1. Unit #2 Political Behaviors & Beliefs In Class Lecture & Activities

2. Political Culture: The widely shared beliefs, values and norms that citizens share about government. Characteristics 1. 1.Liberty 2. 2.Equality Of opportunity more than equality of result Political equality more than economic equality 3. 3.Democracy 4. 4.Civic Duty 5. 5.Individual Responsibility

3. Sources of Political Culture Constitution: developed in an “adversarial spirit” Distrust of government Religious beliefs The family Absence of class consciousness Culture War

4. Mistrust of government Distrust of Government has grown, esp. since the 1960s (Vietnam, Watergate, inflation-70s, Clinton, Bush) Political Efficacy: the sense that one can both understand & influence public policy (Internal) or that the government will respond to the citizenry (External) Political tolerance-more in the abstract than in the concrete

6. Types Public Opinion: Ch. 7, 155-158 Types of Publics Elites: 1. 2. Attentive: Mass: Types of Opinions Stable: Fluid: Latent: Salient: Consensus: Polarized:

7. measurements of Public Opinion 1. 1.By elections 2. 2.Straw (informal) polls- 3. 3. Scientific polls – Validity of polls must consider: a) a)Definition of universe: b) b)Selection of sampling Random Representative sample - Sampling error: c) c)writing the questions to avoid bias o o Uses of polls: 1. 2.

8. measurements of Public Opinion Abuses of polls: “ Horse-race ” mentality Pandering Projections- Public Awareness & Interest in politics: 1. 1.Surveys show a substantial lack of political knowledge 2. 2.Secondary in importance to mass public

9. Political Socialization: process by which people acquire their political beliefs. 1. 1. Family: Strongest. 2. 2.Schools: 3. 3.Religion Protestant - Catholic – Jewish - 4.Race/Ethnicity Whites: Blacks: Hispanics Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans Cubans Asians: 5. Income/Social Class : higher income lower income

10. 6. 6.Gender Gap Women “Year of the Woman” 1992: Emily’s List “Soccer Moms” “NASCAR Dads” Million Mom March 2000: “security moms” (2004) Palin’s “Hockey Moms” (2008), “Mama Grizzlies” (2010) 2012: “War on Women” Sex-sensitive issues: 7. 7.Geographic Region: Solid South: New England: 8. 8.Mass media: Level of political information is single best predictor of being liberal on civil rights/liberties issues 9. 9.Elite opinion: Shapes public policy and influences results, but does not define problems

12. 2012 Election http://www.morni ngsidecenter.org/ teachable- moment/lessons/ after-2012- election-exit- polls- demographics

14. Ideology: integrated set of beliefs & values that shape a person’s views. Smaller percentage of ideologues in our two-party system than in the multi- party systems used in Europe. Most Americans tend to be non-ideological and more moderate in their beliefs Liberalism: 18 th century classical liberalism: Limited gov Gov is chief threat to liberty Role of government to protect property rights. 20 th century Modern liberalism (New Deal Liberalism) Expanded role of gov Corporations seen as chief threat to liberty Role of gov to protect people’s well- being.

15. Political ideology: a consistent set of beliefs about what policies government ought to pursue. Liberalism v. conservativism Liberalism: Strong influence of liberalism 1930s-1970s Backlash 1980s & 1990s Liberalism gone too far. Need to return to individualism and less reliance on big gov Neoliberals Less likely to rely upon gov as solution as New Deal liberals Rise of Democratic Leadership Council with members Clintons, Harold Ford, Jr. Obama & the return of New Deal Liberalism Greater willingness to use the fed gov as tool to protect well- being of people

