Misreporting: Social Scientists, Political Commentators, and the Politics of Presidential Selection
A familiar framework for interpreting the politics of presidential nomination, built on an accumulating body of social science research plus the extended observations of experienced commentators, received remarkably little use in the day-to-day reportage of the Democratic and Republican contests of...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The forum : a journal of applied research in contemporary politics 2021-03, Vol.18 (4), p.441-464 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 464 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 441 |
| container_title | The forum : a journal of applied research in contemporary politics |
| container_volume | 18 |
| creator | Sawyer, Elizabeth M. Shafer, Byron E. Wagner, Regina L. |
| description | A familiar framework for interpreting the politics of presidential nomination, built on an accumulating body of social science research plus the extended observations of experienced commentators, received remarkably little use in the day-to-day reportage of the Democratic and Republican contests of 2016 and 2020 as they unfolded. So this paper begins by sketching out the factional structure of the modern Democratic and Republican parties, along with the bandwagon dynamic that recurrently resolves their factional disputes. It then applies these foundational interpretive factors to the two most recent pairs of nominating contests. What results are four orthodox and recurrent stories that stand in sharp contrast to media narratives that were all too frequently a mix of incomplete basic understandings plus wildly overemphasized idiosyncrasies. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1515/for-2020-2101 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2514026749</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2514026749</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c273t-46b27b6c3240c0044426394bd5b25fd13d7f0a1364aec6fb43bcfb9610d8c6733</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUE1LAzEUDKJgrR69L3h1NS9fu9WTFL-gYqF6DtlsUlO2m5qkSP-9Wap48fQe82bmMYPQOeAr4MCvrQ8lwQSXBDAcoBFwhsu6rtkhGhGYsFJATY_RSYwrjIFXlI-QfnExmI0PyfXLm2LhtVNdsdDO9MnFFC-Lue9ccjqjU79eZ1glHzKu-rZIH-b3Hgtvi3kw0bWDdDAxndHJ-f4UHVnVRXP2M8fo_eH-bfpUzl4fn6d3s1KTiqaSiYZUjdCUMKwxZowRQSesaXlDuG2BtpXFCqhgymhhG0YbbZuJANzWWlSUjtHF3ncT_OfWxCRXfhv6_FISDgwTUbFJZpV7lg4-5uxWboJbq7CTgOXQo8w9yqFHOfSY-bd7_pfqkgmtWYbtLi9_5v_qoM4BgH4D_4J50w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2514026749</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Misreporting: Social Scientists, Political Commentators, and the Politics of Presidential Selection</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>EBSCOhost Political Science Complete</source><creator>Sawyer, Elizabeth M. ; Shafer, Byron E. ; Wagner, Regina L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sawyer, Elizabeth M. ; Shafer, Byron E. ; Wagner, Regina L.</creatorcontrib><description>A familiar framework for interpreting the politics of presidential nomination, built on an accumulating body of social science research plus the extended observations of experienced commentators, received remarkably little use in the day-to-day reportage of the Democratic and Republican contests of 2016 and 2020 as they unfolded. So this paper begins by sketching out the factional structure of the modern Democratic and Republican parties, along with the bandwagon dynamic that recurrently resolves their factional disputes. It then applies these foundational interpretive factors to the two most recent pairs of nominating contests. What results are four orthodox and recurrent stories that stand in sharp contrast to media narratives that were all too frequently a mix of incomplete basic understandings plus wildly overemphasized idiosyncrasies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2194-6183</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-8884</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1515/for-2020-2101</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin: De Gruyter</publisher><subject>Candidates ; Disputes ; Media coverage ; Nominations ; Political parties ; Politics ; presidential nominations ; presidential selection ; Presidents ; Recurrent ; Social research ; Social scientists ; US political parties</subject><ispartof>The forum : a journal of applied research in contemporary politics, 2021-03, Vol.18 (4), p.441-464</ispartof><rights>2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sawyer, Elizabeth M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shafer, Byron E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Regina L.</creatorcontrib><title>Misreporting: Social Scientists, Political Commentators, and the Politics of Presidential Selection</title><title>The forum : a journal of applied research in contemporary politics</title><description>A familiar framework for interpreting the politics of presidential nomination, built on an accumulating body of social science research plus the extended observations of experienced commentators, received remarkably little use in the day-to-day reportage of the Democratic and Republican contests of 2016 and 2020 as they unfolded. So this paper begins by sketching out the factional structure of the modern Democratic and Republican parties, along with the bandwagon dynamic that recurrently resolves their factional disputes. It then applies these foundational interpretive factors to the two most recent pairs of nominating contests. What results are four orthodox and recurrent stories that stand in sharp contrast to media narratives that were all too frequently a mix of incomplete basic understandings plus wildly overemphasized idiosyncrasies.