increasing voting age population (???)

closeness of race

mobilization efforts

more mundance factors (rain, etc)

• voting is compulsory in some countries
• registration requirements (is it easy?)
• election day in US is a workday
• 2-party vs. multi-party system
• voter fatigue (lots of different elections, lots of people in a single election)

(probability of your vote making an impact) * (utility of your candidate winning) - (cost of voting) > zero

Solution?

Add "D" (civic duty)

(probability of your vote making an impact) * (utility of your candidate winning) - (cost of voting) + civic duty > 0

• SES (higher)
• education (higher)
• political efficacy (higher)
• Party identification (stronger)
• demographics?

1. women more than men
2. blacks/whites more than latinos
3. you less likely

1. Sociological Model (Columbia School)
2. Social-Psychological Model (Michigan School)
3. Rational Choice Model (Rochester School)

• Vote choice is largely a result of group characteristics
• people whose group identities all point in the same way were highly likely to vote that way; those who were "cross-pressured" were not (and might not vote at all)

• vote choice a product of individual attitudes, not group characteristcs

• funnel of causality metaphor
• things that happen earlier in life all predetermine your vote

• people have 3 basic individual orientations

1. psychological attachment to party ID
2. opinions about the particular candidates
3. views on the issues that are prominent in a particular election

• voters select candidates whose positions on the issues are the closest to their own

I---C1----------C2---I

• who do you fall closest to?

• having an emotional attachment to a party
• you subscribe to that party when you vote, instead of weighing individual candidates

• 33% of Americans are "strongly" D or R.

• leaners: identical to weak democrats or republicans
• more a feeling that they like saying they are independent

• pure: no partisan leanings

• prospective: how do you think the candidates will do in office?
• retrospective: evaluate past performance of the candidate

• Partisanship very strong predictor in 1940s, 1950s
• weakened from 60s-80s (split ticket voting)
• resurgence of partisanship from 80s-present (polarization of parties)

• does exposure to a campaign change people's knowledge, attitudes, vote choices, and/or turnout?
• largely the study of Media effects

• says that the effects of campaigns are very strong
• messages are injected into us and we have no power to not be persuaded if the message itself is persuasive
• Suggests whoever has the best campaign will win

• had people watch propaganda films; others didn't
• after film, asks participants about their attitudes toward Battle of Britain

• What does he find???
• video informed but did not persuade

• Klapper's famous conclusion that "pervasive mass communications function far more frequently as an agent of reinforcement than as an agent of change."
• backed by Michigan School
• believed we have selective exposure/retention to the media we are exposed to

• exposure to particular issues makes people weigh those issues more heavily when evaluating candidates
• "indirect" effect of campaigns because it is not direct persuausion.  It is a result of what you are exposed to (how you react to it)

• Does status as "battleground state" decrease the gap in political interest and engagement between wealthier and low-income voters?
• They find that it does affect both interest and engagement.

• cross-sectional: one group at one time; compare
• panel: same people surveyed multiple times throughout election; compare then and now
• rolling cross-sectional: survey a small number of people every day across the campaign

Advantages

• study actual campaigns as they are happening
• can be administered from remote locations
• inexpensive
• long history (national election study)

Disadvantages

• hard to get a random sample in a specific district  or state
• questions of direction of causality

laboratory: create a very specific experimental stimulus, expose subjects to it, and see how they react

field: conduct an experiment in a "real" setting

advantages

• can get at causality in a way that surveys can't
• can study effects with a small number of subjects
• can be easily replicated

disadvantages

• are at least somewhat artificial
• lots of interesting phenomena just aren't amenable to experimentation

• idea that news occurs in certain places so journalists pay close attention there
• leads to lots of the same news

• means reporters cover issues as a "pack", both physically and in terms of the nature of the stories
• leads to lots of the same stories being covered, and lots of the same stories being missed

• most coverage of campaigns and policy debates focuses on the race or the contest
• "who's ahead and who's behind?"
• "who's raised more money?"
• effect is that people become cynical because it emphasizes politics as a game

candidates are rarely the ones to tell their own story; instead, it's mediated through the correspondent or reporter

• average length of quotes on tv has gone from 42 seconds in '68 to 5-7 seconds in '08

• journalists tend to attack candidates and focus on the bad aspects and their history
• journalists focus on character bc

1. replaced parties as the screening committee
2. they think the public wants it
3. belief that private conduct affects public actions

• increase name recognition (biggest hurdle in races)
• target appeals to voters to persuade and mobilize

1. partisan: most campaigns focus on copartisans and leaning independents
2. Group or demographic: tailor messages to those group you'd particularly like to mobilize
3. issue targeting: target voters who are particularly concerned with a given issue

Advantages

• it's free (but earned bc you have to run a good campaign to be worthy of media coverage)

Disadvantages

• can't control the message that is mediated
• candidates in "down ballot" races can't count on it

Advantages

• Inmediated; You have control.

Disadvantages

• expensive!

