Thesis advisor: Arthur Lewbel / This thesis proposes two semiparametric estimators; one for heavily censored panel models and another one for binary-outcome sample selection models. The first chapter proposes a new panel data estimator, and applies it to investigate whether the key assumption underlying most twin studies is valid. Roughly, the assumption is that differences in twins' outcomes can on average be attributed to differences in observed treatments, possibly after conditioning on observable covariates. The empirical results here cast doubt on this assumption, by showing that a particular outcome, survival, varies by birth order, even after conditioning on health-at-birth characteristics. The proposed panel data estimator is the first one in the literature that simultaneously handles having an unknown error distribution, fixed effects, fixed T, fixed censoring point, and heavy (greater than 50%) censoring. These features are all required to adequately deal with the limitations of available census data on twins. The proposed estimator also allows for coefficients that vary by t, and for a censoring point that is an unknown but deterministic function of regressors. The second chapter proposes a new semiparametric estimator for binary-outcome selection models that does not impose any distributional assumption, nor specify the selection equation. The estimator, however, requires a special regressor satisfying a support restriction in the outcome equation and a variable satisfying the exclusion/inclusion restriction; the former should be continuous whereas the latter can be discrete. The estimators of Klein et al. (2011) and Escanciano et al. (2012) require optimization, but our estimator for the outcome equation has a closed-form expression with no need for any optimization (but the selection equation estimation may still need an optimization). We apply MLE and the proposed estimator to US presidential election data in 2008 and 2012 where Barack Obama won to see to what extent racism mattered; we use a prejudice variable as a measure of racism. Putting our empirical findings in advance, there is evidence that the white Democrats voted less for Obama due to prejudice, whereas the white Republicans acted in a more muted fashion (i.e., almost no change in voting due to racism) or voted more for Obama to escape the stigma of racism. We also found evidence of "own-race favor" by blacks. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2014. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Economics.

This thesis aims to analyse the use of stereotypes about the Latin-American minority in the rhetoric of presidential candidates, using the single case of the 2016 US Presidential Campaign. The primary focus is the binary relation Self-Other established by the candidates through the use of stereotypes about the minority group and themselves. The analysis is performed in a framework that combines representation theory, constructivism and post colonial theory. The speeches and debates of the candidates, which served as data, demonstrate that stereotypes are present and help represent the Latin-American group as a negative Other, a threat or victimized burden. At the same time, through the representation of this specific Other, the candidates are creating their Self political persona, which in this case is a hero who will protect the American society from the threat, or a hero who will rescue the poor from their own victimized situation. Both candidates show similarities in the use of generalized stereotypes to mention LatinAmericans or in the context in which they refer to them. While they differ in the way that they create the Other, their position to confront the problem yields a similar political persona, as both want to be rescuers. Trump portrays LatinAmericans as a threat to security or as a poor victim, while Clinton also refers to the group as a victim, but also as an asset to economy. The intention of this thesis is to contribute to the field of stereotypes in political discourse in relation to the establishment of binary oppositions.

This essay studies the climate of discussion during the US Presidential election debates 2016 from a perspective of Deliberative democratic discussion criteria. It uses a statistical analysis to examine and describe the climate of discussion during the debates. The criteria are based on the theoretical work of James S. Fishkin and Robert C. Luskin, which closely points out five compontents/factors needed to get a healthy and reasonable climate of discussion. The essay suggests that the climate of discussion during the US elections has taken place on two different “battleground” (Outside and Inside formal debating forums). It further suggests that outside climate of discussion has been dominated by ugly tricks and “dirty talking” and the inside formal debating forums climate of discussion has been reasonable and healthy. The results of the analysis show that the US Presidential election debates have broken this pattern, mainly due to the republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.

No description available.

<p>The purpose of this essay has been to describe and compare the personal qualities that the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (DN) tried to associate Barack Obama and John McCain with during the American presidential election campaign 2008. The main question to be answered is: What social and physical characters as well as what personal experiences, interest and resources did DN tried to emphasize regarding John McCain and Barack Obama during the American presidential election campaign 2008. The theoretical starting-point has been John B Thompson’s theory of the mediated publicity and John Corner´s theory of political persona and spheres of action. Various DN news texts, in all 38 articles, have been examined by content analysis from 25th of august to the 4th of November. The main results show that the most frequent mentioned qualities about Barack Obamas was his skin colour, ethnicity and speech talents. The most frequent mentioned qualities about John McCain was his age and his military experiences from the Vietnam War. The conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that the qualities described in DN created a picture of two different politicians. Many of the qualities that was mentioned have no connection to politics and even if they was just mentioned one time can they play a significant role in trying to build confidence. Many of the qualities that was mentioned are qualities that necessary not have to be seen as positive.</p>

The purpose of this essay has been to describe and compare the personal qualities that the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (DN) tried to associate Barack Obama and John McCain with during the American presidential election campaign 2008. The main question to be answered is: What social and physical characters as well as what personal experiences, interest and resources did DN tried to emphasize regarding John McCain and Barack Obama during the American presidential election campaign 2008. The theoretical starting-point has been John B Thompson’s theory of the mediated publicity and John Corner´s theory of political persona and spheres of action. Various DN news texts, in all 38 articles, have been examined by content analysis from 25th of august to the 4th of November. The main results show that the most frequent mentioned qualities about Barack Obamas was his skin colour, ethnicity and speech talents. The most frequent mentioned qualities about John McCain was his age and his military experiences from the Vietnam War. The conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that the qualities described in DN created a picture of two different politicians. Many of the qualities that was mentioned have no connection to politics and even if they was just mentioned one time can they play a significant role in trying to build confidence. Many of the qualities that was mentioned are qualities that necessary not have to be seen as positive.

This master's thesis deals with the implications of metaphorical language, which comedy news programs used to portray Donald Trump as a candidate during the 2016 US presidential election. First, the author outlines the most important moments of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, then introduces the comedy news genre as well as three comedy news programs - The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight and Real Time - which are included in the analytical part of the thesis. The thesis continues with the theoretical and methodological chapters, in which conceptual metaphor analysis based on the works of Lakoff, Johnson and Yanow is presented. The metaphor analysis itself, performed on 73 comedy news episodes, reveals that mostly the same metaphors were used across all three programs and they overwhelmingly portray Donald Trump as non-human. As the election kept approaching, Donald Trump was increasingly portrayed as "a natural disaster," "the apocalypse" or "the Devil." The author suggests that the overall tacit objective of the metaphors used in the three comedy news programs was to dehumanize Donald Trump. Finally, the limitations of the analysis are discussed and suggestions for further research on the implications of metaphorical language are made.