Abstract: The recent struggle over the confirmation of Clarence Thomas and the credibility of Anita Hill raises in a dramatic and pointed way many of the issues at stake in theorizing the public sphere in contemporary society. At one level, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Hill's claim that Thomas sexually harassed her constituted an exercise in democratic publicity as it has been understood in the classical liberal theory of the public sphere. The hearings opened to public scrutiny a function of government, namely, the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. They thus subjected a decision of state officials to the force of public opinion. Through the hearings, in fact, public opinion was constituted and brought to bear directly on the decision itself, affecting the process by which the decision was made as well as its substantive outcome. As a result, state officials were held accountable to the public by means of a discursive process of opinion and will formation. Yet that classical liberal view of the public sphere does not tell the

Abstract: We analyze three explanations of candidate choice in presidential nomination campaigns: (1) a preference model, which contends that nomination choice is based on the ideological, issue, or candidate preferences of the voter; (2) a candidate-chances explanation that argues choice is motivated by the chances candidates have of winning the nomination or the general election; and (3) an expected utility model that includes both preferences and candidate chances by discounting ideological, issue, and candidate-trait preferences by the perceived chances each candidate has of winning in November. We test these explanations on samples of Democratic caucus attenders and state convention delegates from Iowa in 1984. The expected utility model most successfully predicts candidate choice in both samples. Even with appropriate controls for candidate affect, both preference and candidate chances measures have significant independent effects on candidate choice. Our analysis suggests that the interests of individual nom...

Abstract: Much of the literature emphasizes the negative effects of presidential nomination campaigns on the general election stage. Studies of "divisive primaries" have suggested that primaries undermine a party's chances in the fall campaign, and the literature on the "carryover effect" finds that supporters of nomination-round losers are less likely to support their party's nominee than are those who backed the winner. We argue this literature has underestimated the mobilization effects that result from nomination campaigns. Employing data from our studies of caucus attenders in 1984 and 1988, we find evidence of a mobilizing effect of participation in nomination campaigns. In a properly specified analysis, the evidence for mobilizing effects is much stronger than for demobilization. That is, activity for a nomination contender-even when the activity is in support of a candidate who loses his or her nomination bid-increases the level of participation for the party's ticket in the fall campaign. We suggest some ways our findings can be reconciled with the literature, and we argue that an appreciation of these positive effects can motivate a reassessment of the contemporary nomination process.

Abstract: Super Tuesday 1988 was the first successful attempt to get several states in one region to hold their presidential primaries on the same day Its success--or lack thereof--will affect the way presidents are elected for many years to come Reaching beyond Super Tuesday and the nominations of George Bush and Michael Dukakis, Barbara Norrander's book presents the nation's first regional primary as the latest chapter in the ever-changing system through which US political parties choose their presidential candidates Norrander's research details how changes in technology, candidate and media strategies, and historical circumstances have influenced recent presidential nominations and how they set the stages for the South's primary in 1988 Super Tuesday: Regional Politics and Presidential Primaries emerges as an authoritative source not only on Super Tuesday but on many other aspects of presidential nominations This book demonstrates that much of current conventional wisdom about presidential nominations is wrong Norrander traces candidate strategies from 1976 to 1988 and calculates turnout rates from 1960 to 1988 She also examines the composition of the Super Tuesday electorate with respect both to preconceived notions of who participates in presidential primaries and to deliberate attempts by the Democratic and Republican parties to manipulate voter turnout in the South's regional primary Her analysis of the timing and process of nomination victories from 1976 to 1988 emphasizes the importance of the overlooked role of candidate attrition over candidate momentum Of special interest to political scientists--and to political observers--concerned with parties, elections, and votingbehavior, Norrander's book will reshape the examination of presidential contests in 1992 and beyond

Abstract: There are several extant discussions of public policy, race, and politics in professional journals, books, popular media, and on the political stump. These discussions involve debates about the "underclass," about the most appropriate approaches to dealing with long-standing problems of racial discrimination, as well as the impact of racial issues on the major political parties, especially the Democratic party. The Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas focused more attention on a group of African American conservatives who have challenged what they call the outmoded policies of the traditional civil rights movement. One of the discussions, which this article joins, has centered on concerns about the most effective ways to deal with the persisting socioeconomic problems of a vast number of African Americans. Some argue that these economic problems should take precedence over specifically defined "civil rights, race-specific" issues, and the civil rights groups should opt for more "universal" policies, ones that deal not only with race, but with the class dimension. In this way, the argument goes, the political coalitional base will be broadened, and blacks will benefit along with many others similarly situated. This is referred to as the "hidden agenda" of race politics. Others have pointed out that the explicit

Abstract: An extensive analysis of US news coverage of the French Socialist Party victories in regular elections in 1981 shows how US news media constructed a discourse of crisis. A hierarchy of discourses is identified, as are the mechanisms of nomination and exclusion, paradox and appropriation through which the discourse of crisis became dominant. Specifically, the crises for the French people and for the American government are created through a continued appropriation of the voice of the voters, who are never allowed to speak for themselves, and the construction of the French Left as inherently paradoxical. The paradoxes of depoliticized politics and non-ideological votes for the Socialists functioned to explain away the contradictions between an appropriated discourse of the people and their actions.

