This dissertation explores the extent to which weather and climate systematically affect political behavior. The idea that weather (and other elements of the natural world) exercise a fundamental influence on politics has long been a theme in classical and modern political thought. As political science moved from pure description to a more social-scientific form of analysis, scholars became less interested in understanding the impact of climate. If mentioned at all, weather typically is referred to as one of the various elements making up the "error term" in our statistical analyses. Recent work in the natural and social sciences, however, has suggested there are systematic and important links between weather, climate, and behavior. This work (which I review) not only inspires a return to a traditional focus of political analysis, but more importantly provides a number of hypotheses to guide our analysis of politics. Inclement weather increases the costs of moving from place to place. Sunlight enhances while extreme temperature depresses mood. Finally, hot weather is associated with enhanced aggression. These correlates of climate have implications for a variety of subfields across political science, including comparative politics and international relations. This dissertation concentrates primarily, however, on American politics, particularly from a behavioral perspective. To see if weather has a significant effect on politics, then, I explore behavior in four settings that have been especially important in mainstream studies: Presidential approval; social capital; Election Day voting; and finally elite participation (in the form of abstention on roll call voting). In terms of the first, if (as Zaller argues) a response to a telephone survey indeed entails a summing up of `considerations' regarding an issue rather than expression of a `true' attitude, then it is likely sunlight should stimulate positive responses to questions because it encourages the release of serotonin, which makes people more positive in general. Controlled logistic regression of sunlight on Presidential approval reveals that, in spring, sunlight boosts approval. The next chapter explores how hot climates and rain may reduce levels of social capital. This is because heat boosts levels of aggression, which should diminish helping behavior, and because rain makes it more difficult to volunteer and associate with other people. Analysis of state-level social capital data and city-level volunteer data provides some evidence that these propositions are correct. The third empirical chapter focuses upon voting on Election Day. While it finds that rain does have a depressive effect upon voting rates among the poor due to raising the costs associated with voting, there is little evidence that vote choice is affected by the weather. The final empirical chapter examines how weather conditions may affect voting rates among members of the United States House of Representatives, which seems possible because, like regular citizens during Election Day, House members pay costs when visiting the Capital to vote, and unpleasant weather could comprise a real if minor cost. OLS regression at the vote-level and logistic regression at the legislator level reveals that in the winter and spring, sunlight boosts voting, while summer humidity depresses voting and heat in winter has a positive effect. While these conclusions are interesting in themselves and meaningfully contribute to contemporary academic discussions, they further suggest some things about how we thing about political science. In particular, analyses of political topics could often be enhanced by reflectively considering the contents of the error term, as this exercise can offer new and useful perspective on current scholarship. Further, this dissertation also suggests that political science (and research in general) could benefit from taking a more comprehensive view of the environmental context of human behavior.

This study was conducted to identify the nature of the content devoted to the 2008 presidential election in the editorial pages of three newspapers. The research sought to discover what percentage of the content was specific to the election, whether this election-centered content focused on the campaign or on specific issues, what issues were covered, and the role in which the author was writing. This study used a comparative quantitative content analysis to examine this content appearing during the final three months of the 2008 campaign in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Dallas Morning News, and the San Francisco Chronicle, three major U.S. metropolitan newspapers with regional focus. The results provided insight into whether a marketplace of ideas exists in the editorial pages of the selected newspapers. Analysis of the election-related material revealed that each newspaper devoted a substantial portion of their editorial pages to the election. However, of that election-centered material, the majority was focused on the campaign, or "horse race," devoting much less to the discussion of substantive policy issues. The exception was the San Francisco Chronicle, which devoted almost 50% of its election-centered material to substantive issues. Only a handful of issues dominated the issue coverage in each newspaper: money, social issues, and defense/foreign policy. The general format for the editorial pages in each newspaper allowed for only a limited amount of diversity with the role in which an author is writing (i.e. the newspaper's own editorial writers vs. letters to the editor written by citizens). The majority of columns, the portion of the editorial pages where a diversity of authors has the potential to exist, were made up by authors identified by only a handful of roles.

