Agenda Setting in Polarized Government: Bush Initiatives in Congress 

According to executive-legislative relations scholarship, partisan structure affects the type of policies that the president can push through Congress. By most accounts, if the president has his party in the legislative branch he is able to more easily achieve his policy goals. In this paper I explore this idea using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Using quantitative analysis of bills in Congress and case study analysis of presidential recommendations during Bush’s first term, I examine how a presidential recommendation influences the progress of legislation in a polarized political setting. Given the partisan nature of that first term, with the Senate majority changing hands twice, I argue that the president needs to rely on more than his party in Congress to achieve his legislative agenda. Thus, I argue for a new way of understanding the presidential mandate.

Debate in a Red State: The Effect of Debate Deliberation in Bush Country

Utah was the reddest state in the presidential election cycle and there was no possible chance that anyone besides a Republican would have won its electoral votes. In 1992, Democratic candidate Clinton came in third place on the Utah ballot. According to the literature: “how people discuss the campaign, the issues, and the candidates depends on the information environment in which they operate” (Just et. al, 1996). This paper will examine how people operating in a red state environment react to a presidential debate in which their candidate of choice clearly did not win. The first debate last season was nationally acknowledged as a victory for John Kerry (Gallup polls). Students got together to watch the debates and then broke up into focus groups to discuss what they saw. Using the classic experiment of pre-test/post-test, this paper analyzes how traditional Bush supporters reacted to a clear Kerry debate win and then to deliberating with one another following the debate. Some people were post-tested without the focus group deliberation, others with, and others both before the deliberation and after, to allow an understanding also of the impact deliberation has on people’s opinions.

with J. Quin Monson and Kelly D. Patterson from BYU

The 2004 elections placed a new issue on the American political agenda: gay marriage.  Thirteen states during the 2004 cycle voted on initiatives or propositions that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  This work explores the dynamics of public opinion and vote choice on a constitutional proposition defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  Using exit poll data from the 2004 KBYU/Utah Colleges Exit Poll, we examine the role that elite endorsements and debate had on public support for Proposition 3.  Studies of public opinion on initiatives and referenda show that elite endorsements play an important role in helping voters learn about the issue and in persuading voters to support or oppose the initiative.  Such endorsements are particularly important in the absence of party identification to frame the issue for voters.  In Utah two candidates for attorney general, one candidate for governor, and several other candidates publicly opposed Proposition 3.  Other candidates for federal and state office supported Proposition 3.  Important institutions such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the two major daily newspapers made statements about gay marriage in general and Proposition 3 in particular.  The KBYU/Utah Colleges Exit poll specifically asked voters to identify the stances of these individuals and institutions.  It also tested the different arguments used by those who supported and opposed Proposition 3.  With this unique data set we can specifically test the effects of elite arguments and endorsements on the issue and determine the extent to which voting behavior responded to elite leadership.

Presidential Mandate or Congressional Priming: An Empirical Analysis of Presidential Success in Congress

While the predominant perception of the relationship between the Congress and the presidency this past century has been one of the president leading, current research is beginning to put that assumption to the empirical test. In this study, I refute the old idea that Congress is a secondary player in the separated system by introducing a new variable: congressional history on legislation. When we open up the analysis to include the Congress’ own percolating agenda we find that the legislative branch is more of a player than previously acknowledged.