Which Side Are the Faculty on?: Professors, the 2019–2020 Democratic Presidential Primary, and the Politics of Redistribution in the United States

Introduction. The article is of relevance due to the beginning of the active phase of the race for the right to become the Democratic Party’s nominee for the 2020 United States presidential election. The range of issues, topics and features of the election rhetoric of the Democrats will largely determine the outcome of the 2020 election and therefore will influence the subsequent development of the United States. The objective of the study is to analyze the political rhetoric of the major Democratic Party presidential candidates and the political trends among the ranks of the Democrats, taking place against the backdrop of the election campaign. Materials and Methods. The study was based on the methods of empirical analysis, such as description, synthesis, analogy, classification, and comparison, which made it possible to consider the main characteristics and topics of the political rhetoric of members of the United States Democratic Party. Publications in the media, recordings of public speeches of the Democratic Party members, statistics, sociological polls, and research by Russian and foreign scientists were used as the materials for the study. Results. The author has identified the main topics and features of the election rhetoric of the Democratic Party presidential candidates. Issues of public health, education, and ecology have become central topics for the potential Democratic presidential candidates, which is largely due to a significant shift to the left and the role of the left-wing Democrats in the electoral process. The study has revealed a significant degree of political disintegration in the Democratic Party. The major challenge the Democrats are faced with today is to nominate a candidate who will be able to fight back the energetic rhetoric of Donald Trump, retain the traditional electorate of the Democratic Party, and attract new supporters. Discussion and Conclusion. The research results provide an insight into the processes taking place in the Democratic Party at the stage of nominating the Democratic presidential candidate. The data presented in the article will be useful to researchers interested in the history and politics of the United States. The study conducted makes it possible to better understand the current trends in American domestic policies, which largely determine the state of affairs in international relations.

The US presidential hopefuls' health policies

The Democrats versus the Republicans on health

To whom does the South belong politically, now that an all-southern ticket has reclaimed the White House for the Democratic party? Review of 1992 voting returns for national, statewide, and legislative races in the South, contrasted with those from earlier presidential years, lead to only one conclusion: the South continues to move toward the Republican party. The Clinton-Gore ticket ran behind its percentage of the national vote in most southern states, as well as behind all Democratic candidates in statewide races, and would have won without any southern electoral votes; whereas Bush-Quayle ran ahead of their percentage of the national vote in every southern state except Clinton’s Arkansas, while Republicans gained seats in southern legislatures and congressional delegations. It is suggested that southern electoral college votes won by Democratic presidential candidates in 1976 and 1992 hinged upon Democratic vote-getters in races for statewide offices in each state carried except the presidential candidates’ home states.

The idea of a wealth tax has taken on new prominence since French economist Thomas Piketty famously proposed a global wealth tax in 2013; Senator Elizabeth Warren has even made a national wealth tax a plank in her campaign to become the Democratic presidential candidate in 2020. The current interest in wealth taxation is a response to the increase in wealth concentration and income inequality that has occurred in most OECD countries. It has been well documented that both income and wealth inequality have risen significantly in recent decades. In this Commentary, we critically evaluate the case for an annual wealth tax as part of Canada’s tax system. To do so, we review current received wisdom on the elements of a good tax system, drawing on the normative tax design literature and best practices. We do not address the issue of how responsive tax policy needs to be to deal with the evolving inequality of income and wealth. Our focus, instead, is on the mix of policy instruments that are most effective for whatever degree of responsiveness policymakers choose. Our argument is that wealth taxes add relatively little to the taxes on capital and capital income that are already in place, and that concerns about the social consequences of wealth concentration are better addressed by reform of existing capital income taxes and by considering wealth transfer (inheritance) taxation. Our argument against wealth taxation is over and above the substantial administrative challenges in measurement, collection and coverage for annual wealth taxes. These alone are enough to raise red flags about wealth taxation. For our part, we rely on the more fundamental argument that annual net wealth taxes are unnecessary since their objectives can be better achieved by suitably designed taxes on capital income and wealth transfers.

What are the dynamics of partisan rhetoric in presidential campaigns? (How) has presidential candidate partisanship changed over time? Analyzing a comprehensive dataset of party-related statements in presidential campaign speeches over the 1952-2012 period, we show that Democratic and Republican candidates have taken distinctive approaches to partisanship. Overall, Democratic candidates have been partisans, while Republicans have largely refrained from partisan rhetoric on the campaign trail. However, this difference has narrowed substantially over time, due to a dramatic decline in the partisanship of Democratic presidential candidates. We argue that Democratic and Republican candidates have adopted different campaign strategies that reflect both enduring party differences and changing political contexts. Though naturally inclined to partisanship, Democratic candidates have adopted more conciliatory strategies primarily in response to growing public antipathy toward partisan rancor. In contrast, Republicans’ tendency toward more conciliatory rhetoric has been reinforced by political developments discouraging partisan campaigning.