Abstract: Abstract It was the wedding of the year in Cleveland in 1929, but not for the usual reasons. On the full page in the Sunday supplement devoted to the marriage of Charles Young and Esther Christensen, the pictures of the fathers were bigger than those of the newlyweds. Charles’ father, Owen D. Young, was chairman of the board of General Electric, a renowned “industrial statesman” who had just led the U.S. delegation that had negotiated an apparently definitive settlement of the vexing World War Idebt issue. The feat would help make him Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” and a strong dark-horse candidate for the 1932 Democratic presidential nomination (Case & Case, 1982). Esther’s father, Niels Anton Christensen, was a well-known inventor. He was on his way to becoming a great inventor, if you are willing to define that term as someone who twice in his life invents the world’s best way to do something important. Thirty years earlier he had invented the best way to stop streetcars. Three years after the wedding, the father of the bride would become the father of the O-ring.

Abstract: Until recently, the nomination of a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court had little public opinion relevance. Questions might be raised about the nominee's qualifications, perhaps including his or her liberalism or conservatism, but the American people tended to acquiesce in Court appointments. That changed during the Reagan administration, when opponents of the president's choice of Robert Bork decided that public opinion did matter and effectively campaigned to turn the public against Bork.The Thomas nomination, however, raised even more questions about public opinion. Race and the role it should play in Court nominations was as important as Clarence Thomas's legal opinions. And, as soon as Anita Hill's charges of sexual harassment became public, other aspects of public opinion came into prominence.

Abstract: FTER MUCH CONTEMPLATION, Barry Goldwater, the junior U.S. senator from Arizona, announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on January 3, 1964. Never enthusiastic in his presidential aspirations, the conservative Goldwater had become more uncertain about his desire in the waning weeks of 1963, after the assassination of President John E Kennedy. The two men had been friendly adversaries while Kennedy resided in the White House, and the Senator believed that in a presidential campaign he could persuasively illuminate the virtues of conservatism in debates with the liberal Democrat. However, Kennedy's successor, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, appealed to the grieving nation to honor the slain president by supporting the latter's liberal agenda: "Let us continue," Johnson exhorted. Thus, the presidential campaign of 1964 would not prove to be a propitious time to win converts to conservatism; but before contending with this problem in the general election, Goldwater had the more immediate task of winning his party's nomination, to which there was much opposition. The battle for delegates to the Republican National Convention reached its climax in California, where the Senator enjoyed great support, but faced considerable obstacles as well.

Abstract: Proponents of post-1968 reforms in the presidential nominating process commonly defend them by claiming that the old "mixed" system was undemocratic and closed to popular movements. Only a few years before, however, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona had led a conservative takeover of the Republican Party that showed the mixed system could accommodate the rise of a popular movement. This article examines whether the mixed system helped or hindered the Goldwater candidacy. The author concludes that the mixed system was more open to popular movements than has often been assumed and, ironically, that the reformed system, by distancing the party from the nominating process, may have made it more difficult for movements to win and consolidate their position.

Abstract: In this article, the authors develop a model that details how individuals come to prefer one candidate over others during the presidential nomination campaign. The model places the forces that influence nomination preferences into a simultaneous and dynamic framework. Empirical tests using the 1980 NES panel data indicate that the model performs well.

Abstract: “The wrenching testimony of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, accuser and accused, constituted a defining moment for the country that will forever change how the U.S. Senate reviews Supreme Court nominees” (Biskupic 1991, 2948). Thus did sober, factual Congressional Quarterly judge the consequences of the Hill-Thomas hearings. Most news accounts were considerably more fervid. Reporters as well as commentators claimed that the hearings demonstrated that the confirmation process is a complete fiasco. The Hill-Thomas hearings did not expose some fundamental flaw in the process per se. To be sure, a lot of less than admirable behavior and some procedural misjudgments characterized the latter part of the Thomas confirmation hearings. But a situation such as this one will always be difficult for the Senate or any similar body to handle. Structural changes in the process cannot make it easy or painless. Most of the “reforms” proposed would not work or would be counterproductive. According to a second theme in the media coverage, the hearings demonstrated that senators—at least the ones on the Judiciary Committee—are incompetent, inadequate for their jobs, and out of touch with the American people. To the contrary, I think that both Democrats and Republicans followed strategies that made excellent sense given the political context in which they operated. Incompetence is not the problem. If the simple process and personnel-based critiques are off base, was the widespread disquiet the hearings generated misplaced? There are reasons for concern but somewhat more subtle ones than those most often raised.

Abstract: This article evaluates the likely consequences of recent rule changes within the Democratic Party, specifically, the decision to require proportional representation in the 1992 primaries and caucuses and to reduce the number of superdelegates. Analysis of statewide data from the 1984 primaries and caucuses shows that the front-runner, Walter Mondale, was the prime beneficiary of the rules due to his overwhelming support among unpledged superdelegates and his more than proportional share of delegates won with a plurality of votes in caucuses and primaries. The combined impact of the allocation system and the use of superdelegates is such that the application of the 1992 rules to the 1984 race could have changed the outcome of the Democratic nomination.

