On October 6, 2016 Centre College was pleased to host a convocation featuring Dr. Julia Azari of Marquette University and Dara Lind of Vox.com. They spoke for a little over an hour on the 2016 presidential election. Topics included:
- What explains Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination?
- What are common misperceptions about the election and what are more accurate ways to think about them?
- Does this election teach us anything about the politics of gender and/or ethnicity that we didn’t already know?
- What is the likely direction of both the Democratic and Republican parties going forward after the election is over?
Interested parties can listen to an audio recording of the convocation by CLICKING HERE.
We are grateful for their visit!
This semester my POL 330 “Parties, Campaigns, and Elections” class at Centre College has been examining a variety of proposed electoral reforms. At the end of each discussion, we held a vote on whether or not to stick with the status quo on a particular issue (e.g. campaign finance, primary electoral systems, direct democracy, etc.) or go with a proposed alternative. I recorded the plurality winner for each electoral domain, and then the last week of class I presented the batch of reform choices to my class as a single up-or-down “package” of reforms. By a 2-1 margin, my students voted to recommend the following slate of electoral reforms:
- Abolish direct elections to state judicial offices
- Promote more state-level direct democracy (initiative, referendum, recall) throughout the country
- Limit legislative redistricting to once per decade
- Maximize the number of uncompetitive elections
- Replace open/closed primaries with a Top-2 primary system
- Eliminate the current presidential nomination process with a single national popular Top-2 primary vote
- Eliminate the Electoral College and replace with a direct popular vote
- Retain the current campaign financing system with the exception of reversing Citizens United
On the evening of Wednesday, November 5th, Dr. Dan Stroup, Dr. Lia Rohr, and myself sat down to participate in an hour-long “Flameside Chat” debriefing the results from Tuesday’s midterm election. Enjoy!
In Sunday’s Advocate-Messenger, Danville Mayor and Republican candidate for county Judge-Executive Bernie Hunstad identified Centre College among several groups in the community politically opposed to his candidacy:
“I believe I am the underdog in the primary, and I believe I will be the underdog in November,” Hunstad said. “I’m running against Lynn, the EDP (Danville-Boyle County Economic Development Partnership), Centre College, the McKinney supporters and the newspaper.” (Page A01 and A08 of April 2oth’s edition; not yet available online.)
As I interpret this comment, Mayor Hunstad was listing groups in the community that he believes are opposed to his candidacy for Judge-Executive. It occurred to me, though, that perhaps by publicly aligning against each of those groups (including Centre College), it may serve to elicit support from potential Republican primary voters who also view those groups unfavorably.
In the 2011 Boyle County Exit Poll, we asked voters whether they agreed or disagreed that “Centre College gets too many unfair advantages within the city of Danville.” This is a measure of implicit “resentment” toward the College, and 26.5% of respondents indicated that they “agree.” It’s possible that by publicly claiming that the Centre College community is opposed to his candidacy, he may increase his support with the quarter of the community that also harbors unfavorable attitudes toward the college. Given that more than a quarter of Danville harbors implicitly resentful attitudes toward Centre, that’s not a bad political strategy.
(I should note, though, that there doesn’t seem to be a political relationship with feelings of Centre resentment as 26.6% of Democrats compared to 25.6% of Republicans said that they thought that Centre had unfair advantages in the community – a statistically insignificant difference. So there’s no clear advantage for winning a Republican vs. a Democratic primary by aligning against the College.)
Finally, the 2012 Boyle County Exit Poll showed that about 58% of Boyle County had a favorable view of Judge-Executive Democratic incumbent Harold McKinney while only 14% had an unfavorable opinion (28% DK/no opinion). The same survey showed Mayor Hunstad with a 32% approve/46% disapprove (22% DK/no opinion). Clearly whoever emerges from the Republican primary will face an uphill battle to unseat Judge McKinney in November.
