A Theory of Gender’s Role on Presidential Approval Ratings in Corrupt Times

The rise of female chief executives appears to signal gender progress, but this may not be unequivocally so. This article advances a contextual theory for the role of gender on leaders’ approval ratings, a key measure of “success” and source of executive power. I argue that because of gendered expectations and discourse, female presidents will receive lower approval ratings in contexts of corruption. The study focuses on Latin America, known for its powerful, masculinist presidential regimes and its democratically elected female leaders. I first trace the gendered construction of President Michelle Bachelet’s image as an honest mother. Upon a presidential scandal, higher standards and gendered discourse resulted in deeply disappointed citizens, significantly undermining her popularity. Models of eighteen Latin American countries next reveal a negative impact of being a female—rather than a male—president on approval ratings. Marginal effects plots show that female presidents score worse than their male counterparts in contexts of at least one presidential scandal and higher executive corruption. This article contributes to the growing literature on gender and corruption. It also challenges some conventional wisdom on the pro-women consequences of female leadership in providing a more nuanced account of the role of gender in the executive branch.

The de-emphasis of sampling error in coverage of presidential approval ratings

This study extends research into problems in handling sampling error within polls by examining coverage of President Obama’s approval ratings in three major newspapers over a five-year period. Results indicate support for hypotheses suggesting that, when confronted with poll results that could be explained by sampling error alone, journalists will instead emphasize those changes or differences.

Gendered Opportunities and Constraints: How Executive Sex and Approval Influence Executive Decree Issuance

Do female executives exercise the authority of their office distinctly from their male counterparts? Anecdotal evidence suggests women legislators are likely to govern in a more consensual manner than men. Yet there has been little systematic research extending such claims to women in executive office. Using an original data set, we evaluate one aspect of policy agenda setting—rates of executive decree issuance—among four male–female pairs of Latin American presidents between 2000 and 2014. Female presidents are generally less prone to rule by decree, but this relationship is conditioned by presidential popularity. Female executives with high presidential approval ratings are less likely to rule via unilateral action than similarly popular male executives, but the gendered differences in decree issuance disappear when executives possess low approval ratings. Our findings have implications for understanding the potential benefits of feminine leadership styles for executive–legislative relations and good governance.

Can Anyone Stop the President? Power Asymmetries and Term Limits in Latin America, 1984–2016

Since the late twentieth century, numerous Latin American nations have launched efforts to relax presidential term limits, often successfully. This article discusses the conditions under which countries succeed in relaxing term limits. Drawing from bargaining models and reviewing 36 cases, it makes three arguments. First, actors' preferences are fairly predictable on the basis of officeholding: presidents are the most prominent actors pushing for expansion of term limits; opposition parties lead the resistance. Second, power asymmetry, measured by presidential approval ratings, is the best predictor of success, better than ideology or share of seats in Congress. Third, the only hope for stopping popular presidents rests with ruling parties and the courts, but only when the latter are sufficiently independent.

The Effects of the State of Union Address of USA Presidents to Their Performance Ratings

In this article, the authors conduct a case study using text mining technique to analyze the patterns of the president's State of the Union Address in USA, and investigate the effects of these speech patterns on their performance rating in the following year. The speeches analyzed include the recent four USA presidents, Bush (1989 – 1992), Clinton (1993 - 2000), G.W. Bush (2001 – 2008), and Obama (2009 – 2011). The patterns found are further integrated and merged with over 4000 surveys on the presidents' performance ratings from 1989 to 2010. Two text mining methodology are applied to study the text patterns. Two predictive modeling techniques are applied to study the effects of these found patterns to their presidential approval ratings. The results indicate that the speech patterns found are highly associated with their approval rates.

Terrorist Attacks & Presidential Approval Rating

After the attacks of September 11th the U.S. focused much of its foreign policy efforts on the War on Terror and prevention of another attack on U.S. soil. This paper will look at terrorist attacks dating back to 1970 in order to fully understand the impact of terrorist attacks on U.S. presidential approval ratings and the existence of the ‘rally around the flag’ effect during different administrations. Location, lethality, style, and political affiliation of the president will be variables focused on in a pre and post 9/11 context. This paper will give special consideration to 9/11, excluding the attacks in many cases, in order to view if there is a significant stable impact on approval ratings from terrorist attacks over time.

Institutional Change and the Presidential Mandate

Often treated as a unified concept with a single definition, the presidential mandate actually encompasses multiple definitions, each connected to distinct ideas about democracy and presidential leadership. This article looks at how and when modern presidents have used mandate rhetoric and seeks to explain changes in presidential mandate-claiming patterns. Using an original dataset of 1,467 presidential communications from 1933 through 2009, I find that after 1969 presidents became more likely to use election results to justify their actions. However, they also became less likely to emphasize the magnitude of the election result, focusing their mandate rhetoric instead on campaign promises and distinctions between candidates and parties. Evidence suggests that this shift is the result of a combination of several factors: changes to the presidential nomination system, polarized party politics, and an overall decline in presidential approval ratings. Based on this research, I conclude that ideas about the presidential mandate are closely connected with the political conditions and challenges facing presidents. As the place of the presidency has shifted in American politics, the ways in which presidents interpret and communicate about elections have also changed.

Oito anos construindo popularidade

Este artigo apresenta uma breve resenha e discute alguns dos resultados apresentados no trabalho de Ferreira, A. L. & Sakurai, S. N. (2010), “Personal Charisma or the Economy? Macroeconomic indicators of presidential approval ratings in Brazil”. A evidência encontrada numa versão atualizada desse artigo, referente ao período entre 09/1999 e 05/2010, mostra que o desemprego é uma das principais variáveis econômicas que afetam a aprovação. Também existe evidência de que o atual presidente apresenta uma taxa de aprovação maior que a do presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso (FHC), mantendo constante importantes indicadores macroeconômicos domésticos e estrangeiros. No entanto, o período de 09/99 até 12/2002 é caracterizado por uma tendência determinista positiva maior do que a do período anterior, indicando um diferencial de crescimento contínuo da popularidade de FHC.