1 / 45

What is Momentum in Pres election?

What is Momentum in Pres election?. Rational or irrational behavior Learning (via media, ads,...) policy personality viability reduction in uncertainty Bandwagon effect ?. What is Momentum?. Insurgent (anti-establishment candidate) Gaining in poll standing over time

rangle
Download Presentation

What is Momentum in Pres election?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What is Momentum in Pres election? • Rational or irrational behavior • Learning (via media, ads,...) • policy • personality • viability • reduction in uncertainty • Bandwagon effect ?

  2. What is Momentum? • Insurgent (anti-establishment candidate) • Gaining in poll standing over time • Usually no time to win w/ momentum • what effects frontloading? • less time for outsider to build momentum? • Carter (1976); Reagan (1976); Hart (1984); McCain (2000)....Obama (2008)

  3. Momentum Public Familiarity with Presidential Candidates, 2000 100 80 Hear of McCain Hear of Bush 60 Percent Familiar Hear of Gore 40 20 2/4 2/20 1/19 9/26 2/29 12/21 10/10 10/24 12/12 Date, 1999 - 2000

  4. Momentum Public Familiarity with Presidential Candidates, 2008

  5. Momentum Public Attitudes about Presidential Candidates, 2000 80 70 60 Favorable opinion of McCain Percent Favorable opinion of Bush 50 Favorable opinion of Gore 40 30 20 2/4 2/20 1/19 2/29 9/26 12/21 10/10 10/24 12/12 Date, 1999 - 2000

  6. Momentum Public Attitudes about Presidential Candidates, 2008

  7. Figure 6.1: Public Interest in the 2000 Presidential Election 50 40 talked about election 30 recently percent Summary measure of attention 20 10 ap2 ap5 mar5 dec5 feb2 feb6 feb9 jan2 jan9 mar7 ap26 ap16 ap18 may3 june7 dec12 dec19 dec26 feb13 feb20 feb27 jan12 jan23 jan30 mar12 mar14 mar19 mar26 may10 may17 may24 may31 june14 nov14 nov23 nov28 date Momentum NH

  8. Momentum Candidates Rare • Usually lose nomination • Carter 1976 • Reagan 1976 (lost) • Hart 1984 (lost) • Buchanan 1992 (lost) • Obama 2008

  9. Nomination Rules (again) • Dems use PR by state • GOP mostly winner-take-all

  10. Art, Sports and Democracy

  11. Does Democracy Depend on our Bowling Together?

  12. And: Baseball leagues, Quilting bees, Theater groups, Soccer (football) clubs, PTAs, League of Women Voters, Labor unions, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts Elks, Lions, Moose, Eagles Red Cross….. etc.

  13. Sports, & Arts Groups as Venues to Build Social Capital • Social capital = • Networks of trust • Skills of citizenship • Working w/ others • Interacting w/ different types of people

  14. The Argument • Democracy depends upon social capital • cooperative relationships • Social Capital built via voluntary social groups • Participation in social groups in decline • WHY? work-force change, commuting, suburbs, the 60s, mobility…AND... • Decline in “civic engagement” product of decline in group activity

  15. Topline: group memberships; 2nd line: turnout; 3rd line, read newspapers; 3rd & 4th lines = trust

  16. The Argument Putnam: Democratic “performance” greater where more participation in social groups. In Italy, football clubs and choral societies. Verba, Scholzman and Brady: “Running a rummage sale to benefit the church day care center or editing a church newsletter provides opportunities for the development of skills relevant to politics even though the enterprise is expressly non-political.” Tocqueville: "the serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute" organizations alike would instil the habits of public spiritedness.

  17. The Argument Active in vol. groups Trusting, skills Democratic performance

  18. Does this breed Civic Engagement?

  19. Why a decline of “civicness,” and political engagement • in recent decades? • trust in government down • trust in elected officials down • political efficacy • fewer working on campaigns • participation (voting, joining parties) down (?)

  20. Levels of Social Group Membership, USA by Age Cohort AGE COHORT Tuned 18 in about: 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 . Not a member of 25% 26% 29% 36% 37% any group Member of one or 44 42 42 39 41 two social groups Member of three or 31 31 29 25 22 more social groups Source: Authors’ calculations from raw data in GSS 1972 – 2000 cumulative datafile.