This semester students in my POL 210 “Introduction to American Politics” course have been working on a policy analysis investigating the effect of the “Road Diets” implemented in Georgetown, KY and Elizabethtown, KY in 2012. This was done as part of a “service-learning” component of the course. Centre College emphasizes engaged and experiential learning and often partners with community members to give students a chance to engage in “real world” learning experiences. As such, the students in my course took responsibility for this project and were almost exclusively responsible for all the data gathering, analysis, and writing of the final report, with some minor supervision from their instructor.
In this case, our report was produced at the request of Danville City Manager Ron Scott who asked for assistance in gathering data about how other Road Diets have affected downtown businesses in two Kentucky cities that implemented Road Diets in 2012: Georgetown and Elizabethtown. It is anticipated that this report will contribute to the ongoing conversation about whether or not the City of Danville should recommend to the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet whether or not to implement a Road Diet when Main Street in Danville is repaved in the summer of 2014. (See background on this issue here as well as the local EDP’s website on the issue here.)
The full report is available for download by clicking HERE.
The Executive Summary is as follows:
This policy analysis reports the results of a study of both Elizabethtown and Georgetown related to the effects of a Road Diet system implemented in each community in 2012. The study took into account various economic indicators such as unemployment rates and tax revenues. This study also gathered information from business owners/managers whose businesses are located adjacent to streets where a Road Diet was put into place in 2012. This input was gathered via a telephone survey covering the owners’ perceptions on the effects of the Road Diet in the community on his or her own business.
The key findings of this study are:
- There is little evidence that the Road Diet had a detrimental effect on businesses in terms of their customer volume, revenue, and livelihood.
- After the Road Diet was implemented, business owners perceived their customers to have safe access to the business front and reported little difficulties in truck deliveries to their stores and little difficulty in customer parking and access.
- The Road Diet did not seem to affect either unemployment rates or tax revenues in either community.
- The Road Diet seemed to negatively affect the two communities studied in terms of a perceived increase in traffic on the part of business owners.
- Overall, business owners think that the Road Diet had a negative impact on the community as a whole, but for reasons other than its economic consequences.
Centre College undergraduate student Jordan Shewmaker and I recently co-authored a blog post for Huffington Post that summarizes the results of our research article that was recently published in Political Behavior. The summary article at Huffington Post is available here:
The full Political Behavior article is available online here (gated):
Here’s a teaser:
After statistically controlling for the effect of partisanship, political ideology, racial attitudes, income, age, education, etc., nativism was shown to exert a stronger influence than every other variable in the model [on support for the Affordable Care Act] with the exception of partisanship. Among Republicans, individual nativist attitudes tended to decrease support for the ACA by a factor of about 35% while among Democrats, nativist attitudes decreased support for the ACA by about 12%. … These results imply that the 20th century New Deal model of the expansion of the welfare state is increasingly becoming associated with “foreign” political values and practices in the minds of many Americans, especially Republican partisans. In other words, not only are Republicans seeing the welfare state model as obsolete, but now possibly antithetical to American identity as well.
Click here to learn more about opportunities for student-faculty research collaboration at Centre College.
To all my GOV 110 and GOV 336 Centre College students who helped design and field Boyle County exit polls on Election Day in 2011: some of the results from this project were finally published in an academic journal! I used the social desirability and immigration attitudes questions from the 2011 exit poll as part of the empirical analysis in an article that was published online today in Social Science Research. And I made sure to include a “shout out” to you all in the Acknowledgements section of the article.
Thank you to my students who have been participating in this project over the last two years. The Exit Poll project simply can’t run without you! In addition to providing valuable information to the community, these surveys gather valuable data that can eventually become part of the world of scholarly knowledge.
For those who participated in the Fall 2012 exit poll, I’ll be presenting a paper that discusses the results from this survey next spring and hopefully sometime in late 2014 or 2015 it will see the light of day in an academic article. (The peer review process is agonizingly slow sometimes!)
So thank you all again for your assistance with these exit polling projects. Slowly but surely, your efforts definitely pay off!