<p><em>Aim</em>: Over the years, marketing has become a more and more important tool in politics in general. In order to campaign successfully – and become the President-elect - in the U.S. Presidential Election, marketing is indispensable. This lead to enormous amounts of money spent on marketing. The aim of this research is to contribute to existing knowledge in the field of political marketing through the analysis of how marketing is done throughout a political campaign. The 2008 U.S. Presidential Primary Elections, together with a few key candidates have served as the empirical example of this investigation. Four research questions have been asked; what marketing strategies are of decisive outcome in the primary season of the 2008 political campaigning, how is political marketing differentiated depending on the candidate and the demographics of the voter, and finally where does the money come from to fund this gigantic political industry.</p><p><em>Method</em>: The exploratory method and case study as well as the qualitative research method have been used in this work. Internet has been an important tool in the search for, and collection of data. Sources used have been scientific articles, other relevant literature, home pages, online newspapers, TV, etc. The questions have been researched in detail and several main conclusions have been drawn from a marketing perspective. Correlations with theory have also been made.</p><p><em>Result & Conclusion</em>: In the primary season, the product the candidates have been selling is <em>change</em>. The Obama campaign successfully coined and later implemented this product into a grassroots movement that involved bottom-up branding of the candidate. This large base allowed for a different marketing strategy that implemented earlier and better organization in the caucus voting primary states resulting in an untouchable lead for the Obama campaign. The successful utilization of the Internet and social networking sites such as Facebook and YouTube led to enormous support, not least among the important group of young (first time) voters. It also served as the main base for funding throughout both the primary and the presidential season, effectively outspending the Clinton, and later, the McCain campaigns. This study has shown that there are differences in marketing when it comes to different presidential candidates even within the same party. Marketing activities and efforts also look different for different marketing groups.</p><p><em>Suggestions for future research</em>: This study was limited to the primary season; it would have been interesting to include the whole U.S. Presidential campaigning process from start to finish. In future research projects, it would also be interesting to see comparisons between political marketing in the U.S. and political marketing elsewhere, in Europe for example.</p><p><em>Contribution of the thesis</em>: This study contributes to increased knowledge when it comes to understanding the role of social media, grassroots movement, and bottom-up branding as a political marketing strategy. It also contributes to increased knowledge about political marketing in general. Furthermore, it shows the importance of marketing - and money - in American politics. Political parties as well as individual candidates may also find the results of this research useful for future campaigning.</p>

<p> </p><p>The 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections were in many ways special, where the USA got its first president of Afro-American origin, Barack Obama. The elections will also be historical since the great use of social medias - as the community Facebook, the video sharing site YouTube and web based diaries, blogs - broke through during the campaigns. This study's purpose was to examine how a few members of the Swedish parliament described the result of the Presidential Elections in their blogs. The main question - how the election results were described in the blogs - was divided into three themes, created on the basis of the blog's content. The themes were Barack Obama, John McCain and the future. To answer the questions a qualitative text analysis was made, in order to analyze the positive and negative values and opinions in the blog posts. The results showed that the majority of the chosen seven bloggers - one from each parliament party - had a positive view of Barack Obama's victory. Obama's winner speech got special attention. Regarding John McCain, he was described as a good loser, even though - as in the Obama theme - there were exceptions. The majority of the bloggers had an optimistic view of the future, but the most of them thought that Obama will face many difficult challenges, like the financial crisis and the anxiety in the Middle East. In the final discussion Obama's election campaign, with it's engagement in social medias, and hope for a better future, were the main causes to the overall optimistic view in the blogs. Finally, a discussion about what didactic consequences the blog's place in education in civics will have. More participation and better insight into the political life are two positive consequences. Dragging peoples name in the mud and the creating of false rumors are two negative consequences. Key words: blog, social media, presidential elections, Swedish parliament members.</p><p> </p><p> </p>

The 2008 election of Barack Obama to the United States’ presidency is an undeniable historical landmark demonstrating progress in race relations; however, it has yet to be determined how the election affects the way in which racial minorities are viewed and whether Obama’s presidency will advance their societal position. Despite some claims that the election signifies the existence of a post-racial nation, recent social (Harlow 2008; Hunt and Wilson 2009; Parker, Sawyer, Towler 2009; Tesler 2010), psychological (Effron, Cameron, and Monin 2009; Eibach, and Purdie-Vaughns 2009; Kaiser et al. 2009), political (Piston 2001; Huddy and Feldman 2009; Redlawsk, Tolbert, and Franco 2010), economic (Jacobson 2010; Lewis-Beck and Tien (2009) and legal (Nelson 2009; Troutt 2009) research predicts that the election will have little effect, or potentially a negative impact, on efforts to achieve racial parity in America. To assess what President Obama’s election means for American race relations, this study examines multiple measures of prejudice among Whites as predictors of their support for racial equality. Using data from the American National Election Studies (ANES), I examine different forms of racism, and the extent to which they influence Whites’ support of government policies that promote racial equality. The focal independent variable, racial ideology, is measured by old-fashioned racism, systemic racism, symbolic racism, laissez-faire racism, and color-blind racism. The focal dependent variable, race-based policy preferences, is measured through support for government policies which promote racial equity in education and employment contexts. Factor analysis is used to identify how Whites’ feelings towards Obama, reaction to Obama’s election victory, feelings towards Blacks, outlook on black presidents in general, and beliefs concerning political power differentials between Blacks and Whites relate to different theoretical racial ideologies. Racial orientations that are indicated by measured variables then serve as focal independent variables in multiple regression analysis to predict the focal outcome variables concerning support for policies that foster racial equality. Factor analysis and regression analysis are conducted with pre-election, post-election, and recent data in order to assess change in Whites’ racial attitudes and policy preferences at various points in time. Results from the analysis suggest differences before and after the election in terms of racist ideology and support for programs that benefit racial minorities. Whites are now less likely to agree with the implementation of affirmative action and government policy supporting racial equality. Systemic and color-blind racist ideologies are the strongest predictors of opposition to race-based policy. Furthermore, it seems antiracist ideology has diminished since President Obama was elected. These findings are consistent with sociological and political research that suggests Whites’ opposition to racial policies and black candidates is often more influenced by symbolic racism than by realistic self-interest (Sears and Henry 2003) and confirms predictions (Bonilla-Silva and Ray 2009; Metzler 2010) that Obama’s presidency coupled with new forms of racism, such as color-blind racism, may serve to negatively affect racial equality in the United States.

