Vraag voor de campagne: wat wordt HET thema

2. Vraag voor de campagne: wat wordt HET thema • Islamitische immigranten (culturele dimensie – conservatieve kant) • Economisch herstel (consensusissues - regeringspartijen) • Bezuinigingen overheidsuitgaven (links-rechts-dimensie – rechtse kant)

3. Kengetallen 2010 • Grote volatiliteit 34 zetels verschoven tussen partijen (evenals in 1994, geringer dan in 2002) • Grote fragmentatie dan ooit, grootste partij slechts 31 zetels, slechts 1/5 van de stemmen entropie in NE, perplexiteit = 7.7 gelijke partijen

4. Waarom de Stemwijzer CDA-kiezers alle kanten opstuurt

5. Waarom Kieskompas CDA-kiezers wegjaagt

6. IntomartGfk poll 7th – 8th Mai June 7th – June 8th Correct: PvdD, CDA, SGP,D66,VVD; 1 zetel fout PvdA, GroenLinks, D66 echt fout: SP en CU te hoog, PVV te laag

7. IntomartGfk poll PvdA verreweg de grootste op 34; PVV op 20

8. Four theories to explain short term shifts in election campaigns • Retrospective voting and news about real-world developments • Prospective issue voting and news about the issue positions of parties • Game theory and news on Cooperation and Conflict, Support and Criticism • Momentum, bandwagon/underdog effects, herding effect, and news on Success and Failure Mediating variables: propensity to vote, trust or striking features and striking events ?

9. Methode • Daily Content Analysis (Nieuwsmonitor) • Weekly Panel Survey data (IntomartGfk, 10 waves, (first wave early April n=1804, 10th wave 7-8th June n=1200) • reconstruction of personal, exponentially decaying, information sets • Operationalisation of mediating News Consumer Variables • Exploratory Data Analysis: logistic model

10. Noteworthy: campaign 2010 until April 23rd issue-oriented

11. Table 2: Real world developments according to the media retrospective voting: terrifying real-world conditions in 2010

12. Table 3: Issue positions of parties in 2010 election campaign according to the media, weighted by media attention Issue Positions 2010: what happened with leftist issues? Issue positions of parties in 2010 election campaign according to the media, weighted by media attention

13. Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010 Issue ownership: issue reputations March (n=1804)

14. Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ? Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010 Feb 19th – April 11th

15. Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ? Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010 April 26th – May 9th

16. Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ? Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010 May 10h – May 23trd

17. Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ? Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010

18. Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ? Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010

19. Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ? Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010

20. Voter flows: June 7th-8th as compared to 2006 elections

21. Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?

22. Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?

23. Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?

24. Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?

25. Voter flows:June 7th-8th as compared to 2010 mun.el.March

26. Voter flows May 17th- May 23rd

27. Voter flows

28. Voter flows

29. Attribution of success and failure late March: all PvdA March 15th - March 28th

30. Early april: VVD more success than PvdA March 29th - April 11th

31. Attribution of success and failure in May: all VVD Mai 10h – Mai 23th

32. Logistic model to explain whether one votes for a party in a given week

33. Logistic model per party • Christian Democrats (CDA) • strong impact of the (negative) media performance of the party on the voters (leadership of Balkenende, extramarital affair of family man De Vries). • Impact of news on struggles within (doubts about Balkenende, De Vries) • positive impact with their issue positions, for example with a strong position against crime. • The Socialist Party (SP) • Until May 23rd unable in 2010 to make impressions on the voters with issue positions. • Strong recovery after 2nd television debate; the come back of leftist issues

34. Logistic model per party • The Labour Party (PvdA) • did not succeed in making an impact with its issue positions in addition to the effects of subjective media performance until late April • Shifts of voters to, or from the party can be explained best by news on successes and failures (e.g. by the great successes attributed to the major of Amsterdam in his political honeymoon month) and by news about the support for (praise, positive remarks, rather than criticisms on!) the new leader of the Labour Party in the early weeks of the election campaign • VVD • strong impact due to its issue positions on rightist issues (cuts in government expenditures, tax cuts), government efficiency, norms and values.

35. Evaluation of the campaign • Highlights • Respect of party leaders for each other • Issues, although not always the most relevant issues (not: EU, Afghanistan, climate) • Sense of shame • Fragmented television debates  fragmented political landscape • lack of clarity with regard to social effects of party programmes (e.g. de Volkskrant – Nyfer) • NOS journaal Mai 1st: internal dissent news about anonymous CDA-leaders who did not trust Balkenende

36. Summary / Discussion Dutch Elections 2010 • It’s cuts in government expenditures, • It’s only the right side of the left-right axis • It’s the VVD

37. Cross-national proximity scaling of party-issue-landscape