  21. Trust in the Federal Government: 1958 - 2002 80 70 60 50 Percent Trusting Most or All of the Time 40 30 20 1978 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 Year Source: National Election Study..... by 2004, trust at 47%

  22. Trends in Trust in Government, and Church- Based Group Membership USA: 1974 - 1994 60 50 Trust Government? Percent of Respondents 40 Member of Church-based Group? 30 20 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 Year of Survey Source: General Social Survey

  23. Research Questions • Is there an association between membership in groups and democratic virtues? • Is the association stronger among some groups than others? • Does joining a football club instil democratic virtues? • Arts groups particularly well-suited to the task? • Are things the same across all nations?

  24. Percent of Adults Claiming Group Memberships in 14 Democracies Sources: Authors’ analysis of raw data files - Europe, 1990 Eurobaromerter Survey 34.0; New Zealand, 1999 New Zealand Election Study; USA, 1994 General Social Survey.

  25. Types of groups: Europe New Zealand political parties political parties labor unions unions church groups church groups arts groups cultural organizations human rights groups interest groups ecology groups interest groups youth groups youth groups consumer organizations interest groups sports groups sports groups "other" social groups. social clubs community service hobbies groups

  26. Relative Strength of Association: Group Memberships and Political Engagement, Europe Membership Alone Union .63 all p < .01 Human rights .59 Charity Groups .59 Consumer Groups .47 Arts Groups .42 Environmental groups .41 Youth Groups ns Sports groups ns Church group ns

  27. Results Join a Party Freq. of Political Discussion Sports Arts Sports Arts Norway .63 .88 .48 .84 Denmark -.07 .47 -.04 .46 Netherlands -.17 .89 -.29 .44 Belgium .70.43.43 .16 W Germany -.13 .86 .16 1.00 France -.31 .62 -.18 .29 Ireland -.09 -.28 .14 .97 Portugal 1.41 .08 .30 .12 Italy .50 .98 .34 .74 Spain -.65 2.06 .12 .54 Great Britain .20 1.11 -.08 .93 Greece .15 1.29 -.19 .21 BOLD = significant...larger number (+/-) = greater effect Controlling for age, income, gender, education, religion, ideology

  28. Major findings: Not all groups have same relationship w/ engagement More time spent with social groups = more political engagement Many non-political groups have no association Churches Sports – only in NZ, Norway, Belgium, Port. Arts groups trump sports groups Sports: Correlation, not causation?

  29. Cross National: Trust and Sports, 29 Nations 2004 Correlation btw % who join sports clubs and % trust people

  30. TV = Time displacement effect ?

  31. From Putnam’s book, Bowling Alone

  32. Partisans vs. Independents • Generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Dem., Rep., or independent • [If D or r]: Would you call yourself a strong [D or R]? • [If Ind]: Would you say you think of yourself as closer to the Ds or Rs

  33. Partisans vs. Independents • As of 2004: • Strong D 17 • Weak D 16 • Ind D 17 49 D • Ind 10 10 I • Ind R 12 41 R • Weak R 12 • Strong R 16

  34. Partisanship trends

  35. Partisans vs. Independents • When we lump independent‘leaners’ in w/ partisans, not much change in D vs. R distribution since 1984 • Slight GOP gain • some oscillation • What about those independents?

  36. Partisans vs. Independents Trends in US Party ID; 1952 - 2006

  37. Independents vs. Partisans

  38. Partisans vs. Independents • What do these responses mean? • Party Identification strongest predictor of voting • learned early, social transmition • rarely changes over lifetime • see F&Z figures

  39. Partisans vs. Independents Funnel of Causality social background Party attachments campaign events vote Values Groups Time (years & years)

  40. Partisans vs. Independents • Partisans • identify w/ party early • identification stronger over lifetime • partisans more interested in politics • Today, Party ID an even stronger predictor of voting than ever • 90%+ of strong ID vote w/ party • hence, elections somewhat predictable

  41. Partisans vs. Independents • Independents • fastest growing group of voters ‘leaners’ • ID as “independent” but say they are “closer” to one particular party • Leaners may be more ‘partisan’ than weak partisans • Vote party if forced to chose btwn D and R • Highly interested

  42. Partisans vs. Independents • Independents • but, independents less happy w/ choices than weak or strong partisans • more willing to defect if offered a 3rd choice • Important aspect of dealignment • more independents, who are more volitile

  43. Partisans vs. Independents Does a party represent you reasonably well

  44. Partisans vs. Independents

  45. Partisans vs. Independents • Anderson (+ others) 1980 • 26% of Ind Dems, 14% of Ind, 12% of weak R • Perot 1992 • 23% of Ind Dems, 36% of Ind, 26% of Ind R, 25% of weak Rs • Nader 2000 • 8% of Ind Dems, 6% of Ind, 6% Ind Reps • 0% from weak/strong partisans

More Related