Abstract: The nomination of Louis Dembitz Brandeis to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1916 created an outcry of opposition from the legal profession. The opponents, including the current president and seven former presidents of the American Bar Association, argued that during his law practice Brandeis had violated several norms of ethical behavior. In one of the first public examinations of the legal career of a prominent individual, the Senate and its committee on nominations carefully considered twelve charges of unethical behavior. Although a majority of the senators eventually rejected these charges, one aspect of the allegations highlights a role of the lawyer that is fraught with ethical problems.

Abstract: how fair it can be. In this article, the presidential nomination campaign is subjected to an analysis using basic tools of social choice theory. The objective is to find out whether the nomination campaign can be made democratically fairer, while maintaining the qualities it has that make it a workable majoritarian method of public choice. Ultimately we will consider whether the commitment to plebiscitary democracy can be justified in view of the endemic fairness problems. that are problematical from a public choice perspective, two of which are central and related. First, these campaigns often have more than two candidates competing. It is literally impossible to guarantee social transitivity from transitive individual preferences in an electoral procedure when there are more than two alternatives, as Kenneth Arrow (1963) demonstrated. Second, because of the majority requirement in these campaigns, it is possible that no candidate will achieve the necessary number of delegates to secure the nomination on the basis of plebiscitary events. There are other complications related to the structural peculiarities of presidential nomination campaigns, especially the fact that electoral events occur in a series and that the field of candidates usually changes during the course of the campaign. These are covered later. In this section, the focus is on defining democratic fairness and explain

Abstract: The 1992 nomination campaign, like its predecessor in 1988, has resulted in the disclosure and discussion of intimate personal information about presidential candidates. In the past two election campaigns, these kinds of disclosures have become quite controversial among the public and among professional observers. At least three major sets of questions arise in connection with these issues. First, does a concern with the personal characteristics of candidates have any relevance for presidential performance, and if so, what specifically is it? Second, assuming some relevance, what information does the public need to make evaluations of these personal characteristics, what sources are available, and what lengths should be used to obtain such information? Third, what limits if any, are there on the public's need or right to know such information, and how are these to be balanced against the rights and needs of candidates to privacy? This paper can make no claim of answering all these questions fully. There are many complex issues involved in each of these three areas. But the paper will try to provide some perspective on them and develop a framework within which they can be more fully considered. This paper begins with a developmental overview of the issue of reporting on the private lives of public officials. It then goes on to consider the press's changing role in these areas, the public's intense and ambivalent response to it, and the dilemmas that are posed for reporters who cover character issues. I then consider some distinctions between public and private and explore the nature of privacy and its importance to both political candidates and the public. Finally, I explore the public's right to know, and suggest some criteria for distinguishing

Abstract: (Note: This article is based on a speech delivered at a National Lawyers Guild forum on the Thomas nomination at Duke University Law School, September 25, 1991.)

Abstract: Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall was the first African American to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. He helped produce and was also a product of the 20th-century civil rights movement. President George Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to succeed him, a man who had made his professional career in a rapid succession of civil rights appointments in the same Republican administrations that were attempting to reconstruct the policies that Marshall and his successors in national civil rights organizations had created and interpreted.That Bush nominated Thomas, whose policy positions were so opposed to civil rights law as it had been legislated and implemented, did not prevent these organizations from being riven by disagreement over Thomas's fitness. When Anita Hill's allegations of sexual harassment became public, these organizations' opinions of the Thomas nomination became even more problematic.The nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court offers an opportunity to observe the influence and effectiveness of the civil rights lobby on an important policy question.

Abstract: O utside of the industry itself, very few motion picture editors enjoy any kind of recognition. Of these, Dede Allen is by far the best known. She credits much of this to her association with the great directors she's worked with, many of whom were lionized as auteurs when applications of the theory were just burgeoning in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. But Allen is modest and perhaps somewhat unfair to herself. While what she says of the attention she's received is true, nevertheless she is probably our greatest contemporary editor. Even if she had cut nothing else but Bonnie and Clyde (1967), Allen's place in cinema history would be virtually assured, but her roster of credits also includes Odds Against Tomorrow (1959), The Hustler (1961), America, America (1963), Rachel, Rachel (1968), Alice's Restaurant (1969), Little Big Man (1970), Slaughterhouse Five (1972), Serpico (1973), Dog Day Afternoon (1975, Academy Award nomination), Night Moves (1975), The Missouri Breaks (1976), Slap Shot (1977), Reds (1981, Academy Award nomination), Mike's Murder (1984), The Breakfast Club (1985), The Milagro Beanfield War (1988), Henry and June (1990); and, most recently, The Addams Family (1991). Allen's best collaborations have been with

Abstract: (1992). The NAACP Announces Opposition To Judge Thomas's Nomination. The Black Scholar: Vol. 22, The Clarence Thomas Confirmation, pp. 144-150.