16. conservativism Essentially Classical Liberalism Resurgence since late 70s: Reagan/Bush 41/ Bush 43 104 th -109 th Congresses (Gingrich “Contract with America”) Strength in formerly “solid south,” Rocky Mtn., Great Plains evangelical Christians Strong support for tax cuts (Clinton, Bush 43) Emphasis on private sector to solve problems Neoconservatives & the “New Right” Some emphasize social issues (school prayer, anti-abortion, anti- homosexuality) Known as the “Religious Right.” Use of faith- based initiatives by Bush 43. Some focus on foreign policy and national security-war on terrorism & pre-emptive strikes (Iraq) “Compassionate Conservatism”: Bush 43

17. Socialism means of production, distribution, and exchange controlled by gov. Western Europe Weak in U.S. (associated with radicalism, goes against belief in individualism, American Dream, and suspicion of big gov.) Libertarianism Extreme emphasis on individual liberty Extreme cutback on role of gov.-gov should only defend the nation

18. Political Spectrum Quiz 1-Where are you? 2-What Do these Labels Mean? 3-Were the Questions Relevant, why or why not? LEFTRIGHT AUTHORITARIAN LIBERTARIAN

20. 2008 presidential candidates

21. 2012 Presidential candidates

22. VP Candidates Ideology Scores

23. Ch. 8: Voter TurnOUt A. A.Historical Qualifications for Suffrage 1. 1.Religion 2. 2.Property 3. 3.Race (eliminated by ___Amendment-1870) Supreme Court’s interpretation: denial of right to vote could not be solely on basis of race Methods used to disenfranchise: Literacy test, poll tax, grandfather clause, white primary 4. 4.Sex (eliminated by ____ Amendment-1920) 5. 5.Income (eliminated by _____ Amendment banning the poll tax-1964) 6. 6.Literacy (eliminated by __________________________) 7. 7.Minimum age of 21 (eliminated by ____ Amendment-1971) B. B.Current Qualifications (set by states): CitizenshipFelons ResidencyRegistration (except ND)

24. B. Voter TurnOUt in u.s. compared to foreign nations 1. 1.Voter turnout=number of those who voted/number of those age- eligible to vote. 2. 2.V.A.P. : 3. 3.V.E.P. : Presidential Elections US ~50%, Midterm Congressional ~30-40%, Lower state/local about 10% *Decline since 1960 but rose slightly in 2008 62.3%; 2012 - 57.5% 4. 4.Comparable industrialized nations in West ~90% BUT

25. Vep: green vap: yellow

26. Voter turnout: federal elections 1964-2006

28. Reasons for low Voter TurnOUt A. A.Institutional barriers 1. 1.Registration: National Voter Registration Act of 1993 2. 2.“Ballot Fatigue” 3. 3.Excessive number of elections. General election > primary election National election > state Presidential elections have highest turnout compared to Congressional 4. 4.Absentee Ballot difficulties 5. 5.YOUNG have lowest turnout B.Political Reasons 1.Lack of political efficacy 2.Dissatisfaction with candidates, parties, politics 3.Lack of strong 2-party competition 4.Weakness of parties in mobilizing voters 1890: Australian ballot- government printed ballot, uniform in size and shape, cast in secret

29. In the last half of the 20 th century, voter turnout in federal elections has declined. During the same period, voter turnout has been higher in presidential elections than in midterm elections. Identify two factors that have contributed to the overall decline in turnout in federal elections and explain how each factor has contributed to the overall decline. Identify and explain two reasons why voter turnout has been higher in presidential elections than in midterm elections.

30. Who participates in politics? Six forms of participation 1. 1.Inactive:(22%) don’t care, don’t vote 2. 2.Activists: (11%) participate in all forms of politics 3. 3.Voting specialists: 4. 4.Campaigners: 5. 5.Communalists: 6. 6.Parochial participants:

31. Who participates in politics? A. A.Characteristics of those likely to vote: 1. 1. Greatest predictor of voting EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT. 2. 2.INCOME 3. 3.AGE 4. 4.RACE/ETHNICITY 5. 5.SEX 6. 6.RELIGIOUS INVOLVEMENT B. B.Does low voter turnout matter? 1. 1.If cross section of U.S. represented then no but, 2. 2.Class bias: older whites with higher incomes over-represented C. C.Other forms of political participation: Petitionslocal party meetingswriting letterspersuading others Demonstrations/marches/ralliescampaign contributions