</description><subject>Candidates</subject><subject>Disputes</subject><subject>Media coverage</subject><subject>Nominations</subject><subject>Political parties</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>presidential nominations</subject><subject>presidential selection</subject><subject>Presidents</subject><subject>Recurrent</subject><subject>Social research</subject><subject>Social scientists</subject><subject>US political parties</subject><issn>2194-6183</issn><issn>1540-8884</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNptUE1LAzEUDKJgrR69L3h1NS9fu9WTFL-gYqF6DtlsUlO2m5qkSP-9Wap48fQe82bmMYPQOeAr4MCvrQ8lwQSXBDAcoBFwhsu6rtkhGhGYsFJATY_RSYwrjIFXlI-QfnExmI0PyfXLm2LhtVNdsdDO9MnFFC-Lue9ccjqjU79eZ1glHzKu-rZIH-b3Hgtvi3kw0bWDdDAxndHJ-f4UHVnVRXP2M8fo_eH-bfpUzl4fn6d3s1KTiqaSiYZUjdCUMKwxZowRQSesaXlDuG2BtpXFCqhgymhhG0YbbZuJANzWWlSUjtHF3ncT_OfWxCRXfhv6_FISDgwTUbFJZpV7lg4-5uxWboJbq7CTgOXQo8w9yqFHOfSY-bd7_pfqkgmtWYbtLi9_5v_qoM4BgH4D_4J50w</recordid><startdate>20210301</startdate><enddate>20210301</enddate><creator>Sawyer, Elizabeth M.</creator><creator>Shafer, Byron E.</creator><creator>Wagner, Regina L.</creator><general>De Gruyter</general><general>Walter de Gruyter GmbH</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210301</creationdate><title>Misreporting: Social Scientists, Political Commentators, and the Politics of Presidential Selection</title><author>Sawyer, Elizabeth M. ; Shafer, Byron E. ; Wagner, Regina L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c273t-46b27b6c3240c0044426394bd5b25fd13d7f0a1364aec6fb43bcfb9610d8c6733</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Candidates</topic><topic>Disputes</topic><topic>Media coverage</topic><topic>Nominations</topic><topic>Political parties</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>presidential nominations</topic><topic>presidential selection</topic><topic>Presidents</topic><topic>Recurrent</topic><topic>Social research</topic><topic>Social scientists</topic><topic>US political parties</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sawyer, Elizabeth M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shafer, Byron E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Regina L.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>The forum : a journal of applied research in contemporary politics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sawyer, Elizabeth M.</au><au>Shafer, Byron E.</au><au>Wagner, Regina L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Misreporting: Social Scientists, Political Commentators, and the Politics of Presidential Selection</atitle><jtitle>The forum : a journal of applied research in contemporary politics</jtitle><date>2021-03-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>441</spage><epage>464</epage><pages>441-464</pages><issn>2194-6183</issn><eissn>1540-8884</eissn><abstract>A familiar framework for interpreting the politics of presidential nomination, built on an accumulating body of social science research plus the extended observations of experienced commentators, received remarkably little use in the day-to-day reportage of the Democratic and Republican contests of 2016 and 2020 as they unfolded. So this paper begins by sketching out the factional structure of the modern Democratic and Republican parties, along with the bandwagon dynamic that recurrently resolves their factional disputes. It then applies these foundational interpretive factors to the two most recent pairs of nominating contests. What results are four orthodox and recurrent stories that stand in sharp contrast to media narratives that were all too frequently a mix of incomplete basic understandings plus wildly overemphasized idiosyncrasies.</abstract><cop>Berlin</cop><pub>De Gruyter</pub><doi>10.1515/for-2020-2101</doi><tpages>24</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2194-6183 |
| ispartof | The forum : a journal of applied research in contemporary politics, 2021-03, Vol.18 (4), p.441-464 |
| issn | 2194-6183 1540-8884 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2514026749 |
| source | Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; EBSCOhost Political Science Complete |
| subjects | Candidates Disputes Media coverage Nominations Political parties Politics presidential nominations presidential selection Presidents Recurrent Social research Social scientists US political parties |
| title | Misreporting: Social Scientists, Political Commentators, and the Politics of Presidential Selection |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T01%3A38%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Misreporting:%20Social%20Scientists,%20Political%20Commentators,%20and%20the%20Politics%20of%20Presidential%20Selection&rft.jtitle=The%20forum%20:%20a%20journal%20of%20applied%20research%20in%20contemporary%20politics&rft.au=Sawyer,%20Elizabeth%20M.&rft.date=2021-03-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=441&rft.epage=464&rft.pages=441-464&rft.issn=2194-6183&rft.eissn=1540-8884&rft_id=info:doi/10.1515/for-2020-2101&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2514026749%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2514026749&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |