Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Presidential scholar Meena Bose was interviewed by WNYW Fox 5 about the Democratic National Convention, and why New York City Mayor Eric Adams may not have been asked to take on a more prominent role. Dr. Bose is a professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and executive director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency. Dr. Meena Bose is available to speak with media - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
ChristianaCare Nurses Inducted as American Academy of Nursing Fellows
In recognition of their extraordinary impact on the nursing profession, two ChristianaCare nurses have been named as Fellows of the American Academy of Nursing (AAN). This prestigious recognition highlights their significant contributions to nursing leadership, innovation and health care policy. Michelle Collins, DNP, APRN, CNS, ACNS-BC, NPD-BC, NEA-BC, LSSBB, currently serves as vice president of Nursing Professional Excellence at ChristianaCare. Throughout her accomplished 30-year career, Collins has played a crucial role in improving how nurses practice and learn. Her leadership was significant in achieving ChristianaCare’s third Magnet® designation, highlighting her commitment to excellence. Collins’ initiatives, including pioneering a Virtual Acute Care Nursing model and securing a $1.5 million grant for nursing technology integration, have set new standards in health care innovation. Danielle Sarik, Ph.D., APRN, CPNP-PC, is a nurse scientist consultant at ChristianaCare. Her research contributions have been integral in shaping policies that improve health care outcomes for children and families. Sarik is renowned for developing and implementing the Baby Steps model, recognized by the AAN as an Edge Runner designee. This pioneering transition of care approach addresses health equity for neonatal patients and families following discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit. “Induction into the Academy represents the highest honor in nursing,” said AAN President Linda Scott. “Earning the Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing (FAAN) credential is a significant recognition of one’s accomplishments and signifies the future impact they will make in collaboration with their colleagues in the Academy.”
Earlier this year, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) announced that it would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), greatly reducing the restrictions on the drug. It represents a historic change in federal marijuana policy and a watershed moment for generations of activists that have sought legalization on a national level. While many advocates believe the shift bodes well for efforts to relax controls on other Schedule I drugs—including promising psychedelics like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD– Vanderbilt Law professor Robert Mikos argues that the marijuana rescheduling decision will not pave the way for rescheduling any other drug. Mikos explains that the decision preserves the barriers that make it virtually impossible to remove drugs from Schedule I. He labels those barriers the “tyrannies of scheduling.” In his paper “Marijuana and the Tyrannies of Scheduling,” forthcoming in Fordham Law Review, Mikos lays out the core challenges posed by the existing scheduling process and offers a solution that would lead to “more rational scheduling decisions that better reflect the benefits and dangers of controlled substances, as Congress intended.” The Role of Currently Accepted Medical Use in Scheduling Decisions The CSA creates five Schedules (I-V). Scheduling dictates how a drug is regulated under the statute. Schedule I drugs are subject to the most restrictive controls, and those controls are steadily relaxed as one moves down the schedules. Congress made all the initial scheduling decisions when it passed the CSA in 1970, but it also empowered the DEA, working in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to reschedule drugs based on new information acquired after the passage of the statute. Agency scheduling decisions are supposed to be based on three core characteristics of a drug: its abuse potential, its dependence liability, and whether it has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU). Unfortunately, these characteristics do not always suggest the same schedule for a drug. But as Mikos explains, the DEA has grossly simplified the scheduling process by suggesting that CAMU determinations should trump all other considerations. In particular, the agency has insisted that a drug with no CAMU must be placed on Schedule I, regardless of its abuse potential or dependence liability. According to Mikos, the DEA’s simplification of the scheduling process places tremendous weight on agency CAMU determinations and how the agency chooses to define this particular scheduling criteria. The Tyranny of Science In the past, the DEA insisted that the only way to demonstrate that a drug has a CAMU was by completing multiple controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that a drug is effective at treating some medical indication, the same requirement for new drug approval under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. As Mikos has noted in his past work, completing such trials is “notoriously expensive and time-consuming,” requiring strict parameters and a large number of participants. The challenge is even more daunting for drugs already on Schedule I, because the CSA restricts research on such drugs. Due to regulatory restrictions, marijuana advocates have struggled to complete even a single RCT demonstrating marijuana’s medical efficacy. Indeed, in the past 50 years, only one Schedule I drug (Epidiolex) has ever been able to satisfy the DEA’s CAMU test, leading Mikos to label the agency’s science-focused approach the “Tyranny of Science.” The Tyranny of the Majority In 2023, however, HHS devised an alternative CAMU test that emphasizes practical experience over scientific research. “Because more than 30,000 health care practitioners (HCPs) had already recommended the drug to their patients in the thirty-eight states with medical marijuana laws,” Mikos explains, “the agency concluded there was enough clinical experience to demonstrate that marijuana has a CAMU and thus could