32. Political participation by family income

33. Factors affecting Voter Behavior: A. A.Geography 1. 1. Solid South: 2. 2.Great Plains: 3. 3.Rocky Mountain Region: 4. 4.New England: 5. 5.Far West: 6. 6.Rust belt states: 7. 7.Sun belt states http://americanpast.richmond.edu/voting/ B. B. Political Party ID: Strongest predictor of voting behavior (7-point scale) 1. 1.Straight ticket voting; decline in recent years, facilitated by party-column ballot 2. 2.Split ticket voting; increase in recent years. Facilitated by office-bloc ballot. 3. 3.Independents: rising number, tend to be young, college educated, above-average incomes http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab2a_1.htm

34. C. C.Demographic Factors 1. 1.Sex: Male v Female- 2. 2. Race /Ethnicity: White v. Nonwhite 3. 3. Social Class : Lower v. Upper 4. 4. Religion : Protestant v. Catholic v. Jewish D. D.Issues 1. 1.Retrospective Voting: 2. 2.Prospective Voting: E. E.Candidate Appeal: coattail effect of strong presidential candidate F. F.Time 1. 1.Maintaining elections: 2. 2.Deviating elections: 3. 3.Critical (“realigning” elections): long-term change in political alignment, e.g. 1860, 1896, 1932 4. 4.Midterm elections:

35. Ch. 10: Elections and campaigns Campaigns: Money, media, and polling have taken precedence over political parties as being more important in elections Majority of campaign money spent on media buys Two phases in elections: 1.Getting nominated 2.Getting elected I. Congressional Elections: 1. 1.Elections are regularly scheduled House: Senate: 2. 2.Fixed terms of office, no term limits 3. 3.House: Winner-take-all/ single- member district system 4. 4.Senate: state “at-large”

36. Congressional elections Factors affecting outcomes: 1. 1.Incumbency: greatest influence Scope of incumbency advantage: ~90% of congressmen who run are reelected; ~80% of senators Lack of competitiveness: charges of “permanent Congress” and the call for term limits (overturned by SCOTUS) 2. Advantages of incumbents: Franking privilege Campaign staff already in place Gerrymandered districts (“safe seats”) Committee service to district Name recognition Casework done for constituents Pork barrel projects for district (“earmarks”) Money (incumbents outspent challengers by 3:1 ratio)

37. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.phphttp://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php (Re-election rates 1964-2012)

38. Congressional elections Type of election: 1. 1.Incumbent campaigns less competitive (safe seats) 2. 2.Weak challenger campaigns uncompetitive, but more so than incumbents 3. 3.Strong challenger campaigns more competitive than both 4. 4.Open seat campaigns: the most competitive 5. 5.House or Senate: 6. 6.Midterm elections: loss of congressional seats for party of president Other Factors 1. 1.Coattail effect in decline; elections are largely independent and evidence of decline in party power 2. 2.Party affiliation is still a strong predictor of voter behavior 3. 3.Media, especially important in Senate elections 4. 4.Issues, especially the economy 5. 5.Campaign consultants: increasing importance of and decreasing importance of political parties 6. 6.technology

42. II. Presidential elections: path to the presidency Prior to nomination phase, there is the “invisible primary” or “The Great Mentioner” Time and money to build a campaign Individual can give $2,600 (adjusted for inflation 2013-14 election cycle); PACs $5,000 Federal matching grants to pay for primary: must raise $5,000 in 20 states to qualify Organization of large paid staff, volunteers, advisers on issues Strategy and themes: 1. 1.Incumbent vs. challenger 2. 2.Tone 3. 3.Theme 4. 4.Timing 5. 5.Target voter Nomination Phase:

43. Primary Elections Part of the Progressive reform of the early 20 th century designed to weaken parties Types: 1. 1.Closed Used in most states Only registered party members can vote for partisan offices, no crossing of party lines 2. 2. Open : Any voter may get ballot of any party they choose 3. 3.Blanket: Voters are not required to affiliate with a political party and may vote for any candidate on the ballot. The candidate from each political party who receives the most votes in the primary advances to the general election.Voters can “mix and match” their votes. Voters are not required to affiliate with a political party and may vote for any candidate on the ballot. The candidate from each political party who receives the most votes in the primary advances to the general election. In CA: top two candidates proceed to the general election regardless of party affiliation (effective 2012 – Prop 14) Similar to a run-off election

44. III. Primary vs. general ELECTIONS A. Caucuses : 1. 1.Some states use conventions method of sending delegates to the national convention 2. 2.Local caucuses—district convention—state convention—national convention. Each level selects delegates to attend higher level. 3. 3.Importance of IOWA: B. Primaries : 1. 1.Other states use presidential primaries as method of sending delegates to national convention. Use of primaries has increased in the last 30 years. 2. 2.“Beauty contest primary:” 3. 3.Delegate selection primary: 4. 4.Importance of NEW HAMPSHIRE: 5. 5.Dems use “ superdelegates ” (party leaders/office holders) to restore prominence at convention

45. C. Nominating system 1. 1.Selection of presidential nominee: 2. 2.Selection of VP nominee Chosen by pres nominee and rubber stamped by convention “ balance the ticket ” Development of party platform Reconciliation and unification of party by end of convention National Convention:

46. D. Analysis of nominating system: Pro: 1. 1.Highly participatory: caucuses, primaries, conventions 2. 2.Testing ground-weeds out the weaker candidates Con : 1. 1.Low turnout rates 2. 2.Too lengthy 3. 3.Does not test candidates for qualities necessary as president; media game 4. 4.Front-loading adversely affects states with later primaries 5. 5.Voters in primaries tend to be better educated and more affluent than those in general elections 6. 6.Delegates at caucuses and convention tend to be unrepresentative: more ideological, more activist, more education, less moderate, much more wealthy

47. FRQ Practice Nominees for the presidency of the two major parties are chosen by delegates at national conventions. How these delegates are chosen varies across states and between the political parties. a.Define each of the following methods used by states to choose delegates to party conventions. Open primary Caucus b. Republican Party rules permit winner-take-all primaries. Describe one consequence of this rule for the Republican nomination process. c. The Democratic Party has used superdelegates in the presidential nominating process since 1984. Explain why the use of superdelegates increases the influence of party leaders in the Democratic nomination process. d. Explain why a candidate’s strategy to win the nomination is often different from the strategy developed to win the general election.

48. E. Path to the presidency A. A.Fall campaign: 1. 1.Campaign issues: Position issues Valence issues 2. 2.Garnering support TV: spots and visuals Debates Internet/direct mail B. B.Election day Tuesday after first Monday in November in every fourth year C. C.Meeting of electors First Monday after the second Wednesday in December D. D.Formal election January 6, joint session of Congress formally counts electoral votes and declares winner E. E.Inauguration day: January 20

49. The electoral college Rationale: Poor communication Desire to have the “best” people select the president Compromise between direct election and congressional election Allotment of electoral votes to states: 1. 1.Each state has as many electoral votes as it has members of Congress (minimum of 3) 2. 2.D.C. has 3 votes (23 rd Amendment) 3. 3.538 electoral votes 4. 4.CA-largest at 55 5. 5.Each party develops a slate of electors prior to election (loyal party members)

50. Winning of electoral votes: Winner-take-all: Candidate with most popular votes (only a plurality is needed) wins all of that state’s electoral votes. Concentration of campaigning in large, competitive states. Electors meet in respective state capitals in December to cast ballots Winning the election: Majority of e.v. (270) to win If no candidate has majority: House selects President from among top 3 candidates Each state has 1 vote Senate selects VP from among top 2 candidates Done in 1800 and 1824