Affluent Americans used to vote for Republican politicians. Now they vote for Democrats. In this paper, I show detailed evidence for this decades-in-the-making trend and argue that it has important consequences for the U.S. politics of economic inequality and redistribution. Beginning in the 1990s, the Democratic Party started winning increasing shares of rich, upper-middle income, high-income occupation, and stock-owning voters. This appears true across voters of all races and ethnicities, is concentrated among (but not exclusive to) college-educated voters, and is only true among voters living in larger metropolitan areas. In the 2010s, Democratic candidates’ electoral appeal among affluent voters reached above-majority levels. I echo other scholars in maintaining that this trend is partially driven by the increasingly “culturally liberal” views of educated voters and party elite polarization on those issues, but I additionally argue that the evolution and stasis of the parties’ respective economic policy agendas has also been a necessary condition for the changing behavior of affluent voters. This reversal of an American politics truism means that the Democratic Party’s attempts to cohere around an economically redistributive policy agenda in an era of rising inequality face real barriers.

Most Whites, particularly sociopolitical liberals, now endorse racial equality. Archival and experimental research reveals a subtle but persistent ironic consequence: White liberals self-present less competence to minorities than to other Whites-that is, they patronize minorities stereotyped as lower status and less competent. In an initial archival demonstration of the competence downshift, Study 1 examined the content of White Republican and Democratic presidential candidates' campaign speeches. Although Republican candidates did not significantly shift language based on audience racial composition, Democratic candidates used less competence-related language to minority audiences than to White audiences. Across 5 experiments (total N = 2,157), White participants responded to a Black or White hypothetical (Studies 2, 3, 4, S1) or ostensibly real (Study 5) interaction partner. Three indicators of self-presentation converged: competence-signaling of vocabulary selected for an assignment, competence-related traits selected for an introduction, and competence-related content of brief, open-ended introductions. Conservatism indicators included self-reported political affiliation (liberal-conservative), Right-Wing Authoritarianism (values-based conservatism), and Social Dominance Orientation (hierarchy-based conservatism). Internal meta-analyses revealed that liberals-but not conservatives-presented less competence to Black interaction partners than to White ones. The simple effect was small but significant across studies, and most reliable for the self-reported measure of conservatism. This possibly unintentional but ultimately patronizing competence-downshift suggests that well-intentioned liberal Whites may draw on low-status/competence stereotypes to affiliate with minorities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, 2003–2016: age, race, and place of death

Using a sample of up to 859 white Americans in the United States, we examine how racial resentment, perceptions of discrimination toward majority and minority populations, white identity salience, and American identity salience influence support for five candidates running for President in 2016. Using data from the American National Election Studies 2016 Pilot Study, we find that racial resentment influences support for both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, and white identity salience increases support for Trump and Clinton. Although policy issues, including the economy, health care, immigration, and terrorism, also shape attitudes toward political candidates, the effects of racial resentment and white identity salience persist. We conclude by arguing that America continues to be shaped by a white racial frame which views minorities as inferior and that this view is perpetuated through support for candidates who support white supremacy.

What are the dynamics of partisan rhetoric in presidential campaigns? (How) has presidential candidate partisanship changed over time? Analyzing a comprehensive dataset of party-related statements in presidential campaign speeches over the 1952–2012 period, we show that Democratic and Republican candidates have taken distinctive approaches to partisanship. Overall, Democratic candidates have been partisans, while Republicans have largely refrained from partisan rhetoric on the campaign trail. However, this difference has narrowed substantially over time, due to a dramatic decline in the partisanship of Democratic presidential candidates. We argue that Democratic and Republican candidates have adopted different campaign strategies that reflect both enduring party differences and changing political contexts. Though naturally inclined to partisanship, Democratic candidates have adopted more conciliatory strategies primarily in response to growing public antipathy toward partisan rancor. In contrast, Republicans’ tendency toward more conciliatory rhetoric has been reinforced by political developments discouraging partisan campaigning.