be rescheduled.” But while this alternative test does not require completing RCTs – and thereby eliminates the Tyranny of Science – Mikos demonstrates that it is no less tyrannical than the DEA’s original CAMU test. According to Mikos, the alternative CAMU test simply “imposes a different form of tyranny: the Tyranny of the Majority.” He explains that to accumulate the clinical experience needed to satisfy the new test, advocates must convince popular majorities in a substantial number of states to legalize medical use of a drug. It took decades to build the public support necessary to do that for marijuana, and Mikos points out that no other Schedule I drug currently commands the same level of public support as marijuana. “Despite growing interest in the therapeutic value of [psychedelics, . . . less than a quarter of all Americans support legalizing psychedelics like psilocybin,” Mikos writes. “By comparison, 90% of Americans support legalizing medical marijuana.” What is more, even if large numbers of states were to legalize medical use of a substance like psilocybin or MDMA, advocates will also have to convince large numbers of patients, their health care practitioners (HCPs), and their suppliers to risk federal sanctions in order to accumulate the clinical experience HHS demands to satisfy the new CAMU test. “While marijuana was finally able to run the gauntlet, no other Schedule I is likely to replicate that feat anytime soon. Other promising Schedule I drugs like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD are likely to remain trapped on that schedule for the foreseeable future,” the paper states. A New Way Forward Mikos argues that the agencies did not need to create a new CAMU test to reschedule marijuana. He suggests that the DEA has placed too much emphasis on CAMU in scheduling decisions. The DEA “has no authority, and no good reason, to hold (or place) a drug on Schedule I solely because the drug lacks a currently accepted medical use.” Indeed, Mikos suggests the agency’s emphasis on CAMU runs contrary to the text of the CSA and provides insufficient information about a drug’s benefits and risks to make sensible scheduling decisions. Rather than propose yet another, less tyrannical CAMU test, Mikos suggests that the DEA should instead take a more flexible approach to scheduling, one that considers all 3 criteria – a drug’s abuse potential, its dependence liability, and whether or not it has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU)—to determine where a drug belongs among the statute’s five schedules. “Although my approach would not make it any easier to demonstrate CAMU, it would reduce the dominant influence CAMU determinations now wield over scheduling decisions,” Mikos concludes. It would enable the agency to remove drugs like marijuana, psilocybin, or MDMA from Schedule I, even if they lack a currently accepted medical use, if their abuse potential and dependence liability so warrant. “As a result,” he notes, “my approach would foster more rational administrative scheduling decisions going forward.”
University of Delaware experts share insights and strategies for navigating the upcoming school year
The College of Education and Human Development in the University of Delaware has a number of stories and experts for the upcoming school year. Stories Bridging the language gap: How AWE software fosters inclusivity for English Language Learners and Non-English Language Learners alike Creating a mindful classroom: Tips for teachers on how to have a peaceful transition into the 2024-2025 school year Empowering Black and Latinx Boys in Their Postsecondary Journeys: The Role of School Communities UD assistant professor Eric Layland shares new research on LGBTQ+ developmental milestones and supporting LGBTQ+ youth University of Delaware assistant professor explores the tensions between hopes and expectations in vocational planning for autistic young adults Experts Allison Karpyn – an associate professor who can speak to topics related to hunger, obesity, school food, supermarket access, and food insecurity. She has spoken extensively about food in schools and can offer context to those subjects. Roderick Carey – an assistant professor whose current interdisciplinary research serves to make sense of the school experiences of black and Latino adolescent boys and young men in urban contexts. He can also talk about teacher education as it relates to men in the field/the impact of male teachers. To contact Karpyn or Carey, click their profiles. More experts... If you would like to pursue any of these stories or speak to any of the following experts, they are all willing and excited to chat. Contact mediarelations@udel.edu to speak to them. Eric Layland – an assistant professor who can speak about LGBTQ+ student experiences from a research perspective. His work bridges LGBTQ+ developmental research to community impact through developmentally-informed, affirmative interventions. Sarah Mallory – an assistant professor who specializes in special education with a special focus on autism and other intellectual and developmental disabilities. She also works within the Center for Disabilities Studies. Sarah Curtiss – an assistant professor who specializes in special education with a special focus on autistic youth. Brittany Zakszeski – an assistant professor and nationally certified school psychologist, licensed psychologist and behavior analyst. She focuses on student and teacher mental health and can comment on what concealed weapons carried by teachers can do for the mental wellbeing of both students and teachers. Lauren Bailes – an associate professor who focuses on the ways in which organizational, social-cognitive, and leadership theory unite to promote the success of school leaders and K-12 students. Bryan VanGronigen – an assistant professor who specializes in organizational resilience and change management in K-12 schools with specific interest areas in efforts to improve schools, the preparation and professional development of educational leaders and educational policy analyses. Lynsey Gibbons – an associate professor specializing in mathematics education, in teacher professional learning and school partnerships across content areas. Contact mediarelations@udel.edu to speak to these experts or for more information on the stories above.
VP Harris Picks Gov. Tim Walz as Her Running Mate
Dr. Meena Bose talked to NY1 Spectrum News about Vice President Kamala Harris selecting Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her presidential running mate. The interview was conducted by Hofstra alum and NY1 news anchor Shannan Ferry ’14. Dr. Bose is a professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and executive director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency. Dr. Meena Bose is available to speak with media - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Teacher mindfulness doesn't begin on the first day of classes in the late summer or early fall. It is an invaluable skill that can be practiced and perfected all throughout the year, especially when teachers are on summer break. Leigh McLean is an an associate research professor in the School of Education and Center for Research in Educational and Social Policy at the University of Delaware. In her program of research, she investigates how teachers’ emotions and emotion-related experiences including well-being impact their effectiveness. Her work particularly focuses on how teachers’ emotions impact their instructional practices, and the role that early-career teachers’ emotions play as they transition into the career. She holds expertise in quantitative, mixed-methods, and longitudinal study design and implementation, multileveled data analysis, and classroom observation. Below she gives a few tips on how teachers can begin preparing themselves – and by extension their future students – for all the ups and downs of the upcoming school year. Engage in restorative rest this summer. One of the ways to prepare for the upcoming school year is to get restorative rest. It's important to let your brain disengage for a short time, but it's also beneficial to set aside time, before the school year begins, to think about the past school year. What went well? What might you want to do differently?? What techniques are you hoping to improve in the coming school year? As we as a society still reel from the COVID-19 pandemic, meaningfully reflect on the past four years and ask yourself what you've see with your students. What might they need to succeed this upcoming year? How can you facilitate an environment where students are getting supports for the unique challenges that the pandemic created? Incorporate mindfulness into your daily habit. A mindfulness practice is a daily regime of awareness, contemplation, and processing of all the things going on both within and outside of you. Mindfulness is a key skill when it comes to the larger goal of emotional understanding and regulation, and it has been shown to be a particularly helpful practice for teachers. However, you cannot expect to dive into mindfulness on day one of a new school year, it take practice. A great place to start is to pay attention to your emotions and work on emotional awareness in the weeks leading up to the school year. Shift your thinking fromo "emotions are noise that get in the way" to "My emotions are important signals that I have to pay attention to." This type of shift can be difficult to do for the first time in the heat of teaching so summer is a great time to practice these techniques. As educators, teachers experience the full range of human emotions every day, and they are usually the only adults in the room. While this might at the outset seem intimidating, teachers have the unique opportunity to use their emotions intentionally as cues for their students to pick up on. Dr. Jon Cooper, Director of Behavioral Health for the Colonial School District in New Castle, Delaware noted: "We want teachers to be the emotional thermostat, not the thermometer," and "We want them to intentionally set the emotional tone of the classroom." During the summer, think about how to set classroom norms and expectations to be responsive to your emotions and those of your students in a way that will create a more mindful classroom all around. This could look like including a classroom norm stating that aAll emotions are ok, even the bad ones. It could also look like acknowledging in your classroom management approaches that there is a difference between emotions and behaviors; so while all emotions are ok, not all behaviors that come from those emotions are ok. Take yourself through a school day and anticipate the needs of your students. One major mindfulness practice is taking yourself through a typical school day and identifying parts where students are most likely to have difficulties. Do students have challenging moments during small groups? Is there a lot of math anxiety going on in your class? Try structuring your day, approach, even your expressions so that you set yourself and your students up for success during these moments that are more likely to be challenging. Utilize mindfulness websites and apps. There are websites and apps teachers can use to further incorporate mindfulness into their daily lives, including: The Center for Healthy Minds UCLA's Free Mindfulness App For more tips... McLean is available for interviews and can expound on the ways teachers can set themselves – and their students – up for success. Click on her profile to connect.