• avoid bad behavior
• don't flip-flop on issues
• play expectations game wisely (want to look like a come-back kid, not frontrunner)
• schedule events wisely
• help make reporters's jobs easy
• when leading in polls, RESTRICT ACCESS

• 100% Presidential, 90% Senate, 65% House

Disadvantages?

• cost
• mismatch between media markets and district boundaries

Advantages?

• Cheaper!
• easier to target appeals

Disadvantages?

• much smaller audience

Advantages

• Cheapest form!
• allows for detailed appeals
• readers are more educated so more likely to vote
• could get endorsement from newspaper company

Disadvantages

• very small audience
• limited space (no music, video, etc.)

• either "personal" or "robo-calls"

Push polls: negative calls

• "would you be more or less likely to vote for candidate X if you knew that he..."

Television

• entertainment talkshows (Oprah)
• news parody shows

internet

• websites
• blogs
• email
• advertising

• Do tv appearances affect voting?

Findings

• Democrats get a bump, but Republicans don't (Dems were doing worse than expected, so it helped.  Repubs were doing as expected, so no effect)

• has transformed fundraising, advertising, and mobilization
• combats apathy and brings new voters to the polls
• opens the process to a wider variety of candidates
• fosters political polarization and "balkanization"

Yes, but not drastically.

• use internet to raise money
• expenditures still go primarily to TV
• candidates starting to use email, but most still use phone calls and direct mail
• MOST candidates have websites, but FEW use them to their full potential

• youtube: candidacies have been derailed by comments posted on youtube
• blogs
• technology for targeting: more and more advanced, SMS
• Google-bombing

• Candidates: Eisenhower (R) and Adlai Stevenson (D)
• Context: Korean War, McCarthy's anti-communist crusade sparking Red Scare, federal gov't corruption scandals
• the ads: Ike focuses on his skills as a war hero. ads are candidate-centered

• Candidates: Johnson vs. Goldwater
• Johnson took over after Kennedy was assasinated, so he wants to link himself to Kennedy BUT still establish himself as a good candidate on his own, focused on poverty.  Goldwater was very conservative and tried to attack Johnson.
• the ads: Goldwater highlights moral decay in DC.  Johnson uses Daisy Girl ad (vote for my opponent and you will all die).  it was effective and he won.

• candidates: Incumbent Reagan (R) and Mondale (D)
• context: Mondale unlucky bc Reagan is very popular. Nation was in good shape. Mondale picks woman VP for first time
• ads: reagan runs positive ads focusing on everything good that was happening "Morning in America".  He also uses "Bear in the Woods" to show that he is prepared to fight the Soviets. Mondale ran ads that tried to point out economic problems that Reagan's policies would cause in future (rollercoaster: it's up now, but will crash soon).

• Candidates: VP George HW Bush and Dukakis
• context: Bush must separate himself from Reaganomics bc of deficit. Dukakis wants to show link between Reagan and Bush
• the ads: Bush paints Dukakis as too liberal by showing how he votes against defense spending.  Dukakis ads show the improvement of Mass. under his leadership.  Also showcases Bush's environmental policies.

• Candidates: Incumbent George Bush, Clinton, and Ross Perot
• Context: clinton went on offensive (didn't want to be another Dukakis). Perot focuses on economy and his skills with money management. 
• the ads: "Gray dot" ad (bush) shows clinton as flip-flopper.  Morning in Decaturville highlights economic downtown and outsourcing due to Bush.

• issue, image, etc.
• candidates need to decide which group they are trying to reach out to, and then choose the type which will best cultivate support with them.

• prominence: almost all candidates make issues the main focus of their campaign. issues become more specific in competitive races

• how to study: content analysis and coding of ads, CMAG data

issues on which your party is thought to hold the advantage

advantageous when one of those issues is salient at the time, or when you are trying to target a specific demographic who support one of those issues

priming: it gets people thinking about those issues when they vote

Focus on those issues that are most salient to the public at the time of the election, regardless of whether your party owns them

Idea is to talk about what the public wants to hear about.

Figure out which issues are salient by polling

advantage: appearing empathetic and responsive

traits: character or performance

substantive issues: criticize opponent's agenda or position on issues

Location of negativity: candidate sponsored or outside party?

Press negativity: from the press

• makes politics uncivil
• turns it into attacks rather than discussion
• claims can be misleading, causing voters to be misinformed
• could demobilize voters (turn them off to politics)
• people say they don't like it

• democracy requires opposition for accountability
• negative ads provide more info (can't really lie)
• positive ads are more misleading (vague)
• negativity produces dialogue

1. actual language
2. visual images
3. color
4. music
5. voice-overs
6. editing and pacing
7. subliminal techniques

In what sort of races do we see the most negativity?

• more competitive =  more negativity
• challengers attack more than frontrunners
• men more than women
• challengers more than incumbents
• VP more than Pres.
• Sponsors more than candidates
• negativity increases as election gets closer, but drops off 2-3 days before election day

Ad watches: journalists show and dissect a problematic ad on-air; use split screen so that they are not just reshowing the ad

Legislation?: pre-election windows, no public money for these ads