle that motivates this dissertation. In response to the question of why programmatic political competition emerges in some countries but not in others, I argue that elite political agency, rather than the political and socioeconomic characteristics associated with the sociological model of party system development, determines the type of party-voter linkages that form in a given party system. More specifically, I contend that the presence of a unified Left that has achieved electoral success by actively promoting its ideological distinctiveness is the common link that explains the development of programmatic political competition in Chile, Uruguay, and El Salvador. To support this argument, I combine the analysis of cross-country public opinion surveys with case studies that detail party system development in Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Particularly instructive is the comparison between El Salvador, where programmatic party-voter linkages are much stronger than the standard sociological model would predict, and Costa Rica, where a relatively high level of socioeconomic development and a long democratic history have failed to generate programmatic political competition. Whereas my examination of the development of the Salvadoran party system demonstrates that the FMLN has played a crucial role in the development of programmatic political competition, my examination of party-voter linkages in Costa Rica shows how the weakness and disorganization of the Costa Rican Left has inhibited the development of programmatic political competition.Item Sink or Swim: Ranked Choice Voting in the Minneapolis Mayoral Election(2013-10-16) Chapin, Doug; Carl, Casey; Jacobs, LawrenceItem Social Media and the New Campaign: Lessons from 2012(2013-10-23) Blodgett, Jeff; Sheehan, CullenItem Transparency and Campaign Spending in Minnesota - Federal Spending Oct. 2018(2018-10-24) Pearson, Kathryn; Jacobs, Lawrence R.Minnesota is awash in campaign spending –more than $94 million by mid-October. This includes $82 million on U.S. House and U.S. Senates and $12 million on the races for governor, attorney general, and statehouse. Campaign spending is acutely strategic: each party directs money where it enjoys the greatest opportunity in the most competitive races. For Republicans, spending has focused on statehouse races (as we saw in our previous report) and on contested U.S. House races that are critical to retaining the Party’s current state and national majorities. By comparison, spending to support DFL candidates has focused on the Governor and U.S. Senate races, along with competitive U.S. House races. Four of Minnesota’s eight U.S. House races are extremely competitive, and the more than $30 million in independent expenditures flowing to these races reflects their national importance. Most of the independent expenditures are spent by parties and groups opposing candidates to fund negative ads. No wonder Minnesotans complain about the harsh tone of this year’s election.Item Transparency and Campaign Spending in Minnesota in 2020(2021-03) Pearson, Kathryn; Jacobs, Lawrence R.Money fuels politics, giving voice not only to candidates and their campaigns, but to outside groups and political parties—both during campaigns and lawmaking in Minnesota. Minnesota legislators are influenced by campaign spending. Money contributed during the 2018 campaign cycle influenced the 2019 legislative session in the Minnesota House. When the campaign season is over and the legislative session begins, outside groups, political parties, and individual donors press their interests and influence in the legislative process, particularly in committees. This study reports on indications of donor influence in 2019. An astounding $162.7 million was spent on elections in Minnesota during 2020. Of this, $105 million flowed into Minnesota’s campaigns for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Another nearly $41 million was spent on Minnesota elections for the State Senate and State House of Representatives. Additionally, individual Minnesota donors contributed $16.7 million to one of the two major party presidential candidates in 2020. The DFL had an advantage; overall spending to support DFL candidates was greater than overall spending to support GOP candidates, largely due to the DFL’s advantage in state legislative races and in the U.S. Senate race. Overall spending on Minnesota’s U.S. House races, however, benefitted Republican candidates.Item Transparency and Campaign Spending in Minnesota, Report 3: State Spending Nov. 2018(2018-11-03) Pearson, Kathryn; Jacobs, Lawrence RNearly $34 million has flowed into Minnesota’s campaigns for Governor, Attorney General, and Statehouse. Overall spending to support DFL candidates for state government is greater than overall spending for GOP candidates. Republican candidates have a financial advantage over DFL candidates in the battle for control of the Minnesota House of Representatives, particularly in the most competitive races. Of the 23 battleground statehouse races, GOP candidates are outspending their DFL counterparts in 16 districts. Independent expenditures from parties, groups, corporations, unions, and associations are flooding Minnesota, helping to create disparities in spending for DFL and GOP candidates. Big donors dominate the gubernatorial contest. The majority of money in both candidates’ campaign coffers comes from individual checks of over $500.Item Transparency and Campaign Spending in Minnesota, Report 4: Independent Expenditures on Federal Elections(2018-11-04) Pearson, Kathryn; Jacobs, Lawrence RIndependent expenditures by parties, groups, corporations, unions, associations and individuals are flooding Minnesota, flowing mainly to four U.S. House races. (Independent expenditures are made by groups and parties to support or oppose a candidate without any coordination with the candidates). More than $45 million was spent by independent expenditure groups. Republican U.S. House and U.S. Senate candidates are receiving nearly $3 million more than Democrats from independent expenditure groups. Most of the independent expenditures are spent on negative advertising. Nearly all of the money helping Republicans (94 percent) was spent attacking DFL candidates, while groups helping Democrats spent 68% attacking Republicans.Item Transparency and Campaign Spending in Minnesota, Report 5: Overall Spending on Minnesota Elections(2018-11-04) Pearson, Kathryn; Jacobs, Lawrence ROver $135 million has been spent on Minnesota’s 2018 state and federal elections. Support for Democratic candidates was more than 50% higher than support for Republicans – nearly $82 million versus $53 million. More than $75 million was spent on Minnesota’s eight U.S. House races, with a focus on Minnesota’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 8th Districts. Independent expenditures from parties, groups, corporations, unions, and associations accounted for much of this spending. By contrast, spending in Minnesota’s two U.S. Senate races totaled only around $25 million, and 90% of the spending was in the form of direct contributions to the candidates rather than independent expenditures.Item Transparency and Campaign Spending in Minnesota, Report 6: State spending in Minnesota(2019-02-25) Pearson, Kathryn; Jacobs, Lawrence RMinnesota’s elections for Governor, Attorney General, and the State House were hit by “Money Bombs” in the final days of the campaign. Overall spending surpassed $42 million – a 25% hike during the last two weeks of campaigning. This is on top of the huge spending on federal elections –$105 million. Overall spending to support DFL candidates for state government was greater than for GOP candidates – and grew in the closing days of the fall campaign. DFL candidates for Minnesota House of Representatives received more campaign support than GOP candidates. The DFL’s retaking of the majority was supported by a surge of spending in the campaign’s closing days that reversed an earlier GOP advantage. Independent expenditures from parties, groups, corporations, unions, and associations are flooding Minnesota. Big donors dominate the gubernatorial contest. The majority of money in both candidates’ campaign coffers comes from individual checks of over $500. By contrast, smaller donors account for the majority of the candidates’ funds in the Statehouse races.