Largest Prisoner Swap Since the Cold War
In a unexpected move, the United States and Russia have conducted the largest prisoner swap since the end of the Cold War. Among those exchanged are Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and former US Marine Paul Whelan. This significant exchange marks a unique moment in US-Russia relations opening up numerous avenues for analysis such as: Geopolitical Ramifications: Analyzing how this prisoner exchange might alter the dynamics between the US and Russia and shape future global diplomatic strategies. Domestic Political Considerations: Understanding how the swap might impact public opinion, leadership images, and future policy decisions in both countries, especially in the context of the upcoming US presidential election. Humanitarian Issues: Shedding light on the conditions and treatment of the exchanged prisoners before the swap and the broader human rights concerns that this exchange brings to the forefront. Broader International Effects: Exploring the potential for encouraging hostage diplomacy and other unintended consequences. The following experts are available for media looking for greater insights and commentary on some of the deeper implications of this historic event. Select experts include: For additional experts on related and other topics, visit expertfile.com.
The Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation (VPA) is leading the way in research and policy recommendations on the governance of artificial intelligence. At the Third Annual Networks, Platforms & Utilities conference hosted by the VPA in June, the groundbreaking initiative was commended by FTC Chair Lina Khan for its impact on her work with the agency. As part of Discovery Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation is a groundbreaking initiative to bolster innovative research and education at Vanderbilt. The mission of VPA is to swiftly develop and advance cutting-edge research, education and policy proposals at a pace that aligns with the urgency of today’s challenges. The VPA encompasses several projects, including one dedicated to revitalizing the study of the law and political economy of networks platforms, and utilities (NPUs) in transportation, communications, energy and banking. “Many of our country’s most pressing economic and social challenges are directly tied to how we govern network, platform, and utility industries, including airline flight cancellations, social media regulation, banking failures and electric grid crashes,” said Ganesh Sitaraman, the New York Alumni Chancellor’s Chair in Law at Vanderbilt Law School and director of VPA. VPA’s Project on Networks, Platforms and Utilities has developed a series of papers and policy proposals to improve the governance of these sectors. Among this work are a set of proposals to policymakers for regulating air travel, a plan for stabilizing and regulating the banking sector, and 40 recommendations to promote competition throughout the American economy. With growing interest in AI, VPA has turned its eye to how policymakers can address the harms that come from concentration in the AI technology stack. VPA’s papers have developed an antimonopoly approach to regulating AI, addressed public capacity for AI, and offered proposals on federal procurement of AI resources. VPA’s work in this field has gotten increasing attention. VPA director Ganesh Sitaraman participated in one of the U.S. Senate’s AI Fora in 2023. And during the Third Annual Networks, Platforms & Utilities conference hosted by the VPA in June, FTC Chair Lina Khan specifically noted VPA’s impact on the agency. “I think the work that VPA has been doing on AI has been so enormously useful,” said Khan. “It’s really striking how it took 15 years before the NPU toolkit was even discussed alongside the Web 2.0 giants. So, the fact that from the very get-go this kind of framework is being applied in the context of AI policy discussions really marks that forward movement.” During the June conference, participants—which included 64 attendees from 15 different countries— discussed how their jurisdictions of study approach the regulation of network, platform and utility industries. This year’s conference was structured around eight panels, one on general themes and seven featuring a specific NPU sector: railroads, electricity, banking & finance, airlines, social infrastructure, tech platforms and telecommunications. “Vanderbilt is a leader in research on these topics, and we were very excited to welcome scholars from around the world to Nashville and to Vanderbilt, in order to explore these issues from a comparative and global perspective,” said Sitaraman. In the coming months, the conference organizers intend to compile the papers presented at the conference into an edited volume. To learn more, visit the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator website.