51. Criticisms: President can be elected with only a plurality, rather than a majority, of popular votes, esp with presence of strong 3 rd party candidates Possibility of a minority president “faithless electors” Small states proportionally overrepresented Inhibits development of third parties Alternatives: Direct election: each person’s vote counts District system Proportional system Keep electoral votes but abolish the electors themselves

52. 1. 1.Tradition/reluctance to tamper with the Constitution 2. 2.Amendment process 3. 3.Opposition from small states 4. 4.Opposition from urban racial minorities: concentration of racial minorities in swing states give them the clout to “tip the scales” towards their favored candidates under the present system Why has the electoral college system not been abolished?

54. Frq practice A significant feature of the electoral college is that most states have a winner-take-all system. a. a.Describe the winner-take-all feature of the electoral college. b. b.Explain one way in which the winner-take-all feature of the electoral college affects how presidential candidates from the two major political parties run their campaign. c. c.Explain one way in which the winner-take-all feature of the electoral college hinders third-party candidates. d. d.Explain two reasons why the electoral college has not been abolished. How many points?

55. Campaign finance: FECA 1. 1.Established Federal Elections Commission to regulate federal elections 2. 2.All candidates must disclose contributions and expenditures 3. 3.Pres candidates can receive federal subsidies – matching funds 4. 4.Contribution limitations : Individuals: $1,000 per candidate, per election PACs: $5,000 per candidate, per election, no overall cap; $15,000 to a national political party. (Political Action Committees were created as a result of FECA’s finance reforms; PACs are committees established by corporations, unions, and interest groups to raise money for campaigns through voluntary contributions) 5. 5. CHALLENGED in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) – effect on FECA: 1. 1.Court upheld limits on campaign contributions 2. 2.Court struck down limits on congressional campaign spending. 1 st Amendment protects spending as a form of expression. (limits on presidential races allowed because subsidized by fed gov) Federal Election Campaign Acts, 1971-74: disclosure, subsidies, limitations

56. Campaign finance: 2002 bcra/mccain-feingold 1. 1.BANS SOFT MONEY donations to national political parties. Soft money: undisclosed, unlimited donations to parties for party building activities. 2. 2.Limits soft money donations to state political parties to $10,000; restricts use of these donations to voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. 3. 3.Doubled individuals’ “hard money” donations to $2,000, and indexes future increases to inflation (now $2,600 for 2013-14 election cycle). Hard money: disclosed, limited donations to candidates. 4. 4.No change on PAC limits. 5. 5.Unions and corporations banned from giving soft money to parties. 6. 6.Challenged by McConnell v. FEC, 2003: UPHELD BCRA 7. 7.Challenged by Citizens United v FEC, 2010: STRUCK DOWN provisions restricting electioneering communications, independent expenditures

58. Analysis of reforms 1. 1.No subsidies for congressional campaigns, further incumbency advantage 2. 2.No limits on spending in congressional races Massive spending, further incumbency advantage Members of Congress spend great amounts of time fundraising Late-starters discouraged 3. 3.Citizens United overturned BCRA limits on corporate, union, and individual independent expenditures : (money not directly donated to party or candidate, but spent on behalf of a candidate). Creation of “Super PACs” 4. 4.Growth of 527 organizations : tax exempt groups that engage in political activities can receive unlimited contributions and spend them on voter mobilization efforts and issue advocacy ads that praise or slam a candidate (cannot explicitly endorse)

59. analysis 5. 5.Minor party pres candidates cannot receive subsidies before the election unless their party earned at least 5% of the popular vote in the previous election 6. 6.Parties are weakened since pres election fund goes to candidates themselves: rise of candidate-centered campaigns rather than party-centered campaigns 7. 7.Growth of PACs and candidate dependence on PACs, and after Citizens United, Super PACs. 8. 8.Cost of campaigns has risen: more time spend fundraising

