Read this book to learn the stoicism practices you can use to transform your life. The Intellectual Toolkit of Geniuses: Learn the tools you need to think sharper and smarter.
- JSTOR: Access Check!
- Product details!
They are concisely delivered, and still pack a big punch in effectiveness. Review "This book brings good contemporary social science to the public debate about the role of terror in the modern democracy.
How terrorist attacks can change opinions and elections — including the 2016 election
Chicago Studies in American Politics Paperback: University of Chicago Press; 1 edition October 1, Language: Be the first to review this item Amazon Best Sellers Rank: Related Video Shorts 0 Upload your video. Try the Kindle edition and experience these great reading features: Customer reviews There are no customer reviews yet. Share your thoughts with other customers.
Write a customer review. Amazon Giveaway allows you to run promotional giveaways in order to create buzz, reward your audience, and attract new followers and customers. Learn more about Amazon Giveaway. Set up a giveaway.
Bio | Department of Political Science | Vanderbilt University
There's a problem loading this menu right now. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime. Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations. View or edit your browsing history. Get to Know Us. Feedback If you need help or have a question for Customer Service, contact us. Would you like to report poor quality or formatting in this book? Click here Would you like to report this content as inappropriate? Click here Do you believe that this item violates a copyright?
There's a problem loading this menu right now. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime.
Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations. View or edit your browsing history. Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. Not Enabled Word Wise: Not Enabled Enhanced Typesetting: Would you like to report this content as inappropriate? Do you believe that this item violates a copyright? Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Bush as more charismatic and stronger than individuals who did not perceive a terrorist threat.
Department of Political Science
And those threatened individuals were also more likely to base voting decisions on leadership qualities rather than on issue positions or partisanship. Generally speaking, we find that terrorist threat advantages Republicans more than Democrats, in part because Republicans are traditionally perceived as better able to handle issues related to national defense.
- Related Video Shorts (0).
- Editorial Reviews.
In another study we conducted with Mirya Holman in , we found that evaluations of Hillary Clinton decreased when terrorism was made salient, but evaluations of John Kerry remained the same and evaluations of George Bush and Condoleezza Rice became more favorable. Leaders who are both female and Democratic may therefore experience the most negative political consequences of terrorist attacks. Of course, this study was conducted before Clinton served as secretary of state, which we revisit below.
Frequently bought together
A third way public opinion shifts in response to terrorism is toward support for more hawkish policies in foreign affairs and homeland security, even at the expense of civil liberties. This hawkishness occurs among partisans of all stripes. So what should we expect for the presidential campaign under way? In the Democratic primary, we would not expect major changes in support for Clinton or Sanders.
The increased salience of terrorism may prove more consequential for the Republican nomination. Candidates who have taken more isolationist stands on foreign policy, such as Rand Paul, may be perceived as less attractive, while those who have taken more hawkish stands — such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush — may be more advantaged. Primary voters may also be less likely to support candidates with little experience in government and thus national security, such as Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina.
Trump is a bit of a wild card, however. His bold style may be appealing in a context of threat. However, he may be hurt by his lack of any significant foreign policy experience, a fact he himself recognized during the Republican foreign policy debate.