#Expert Insight: Political Fandom
The 2024 Presidential campaign has been a roller coaster ride this summer. The upheavals are so fast and unprecedented that the reaction to each event often seems too muted. An assassination attempt and sudden pre-convention withdrawal? In a past generation, these events would be decisive, but in 2024, they seem like just the latest blip in the news cycle. The polls never seem to move more than a couple of points. In such an oddly volatile but also stable environment, our best bet to understanding what is going to transpire during the last 100 days of the election cycle is to look at data that gets to the heart of how voters view the candidates. My choice of fundamental data or essential metric is candidate fandom. Fandom is an unusual metric in politics, but it should be more common. Fandom is about passion for and loyalty to a cultural entity, be it a team, singer, university, or even politician. In fact, MAGA Trump supporters and Bernie Bros share many characteristics with Swifties and Lakers fans. Fans of all these things show up, spend, wear branded apparel, and fiercely defend the object of their fandom. The politicians who inspire fandom, such as AOC, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and Marjorie Taylor Green, enjoy many advantages and are the celebrities of the political world. Fandom is critical in politics because fans are loyal, engaged, and resilient. Fans are not casual potential voters who may change preferences and are unlikely to make an effort to stand in line to vote. Fans are the voters who will show up rain or shine and who can’t be swayed. In 2024, a fan will interpret a conviction of their candidate as political “lawfare” rather than evidence of criminality. Also, in 2024, a fan will make excuses for signs of aging that would result in children taking a senior’s car keys. The flip side of fandom, anti-fandom, is also a powerful political force. Indeed, politics may be the cultural context in which anti-fandom has the most impact. Taylor Swift may have haters, but these anti-Swifties are not buying tickets to see Katy Perry in protest. But in politics, hatred of a candidate might be as powerful a tool for generating a vote as fandom. Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign was notoriously bad at drawing crowds, suggesting he inspired little passion. In contrast, Trump’s rallies looked like rabid sports crowds complete with matching hats. However, the hatred and fear of Donald Trump inspired sufficient anti-fandom to make Biden competitive. Of course, fandom doesn’t entirely decide elections. In most elections, there isn’t all that much fandom or passion. Beyond the presidency and senatorial contests, most candidates are barely known, and identity factors (race, gender, party affiliation) and candidate awareness are the determining factors. Even in presidential elections, get-out-the-vote efforts (ballot harvesting) and election regulations (voter suppression) combined with effective marketing to the few percent of swing (low information) voters are often the determining factors. Looking toward the future, fandom may be an increasingly salient political metric for multiple reasons. First, the last two decades have witnessed many candidates raised quickly from obscurity with somehow Hollywood-worthy origin stories (Barack Obama, AOC, JD Vance, etc.). In the modern media environment, candidates’ reputations (brands) are increasingly the product of marketing narratives rather than a lifetime of real-world accomplishments. In this new world of politics, fandom will be a critical metric. Second, with the increasing diversity of the American electorate, voting will be increasingly based on identity rather than ideology. Identity-based voting segments are likely to be driven by fandom (and anti-fandom) rather than policy. We see a form of this in 2024, as high inflation has barely made a dent in voters’ preferences for the two parties. A fragmented electorate comprised of racial and gender segments whose preferences are driven by fandom and anti-fandom will lead to increasingly negative campaigns featuring ads highlighting the threat of the non-preferred party’s candidates. When voters are focused on identity, negative advertising becomes the ideal method to use fear to create anti-fandom (hate) to motivate turnout. Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump Barring further disruptions, the matchup is set for the 2024 presidential contest (as of this writing, we do not know the Democratic VP). We do know the matchup between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris is a contest between polarizing figures. Donald Trump is a movement candidate who has redefined the Republican party. He inspires passionate fandom from his followers and amazing antipathy from major media and cultural outlets. Harris is also polarizing. In the immediate aftermath of Biden’s withdrawal, Harris received massive media and donor support. However, Harris has not demonstrated any significant national voter appeal, and her time as VP has generated ample blooper real material. My approach to assessing the race is to examine each candidate's fandom and anti-fandom. Fandom is the candidate’s core, resilient support, while anti-fandom is about antipathy. Fandom and anti-fandom are especially powerful metrics for a candidate because they are relatively fixed after a candidate gains high awareness. Once an individual