63. FECA vs. BCRA: What did they do? FECA, 1974 1. LIMITS on political contributions Individuals: $1,000Individuals: $1,000 PACs: $5,000PACs: $5,000 NO limits on spending own moneyNO limits on spending own money 2. DISCLOSURE of contributions & expenditures above certain levels ($100) 3. SUBSIDIES of presidential elections in the form of public matching funds 4. FEC created BCRA, 2002 (McCain-Feingold) 1. BANNED SOFT MONEY (unlimited, undisclosed contributions to national parties) 2. HARD MONEY increases and indexed to inflation Individuals from $1,000 to $2,000Individuals from $1,000 to $2,000 No changes for PACsNo changes for PACs Increases for national, state, & local party committeesIncreases for national, state, & local party committees 3.RESTRICTED “ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS” Corporations & unions could not engage in these 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days before a generalCorporations & unions could not engage in these 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days before a general

64. FECA vs. BCRA: court challenges FECA, 1974 BUCKLEY V VALEO, 1976 BUCKLEY V VALEO, 1976 UPHELD : disclosure, limits UPHELD : disclosure, limits STRUCK DOWN : spending candidate’s own money, limits on independent expenditures, campaign spending STRUCK DOWN : spending candidate’s own money, limits on independent expenditures, campaign spending BCRA, 2002 MCCONNELL V FEC, 2003 MCCONNELL V FEC, 2003 UPHELD : soft money ban, increased limits on individuals UPHELD : soft money ban, increased limits on individuals CITIZENS UNITED V FEC, 2010 CITIZENS UNITED V FEC, 2010 REMOVED restrictions on corporations and unions spending on “electioneering communications” (image & name, not express advocacy) and on “independent expenditures” REMOVED restrictions on corporations and unions spending on “electioneering communications” (image & name, not express advocacy) and on “independent expenditures”

65. effects: FECA, 1974 1.Increase in PACs 2.Increased the amount of money spent on elections 3.Increase in money spent on independent expenditures from corporations, unions 4.Increase in soft money spending 5.Incumbent advantage 6.Advantage for wealthy BCRA, 2002 1.Rise of 527s 2.Rise of SuperPACs (post Citizens United) 3.No limits on independent expenditures from individuals, PACs, 527s, SuperPACs, parties 4.Increase in cost of campaigns 5.Incumbent advantage

66. Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 FYI: A Supreme Court divided along ideological lines struck down several key provisions of landmark campaign finance legislation, which held that corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. SCOTUS removed limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns. The 5-4 majority also struck down part of the 2003 McCain-Feingold law that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns. The ruling leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

67. Effect of Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 1. 1.Both corporations and labor unions may now use their general treasury funds to pay for unlimited independent expenditures, including advertisements, for or against candidates at any time. This can be done through what are known as “SuperPACs,” which are independent-expenditure ONLY committees. In addition to unlimited spending, they can also mount direct attacks on candidates. FYI: based on political giving patterns, labor unions are essentially an arm of the Democratic Party. But corporate America is more oriented toward supporting incumbents. As a result, while most businesses spread their political giving around to both parties, the balance tends to go to the majority in Congress. When Republicans controlled the majority in Congress in 2004, corporate giving tilted roughly 60 percent to 40 percent in the GOP direction. But for the last four years, with Republicans in the minority, many businesses reallocated their giving 60 percent to 40 percent in the Democrats’ direction. Other forms of corporate political investments –such as advertising – could also take a pro-incumbent slant.

68. Reaction: "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision." - President Barack Obama. "The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction: Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union." - Chief Justice John Roberts "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." - Justice John Paul Stevens, in the dissent. "Speech about our government and candidates for elective office lies at the heart of the First Amendment, and the court's decision vindicates the right of individuals to engage in core political speech by banding together to make their voices heard." - Theodore Olson, who argued the case for Citizens United. "Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns." - Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. "I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.