The aim of this study is to explore the implementation of viral marketing in Politics. We led a case study in order to discover how viral techniques were used to promote candidates running for the 2007 French election. The review of previous research provided learning about the use of new communication methods in electoral campaigns.Nevertheless, they are not specifically devoted to the viral marketing method. At present, theoretical models about this new phenomenon exist only for business sectors. Viral marketing is becoming of greater importance in the promotion of a candidate's brand image. It was interesting to discover how marketing techniques are transferred into the field of politics. Through our theoretical framework we analysed results from our interview with a webmaster who works for the Nicolas Sarkozy's political party. We explained the role of viral marketing in the communication strategy of politicians. Thanks to the focus group, we assessed the impact of viral marketing among French voters. The results show that it generates a word-of-mouth campaign about the candidate's personality which results in a political "Buzz". This high media coverage heavily influences the voters who are highly sensitive to image branding. However, the counterpart of using viral marketing is the lack of control that candidates maintain over their image. For example, the spreading of undesirable videos could harm their credibility. Finally, our study shows that modern politics is appealing for viral marketing in order to shape the political leader's image, which constitutes a determinant factor to influence voters.

AbstractTitle: Political Bias in Entertainment (Politisk partiskhet i underhållning)Number of pages: 38Author: Andreas GawellTutor: Göran SvenssonCourse: Media and Communication Studies CPeriod: Fall 2009University: Division of Media and Communication, Department of Information Science,Uppsala University.Purpose/Aim: The purpose of this research paper was to investigate political bias in TheDaily Show before the presidential election 2008.Material/Method: With a quantitative content analyze based on variables connected withtheory from investigating bias in news, I am looking at 19 episodes of The Daily Showstarting one month before the presidential election 2008.Main results: The results of this research indicated a liberal bias in The Daily Show favoringthe Democratic Party. Both parties was made fun of and joked about, but the Republican Partyand its candidates was a lot more frequently laughed at then its Democratic equivalent. Alsolooking at the issues that came up in the show you can see Republicans getting to talk aboutissues not on their own agenda more frequently than Democrats.Keywords: The Daily Show, political bias, presidential election 2008, Republican Party,Democratic Party

The 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections were in many ways special, where the USA got its first president of Afro-American origin, Barack Obama. The elections will also be historical since the great use of social medias - as the community Facebook, the video sharing site YouTube and web based diaries, blogs - broke through during the campaigns. This study's purpose was to examine how a few members of the Swedish parliament described the result of the Presidential Elections in their blogs. The main question - how the election results were described in the blogs - was divided into three themes, created on the basis of the blog's content. The themes were Barack Obama, John McCain and the future. To answer the questions a qualitative text analysis was made, in order to analyze the positive and negative values and opinions in the blog posts. The results showed that the majority of the chosen seven bloggers - one from each parliament party - had a positive view of Barack Obama's victory. Obama's winner speech got special attention. Regarding John McCain, he was described as a good loser, even though - as in the Obama theme - there were exceptions. The majority of the bloggers had an optimistic view of the future, but the most of them thought that Obama will face many difficult challenges, like the financial crisis and the anxiety in the Middle East. In the final discussion Obama's election campaign, with it's engagement in social medias, and hope for a better future, were the main causes to the overall optimistic view in the blogs. Finally, a discussion about what didactic consequences the blog's place in education in civics will have. More participation and better insight into the political life are two positive consequences. Dragging peoples name in the mud and the creating of false rumors are two negative consequences. Key words: blog, social media, presidential elections, Swedish parliament members.

This study examines the effect that divided or unified government, in the United States of America, has on the delegation of trade authority to the President. Using a qualitative analysis approach, I examine competing views and formulate an independent opinion based on the peoples’ preferences and evaluation of the principles of America’s Constitutionalism. I conclude that overemphasis on the impact of divided government is misleading because trade issues provide the primary mechanism which determines the implementation of America’s trade policies, and the principles of Constitutionalism are valuable guidelines. Blended with the discussion is the awareness of an American ethos which challenges formulation of trade agreements in an era of increased globalization.

Over the course of American history, the vice presidency has evolved into a meaningful and influential part of the executive branch, and running mates have become an important part of presidential elections. But scholars, pundits, and political professionals continue to discuss and evaluate vice presidential selection in an outdated framework that now borders on superstition. Now that presidential nominees have sole authority to choose their running mates and the resources to take care in the process, voters demand that they do so. The modern presidential nominee should undertake a serious and methodical research and decision-making process, and should choose a running mate who 1) demonstrates unassailable competence, and 2) bolsters the ticket – not balances it – by extending presidential nominee’s narrative into uncovered territory.