Presentation on theme: "What is Momentum in Pres election? Rational or irrational behavior Learning (via media, ads,...) –policy –personality –viability –reduction in uncertainty."— Presentation transcript:
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 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)
Momentum 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Familiar 9/26 10/1010/2412/12 12/21 1/19 2/4 2/20 2/29 Date, 1999 - 2000 Public Familiarity with Presidential Candidates, 2000 Hear of Gore Hear of Bush Hear of McCain
Momentum Public Familiarity with Presidential Candidates, 2008
Momentum 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent 9/26 10/1010/2412/12 12/21 1/19 2/4 2/20 2/29 Date, 1999 - 2000 Public Attitudes about Presidential Candidates, 2000 Favorable opinion of Gore Favorable opinion of Bush Favorable opinion of McCain
Momentum Public Attitudes about Presidential Candidates, 2008
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.
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
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
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.
The Argument Active in vol. groups Trusting, skills Democratic performance
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 (?)
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.
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent Trusting Most or All of the Time 19581962196619701974 1978 198219861990199419982002 Year Trust in the Federal Government: 1958 - 2002 Source: National Election Study..... by 2004, trust at 47%
20 30 40 50 60 Percent of Respondents 19741979198419891994 Year of Survey Trends in Trust in Government, and Church- Based Group Membership USA: 1974 - 1994 Member of Church-based Group? Trust Government? Source: General Social Survey
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?
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. Percent of Adults Claiming Group Memberships in 14 Democracies
Types of groups: EuropeNew Zealandpolitical parties labor unions unionschurch groups arts groupscultural organizations human rights groupsinterest groups ecology groupsinterest groupsyouth groups consumer organizationsinterest groupssports groups "other" social groups.social clubs community service hobbies groups
Relative Strength of Association: Group Memberships and Political Engagement, Europe Membership Alone Union.63all 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
Results Join a Party Freq. of Political Discussion Sports ArtsSportsArts Norway.18.104.22.168 Denmark-.07.47-.04.46 Netherlands-.17.89-.29.44 Belgium.22.214.171.124 W Germany-.13.86.161.00 France -.31.62-.18.29 Ireland-.09-.28.14.97 Portugal1.41.08.30.12 Italy.126.96.36.199 Spain-.652.06.12.54 Great Britain.201.11-.08.93 Greece.151.29-.19.21 BOLD = significant...larger number (+/-) = greater effect Controlling for age, income, gender, education, religion, ideology
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?
Cross National: Trust and Sports, 29 Nations 2004 Correlation btw % who join sports clubs and % trust people
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
Partisans vs. Independents As of 2004: –Strong D17 –Weak D16 –Ind D1749 D –Ind1010 I –Ind R1241 R –Weak R12 –Strong R16
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
Partisans vs. Independents Funnel of Causality social background Party attachments Values Groups campaign events vote Time (years & years)
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
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
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
Partisans vs. Independents Does a party represent you reasonably well
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