identifies with the candidate (e.g., they are on the same team), an attack on the candidate is an attack on the individual. This means attack ads do not work because fans feel they are being attacked. Anti-fans are also important because they constrain a candidate’s support. A Trump anti-fan is unpersuadable by efforts from the Trump campaign because their identity is steeped in opposition to him. Fans and anti-fans are trapped in a cycle of confirmation bias where all information is processed to fit their fandom. I use data from the Next Generation Fandom Survey to assess candidate fandom and anti-fandom. The Next Generation Fandom Survey involves a nationwide sample of the U.S. population regarding fandom for sports and other cultural entities. In the 2024 edition, political figures such as Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and RFK Jr were included. The survey captured responses from 2053 subjects split evenly across the four primary generations (Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers), and the sample is representative in terms of racial background. The survey does not focus on likely or registered voters, so the results reflect overall societal sentiments rather than the electorate's opinions. The critical survey question asks subjects to rate how much of a fan they are of a celebrity on a 1 to 7 scale. In the following discussion, individuals who rated their fandom a 6 or 7 on the 7-point scale are categorized as Fans, while those who rate their fandom a 1 or 2 are classified as Anti-Fans. Table 1 shows the Fandom and Anti-Fandom rates for the entire sample. Donald Trump has a 27% fandom rate compared to Harris's 21%. The fandom rate is crucial because it identifies the candidate's core support. It also indicates something important about the candidate’s potential likability. In terms of anti-fandom, Harris has a slightly higher Anti-Fandom rate. Anti-Fandom is also critical as it shows the percentage of people who hate a candidate. The data suggests that Americans find Harris to be more dislikable than Trump. Notably, the anti-fandom rates are significantly higher than the fandom rates. The American public has significant disdain for politicians. The high anti-fandom rates are both the product of past negative advertising and the cause of future negative campaign strategies. Table 1: Candidate Fandom and Anti-Fandom Table 2 reports fandom rates based of the two gender segments. Trump has a 7%-point advantage with men and a surprising 4% advantage with women. This is a stunning result as Trump is generally regarded as having weakness with female voters. However, this weakness shows up in the anti-fandom rates. In the male segment, Trump has a 5%-point advantage in anti-fandom (fewer anti-fans), but a 3% disadvantage in the female segment. This reveals that Trump is polarizing to women, and almost half of women find Trump to be highly dislikable. This finding is why the Harris campaign is likely to use advertising that casts Trump as misogynistic or a threat to women to motivate turnout by female voters. Table 2: Candidate Fandom by Gender Table 3 shows the fandom rates for the two younger demographic segments: Gen Z and Millennials. This Table also shows Trump’s relative performance versus Biden (in parentheses in the last column). Trump enjoys higher fandom and lower anti-fandom than Harris in both the Gen Z and Millennial segments. In terms of fandom, Trump is plus 6% in Gen Z and plus 11% with Millennials. Critically, Harris outperforms Biden. The Gen Z anti-fandom gap between Trump and Biden favored Trump by 6% points. However, this gap shrinks to just 1% point when Harris is the comparison. The data suggests that Harris is stronger with Gen Z than Biden. Table 3: Candidate Fandom in Younger Generations Table 4 reports the fandom rates based on a racial segmentation scheme. Specifically, the sample is divided into White and Non-White categories. This is a crude segmentation, but it illustrates some essential points. Trump enjoys a significant 14% positive fandom advantage in the White demographic. He also enjoys a 10-point edge in (lower) anti-fandom. The pattern essentially reverses in the Non-White segment, as Harris has a 10-point advantage in fandom and a 17-point edge in anti-fandom. Trump’s anti-fandom in the Non-White segment is critical to the campaign. Nearly half of this segment has antipathy or hate for Trump. This high anti-fandom suggests an opportunity for the Harris campaign to emphasize racial angles in their attacks on Trump. Table 4: Candidate Fandom by Race In addition to fandom and anti-fandom rates across demographic categories, insights can be gleaned by looking at segmentation variables that reflect cultural values or personality. Table 5 shows fandom and anti-fandom rates for Trump and Harris for segments defined by fandom for Taylor Swift (Swifties) and Baseball. The Swifties skew towards Harris. The implication is that young women engaged in popular culture have more positive fandom for Harris and more negativity toward Trump. This is unsurprising given the content of the popular culture and Swift’s personal liberalism. The Swiftie segment shows a much stronger skew for Harris than all but the Non-White segment. Examining the data at a cultural level is vital as it indicates that it isn’t necessarily youth or gender where Harris has an advantage but a combination of youth, gender, and a specific type of cultural