This article examines the advantages a single Democratic incumbent utilized to win reelection in 1984 despite an overwhelming victory by Ronald Reagan at the top of the ticket in the congressional district. The incumbent won reelection because of two types of ticket splitting: Republican-inclined voters who voted for Republican candidates for president and U.S. Senate and split to vote for the Democratic incumbent for Congress, and Democratic voters who supported Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate and Congress but split to vote for Ronald Reagan for president. Ticket splitting was found to be associated with basic political orientation-weak Republican and independent voters split in favor of the Democratic incumbent and were far less likely to vote a straight ticket for either party. Support for the Democratic incumbent was explained in nonideological terms and was based upon high recognition and favorability, constituent service, voting record, and personal familiarity. For the Republican challenger, who never achieved a high level of recognition (despite significant campaign expenditure), support came almost solely from the most partisan Republican members of the electorate and was based simply upon the party affiliation of the Republican challenger. In 1984, despite one of the most one-sided presidential elections in American history, the Republicans gained only fourteen seats in the House of Representatives and lost two seats in the Senate. Almost all Democratic congressional incumbents who ran for reelection in 1984 won. The focus of this research is on the reelection of one Democratic incumbent congressman and provides an opportunity to examine at the micro level the advantages that one Democratic incumbent utilized in 1984 to win reelection. The willingness of a significant number of KURT C. SCHLICHTING is Associate Professor of Sociology at Fairfield University. The author wishes to thank the Fairfield University Research Committee for support. Public Opinion Quarterly Volume 53:83-97 ? 1989 by the Amerncan Association for Public Opinion Research Published by The University of Chicago Press / 0033-362X/88/0053-01/$2.50 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.64 on Sat, 03 Sep 2016 04:04:58 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 84 Kurt C. Schlichting voters to split their ticket proved decisive. The Democratic incumbent won reelection to Congress with 53% of the votes cast while Walter Mondale, the Democratic presidential candidate, received 36%. The likelihood of ticket splitting was found to be directly correlated with the strength of political affiliation and the high level of recognition and positive evaluation of the incumbent by almost all segments of the electorate. The incumbent congressman was also able to take advantage of the fact that a significant portion of the electorate had decided in favor of the incumbent before September 1984. Since the 1950s a great deal of attention has been focused on the voting behavior of the American electorate, but the emphasis has been on voting in presidential elections. A recent major study of congressional elections by Goldenberg and Traugott (1984:6) points out the predominantly presidential focus of virtually all large studies of elections until 1978. It is not until 1978 that the National Election Study (NES) conducted by the University of Michigan substituted congressional districts for counties as primary sampling units and began to include questions specific to the congressional elections. The major limitation of the NES, the primary source for survey data on congressional elections, is that few interviews are conducted in any one congressional district. The Goldenberg and Traugott analysis focuses on types of congressional races: open seats, incumbent seats, incumbent-sure winners, incumbent-vulnerables, and not on any one congressional district. The authors analyze 86 contested races among the 108 congressional districts in the NES sample (1984). The survey data is drawn from the 1978 NES and consists of 1,843 interviews, an average of 21 interviews per district in the contested districts (N = 86). The present study examines survey data from a single congressional district for the 1984 presidential election. The congressional district analyzed is located in a large midwestern state and consists of urban, suburban, and rural areas. Its other demographic characteristics mirror those of the state as a whole. The congressional district is one which was identified by both parties as marginal (vulnerable in Goldenberg and Traugott terminology) in 1984. The incumbent Democrat faced a strong challenge from a well-financed Republican. The Republican challenger spent over $450,000, while the incumbent's campaign expenditures exceeded $555,000.

This study aims at finding out the tenor configurations that exist in the campaign speeches of two Democratic Party presidential candidates 2016 by using four aspects of tenor and it is to find out how the way the social relationship is played by addressee and addresser in political arena. Tenor configurations in campaign speeches of two Democratic Party presidential candidates is done by theory of Systemic Functional Linguistics. The use of tenor is purposed to make readers understand the speech easily and persuade the readers to do something as the speech means. This research used descriptive quantitative method. The data of this study were taken from some sources in the internet. The data were the transcripts of four campaign speeches by two Democratic presidential candidates that were delivered in different places. The writer focused on the analysis of aspects of tenor in campaign speeches by two Democratic Party presidential candidates; Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and finally found the most dominant configuration that appears in the campaign speeches. The writer found that from the four aspects of tenor the campaign speeches mostly used configuration [Formal/Equal/Positive/Infrequent].

Get Rich Quick With Old Generic Drugs! The Pyrimethamine Pricing Scandal.

The widening income gap between the rich and the poor has important social implications. Governmental-level income redistribution through tax and welfare policies presents an opportunity to reduce income inequality and its negative consequences. The current longitudinal studies examined whether within-region changes in income redistribution over time relate to life satisfaction. Moreover, I examined potential moderators of this relationship to test the strong versus weak hypotheses of income redistribution. The strong hypothesis posits that income redistribution is beneficial to most. The weak hypothesis posits that income redistribution is beneficial to some and damaging to others. Using a nationally representative sample of 57,932 German respondents from 16 German states across 30 years (Study 1) and a sample of 112,876 respondents from 33 countries across 24 years (Study 2), I found that within-state and within-nation changes in income redistribution over time were associated with life satisfaction. The models predicted that a 10% reduction in Gini through income redistribution in Germany increased life satisfaction to the same extent as an 37% increase in annual income (Study 1), and a 5% reduction in Gini through income redistribution increased life satisfaction to the same extent as a 11% increase in GDP (Study 2). These associations were positive across individual, national, and cultural characteristics. Increases in income redistribution predicted greater satisfaction for tax-payers and welfare-receivers, for liberals and conservatives, and for the poor and the rich. These findings support the strong hypothesis of income redistribution and suggest that redistribution policies may play an important role in societal well-being. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).