engagement. The table also includes fandom rates for baseball fans. In the Baseball Fan segment, Trump enjoys an 8% point fandom advantage and a 7% anti-fandom advantage (lower anti-fandom). Like the case of the Swifties, the fandom rates of Baseball Fans reveal something about Trump’s core support. Baseball is a very traditional game with an older fan base, and traditionalism is probably the core value of Trump fans. Trump’s negative advertising is likely to focus on the threats to traditional values (i.e., Harris is a San Francisco liberal). Table 5: Candidate Fandom and Cultural Segments Commentary and Prediction Fandom is a powerful metric for predicting political success, but like most data points, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Fandom is a measure of unwavering core support while anti-fandom measures the group that will never support and is likely to show up to vote against a candidate. Examining fandom rates across multiple segments reveals that Harris’ core support is concentrated in specific cultural and racial segments. The analysis also suggests that Trump's core support is broader than is usually acknowledged and that his main problem is significant anti-fandom with women and minorities. Harris’ problem is a lack of love, while Trump’s is too much hate. Notably, I am not paying too much attention to the current wave of excitement and enthusiasm surrounding Harris. The recent enthusiasm is likely more a manifestation of the Democratic base’s hopes and a relentless media onslaught than an actual increase in passion for Harris. Maybe there will be a permanent shift upward in Harris’s fandom, but I don’t see any logic for why this would occur. Harris isn’t suddenly more likable or aspirational than she was last month. The argument that the American people are becoming more acquainted with her is dubious, given that she has been the Vice President or a major presidential candidate for almost five years. What are the implications for the upcoming election? Voting is not only about fandom or hate, so we must consider some additional factors. For instance, many potential voters lack passion and knowledge and are more prone to vote based on identity rather than ideology. If a region or demographic segment consistently votes for a party 75% of the time, that’s voting more based on fixed identities than current societal conditions. The American electorate has many of these types of fixed-preference voter segments. Furthermore, as the American electorate becomes more diverse, identity-based voting seems to be making presidential contests more predictable. The baseline seems to be that the Democratic candidate will win the popular vote by a few percentage points, and the Electoral College will come down to a few states, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Examining past electoral maps shows far more shifting of states across elections. Now, all but a handful of states are regarded as non-competitive. The Figure below shows the presidential popular vote margins for the last 50 years. It shows a trend towards smaller margins for the winning candidate, which is at least partly due to growing ethnic diversity and more fixed (at least in the near and medium terms) identity-based voting. Over the last 13 cycles, the margin of victory has dropped by about 1% every four years. Demographic change has also locked in a high baseline level of support for Democratic candidates. The last time a Republican won the popular vote was in 2004, with George Bush as the incumbent. Figure 1: Presidential Vote Margin 1972 to 2020 In addition to shrinking election margins, demographic change promises to change future campaign tones. The increasing relevance of fandom and anti-fandom, combined with the growing diversity of the electorate, will make 2024 an extremely negative campaign. The 2024 election will be determined by identity-based demographic trends and negative (anti-fandom) marketing campaigns. Demographics are destiny, and America is changing rapidly in ways that make it increasingly difficult for the Republicans to win the popular vote. It doesn’t matter if the Democrat is Harris, Newsom, Clinton, or Whitmer while the Republican is Rubio, Haley, Cruz, or Burgum. The baseline is probably 52% to 48%, D to R. Candidate fandom and anti-fandom probably shift the vote 2 or 3 percent in either direction. The correlation of demographic traits with voting behaviors creates incentives for campaign strategies that focus on identity. Republicans are eager to shift some percentage of Black or Hispanic voters to their cause because it simultaneously reduces the Democrats' base and grows Republican totals. In contrast, Democrats need to motivate marginal voters in the female, Black, and Hispanic segments to turn out. Fear-based appeals are the most effective tool for both parties' goals. Negative messaging is also prevalent because of the general view of politicians. Politicians tend to inspire more antipathy (anti-fandom) than admiration (fandom). The fandom data shows this, as both candidates have far more anti-fans than fans (this holds with other politicians) . The modern election calculus is, therefore, focused on aggressive negative ads that inspire marginal voters to take the initiative to vote against a hated candidate. Passion drives behavior, and it's far easier to drive fear and hatred of a candidate than to inspire passion and admiration. Considering the fandom data and the current electorate, I have two predictions. First, we will witness an incredibly nasty race. Harris’s best bet is to demonize Trump to motivate the anti-Trump voters to turn out. The American culture of 2024 includes constant repetition that many Democratic voting constituencies are marginalized and threatened. These segments are best motivated by using messages that cast the Republicans as the danger or oppressor. Women will fear losing reproductive rights, and African Americans will be primed with threats to voting rights. Trump will also employ negative messaging, but Trump’s adoption of a negative campaign comes from a slightly different motivation. Trump’s core support consists of conservatives who are frustrated by a lack of cultural power and representation. This group is looking for someone who will fight for their values. This desire for a “fighting advocate” explains much of Trump’s appeal, as his supporters are enthusiastic about his “mean tweets and nicknames.” There will also be fear-based advertising as Harris will be positioned as wanting to defund police and open the border. Second, Trump wins in a close contest. Comparing Trump’s and Harris’ fandom and anti-fandom suggests the Harris campaign faces an uphill challenge. Despite the current blitz of enthusiasm for Harris as a replacement for a failing Joe Biden, her “brand” has not shown an ability to stimulate passion, and her dislike levels exceed Trump's. It seems unlikely that she will be able to inspire fans. While Trump has a significant fanbase and weaknesses in terms of strong anti-fandom levels in minority and cultural segments, he probably beat Clinton in 2016 because her anti-fandom was equivalent to his. In contrast, he lost to Biden because Biden had less anti-fandom (in 2020). Kamala Harris seems more like Clinton than Biden, so look for a similar outcome as in 2016. The bottom-line prediction: An exceptionally negative campaign, with Trump’s greater baseline fandom and Harris’s charisma deficit leading to a narrow Trump victory. As in 2016,Trump wins the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. Addendum: Future Fandom Lesson The structure of the American electorate and the propensity of people to vote based on identity rather than ideology mean that negative campaigns are the standard in the near future. The essential observation is that demographic trends create an electorate that is more a collection of identity segments than a homogeneous population that varies in ideology. An increasingly diverse electorate likely means increasingly negative presidential campaigns as negative or fear-based appeals are especially effective when elections focus on threats to identity groups. The tragedy of this situation is that the negative messages of campaigns amplify racial division and acrimony. When the next election occurs, the electorate is even more polarized, and negative or fear-based appeals are again the most effective. Mike Lewis is an expert in the areas of analytics and marketing. This approach makes Professor Lewis a unique expert on fandom as his work addresses the complete process from success on the field to success at the box office and the campaign trail. Michael is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. Interested in following Future Fandom! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.
Covering the latest in Venezuela?
The history of Venezuelan politics is a compelling narrative that reflects the dynamic interplay of power, ideology, and social change in Latin America. This topic is particularly newsworthy due to its relevance in understanding current global geopolitical shifts, the rise and fall of political regimes, and the enduring struggle for democracy and human rights. Venezuela's political history offers insights into the impacts of oil wealth, populism, and international interventions, making it a rich subject for journalistic exploration. Key story angles for journalists could include: The Rise of Populism: Exploring the emergence and impact of populist leaders in Venezuelan history, particularly focusing on Hugo Chávez's Bolivarian Revolution. Economic Boom and Bust: Analyzing the role of oil wealth in shaping Venezuela's political landscape, from periods of prosperity to economic crises. Human Rights and Social Movements: Investigating the human rights situation in Venezuela, including the struggles of political dissidents, social activists, and the general population. International Relations and Influence: Examining Venezuela's foreign policy, its alliances, and the impact of international sanctions and interventions on its political stability. Democratic Erosion and Authoritarianism: Tracing the decline of democratic institutions and the rise of authoritarian practices in Venezuela, highlighting key turning points and figures. Future Prospects and Reform: Featuring expert analysis on the potential paths forward for Venezuela, including political reforms, economic recovery plans, and the role of the international community. By delving into these aspects, journalists can provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of Venezuelan politics, offering readers diverse perspectives and in-depth coverage of a nation at the crossroads of significant historical and contemporary challenges. Connect with an expert if you need to know more about the History of Venezuelan Politics: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Photo credit: Micho