Vraag voor de campagne: wat wordt HET thema

[email protected]

Department of Communication Science, VU University Amsterdam

The day after:Islsmic Immigrants,

economic recovery or cuts in government expenditures:

the Dutch election campaign 2010

Jan KleinnijenhuisJanet Takens

Anita van HoofWouter van Atteveldt

Politicologenetmaal 2010, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Mai 27-28 Workshop “The Postmodern Election Campaign: the Role of Parties and the Media”

Semantic Network Analysis 2 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University

Amsterdam

Vraag voor de campagne: wat wordt HET thema

o Islamitische immigranten (culturele dimensie – conservatieve kant)

o Economisch herstel (consensusissues - regeringspartijen)o Bezuinigingen overheidsuitgaven (links-rechts-dimensie –

rechtse kant)

2


Amsterdam

Kengetallen 2010

• Grote volatiliteit34 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 stemmenentropie in NE, perplexiteit = 7.7 gelijke partijen


Amsterdam

Waarom de Stemwijzer CDA-kiezers alle kanten opstuurt


Amsterdam

Waarom Kieskompas CDA-kiezers wegjaagt

Dutch Election Campaign 2010 6 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University

Amsterdam

IntomartGfk poll 7th – 8th Mai

6

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


Amsterdam

IntomartGfk poll

7

PvdA verreweg de grootste op 34; PVV op 20


Amsterdam

Four theories to explain short term shifts in election campaigns

o Retrospective voting and news about real-world developments

o Prospective issue voting and news about the issue positions of parties

o Game theory and news on Cooperation and Conflict, Support and Criticism

o Momentum, bandwagon/underdog effects, herding effect, and news on Success and FailureMediating variables: propensity to vote, trust or striking features and striking events ?


Amsterdam

Methode

o Daily Content Analysis (Nieuwsmonitor)o Weekly Panel Survey data (IntomartGfk, 10

waves, (first wave early April n=1804, 10th wave 7-8th June n=1200)

o reconstruction of personal, exponentially decaying, information sets

o Operationalisation of mediating News Consumer Variables

o Exploratory Data Analysis: logistic model


Amsterdam

Noteworthy: campaign 2010 until April 23rd issue-oriented

Table 1: The relative amount of attention for issue positions, support & criticism and success & failure per election year

1994 1998 2002 2003 2006 2010 (until April 23)

Issue positions 34% 35% 28% 32% 38% 45%

Support & Criticism (attack news)

47% 49% 51% 49% 45% 41%

Success & Failure (horse race)

19% 16% 21% 19% 17% 14%

*For reasons of comparability between election years the table excludes news in which parties do not play a role (the table does not include news about real world developments either).


Amsterdam

retrospective voting: terrifying real-world conditions in 2010

11

Table 2: Real world developments according to the media

2010 2006 2003 2002 1998

% aandacht (all new s

types)

% aandacht (real w orld

only) Richting % aandacht Richting % aandacht Richting % aandacht Richting % aandacht Richting

rechtse issues, overheidsfinanciën28% 21% -0.20 12% 0,02 16 -0,08 12 -0,24 8 0,01

criminaliteitsbestrijding 11% 14% -0.02 11% -0,05 16 -0,26 23 -0,22 8 -0,30

onderw ijs 6% 5% -0.55 9% -0,24 6 -0,35 5 -0,05 3 -0,08

integratie immigranten 5% 5% -0.04 9% -0,16 8 -0,27 9 -0,36 8 -0,17

gezondheidszorg 6% 9% -0.26 8% -0,08 5 0,03 7 -0,17 8 -0,25

linkse issues, sociale ekerheid 5% 5% -0.47 7% 0,04 12 -0,32 6 -0,28 7 -0,01

consensusissues, ec.groei, w erk4% 4% -0.10 7% 0,42 9 -0,46 4 -0,36 7 0,58

infrastructuur 11% 11% -0.29 6% -0,04 7 -0,35 8 -0,41 11 0,04

milieu 8% 10% -0.16 5% 0,05 6 -0,20 8 0,16 4 0,15

terreurbestrijding 0.20% 2% -0,12 1 -0,16

internationale interventie 6% 4% -0.30 1% -0,21 3 -0,22

overige issues 10% 11% 24% 12 18 36

Totaal n=8616 n=1306 -0.21 n=3073 -0,03 n=2610 -0,24 n=2775 -0,22 n=2378 -0,02


Amsterdam

Issue Positions 2010: what happened with leftist issues?

12

Table 3: Issue positions of parties in 2010 election campaign according to the media, weighted by media attention

PvdD GroenLinks CDA CU SGP SP D66 PvdA VVD TON PVV

Natuur en milieu 18.73 24.47 23.67 6.91 0.72 2.99 4.63 22.45 -2.04 -1.02 -2.3Linkse issues, soc zek 0 4.52 -0.74 9.82 . 2.74 0.38 21.94 -10.78 0 -8.93Gezondheidszorg 0.73 4.42 6.85 4.34 0.94 16.12 1.89 -4.54 -0.52 -0.73 -1.48Ontwikkelingshulp . . 0.63 4.74 . -0.81 . 1.67 -3.24 -1.13 -2.4Normen en waarden . 0.78 19.57 9.83 0.25 1.64 1.87 31.23 -2.3 -3.46 -0.29Onderwijs . -1.15 6.62 0.3 0 -7.03 12.18 1.24 2.45 -1.13 -1.55Europese samenwerking . . 8.77 . . . -0.93 . 5.04 -3.67 -6.74Inzet Nederlandse militairen in het buitenland-1.13 15.87 7.6 12.93 -0.13 -3.28 16.18 -3.8 0.6 . -2.85Werkgelegenheid . 6.44 5.45 4.19 -0.84 3.14 8.03 22.47 10.49 . 0.51Infrastructuur, Bereikbaarheid en mobiliteit. -1.07 59.75 1.6 . -2.93 1.69 5.41 18.16 . 1.84Rechtse issues, bezuinigingen, belastingen en overheidsfinanciën0.15 -7.42 81.01 -3.98 -1.26 -27.29 14.3 1.08 83.24 14.82 11.02Bestuurlijke vernieuwing 4.47 10.5 9.19 1.59 1.59 6 30.56 25.2 10.08 2.71 4.56Criminaliteit en onveiligheid . 15.96 12.56 2.29 1.85 -3.11 2.82 7.06 20.31 . 25.95Asielzoekers en immigranten . 2.15 13.22 -0.04 -1.02 1.13 1.85 17.24 -5.07 -1.96 -35.52Terreurbestrijding . 1.89 0.17 . . . 1.89 1.89 1.89 . 0.34

Issue positions of parties in 2010 election campaign according to the media, weighted by media attention


Amsterdam

Issue ownership: issue reputations March (n=1804)

13

Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010


Amsterdam

Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?

14


Feb 19th – April 11th


Amsterdam


15


April 26th – May 9th


Amsterdam


16


May 10h – May 23trd


Amsterdam


17



Amsterdam


18



Amsterdam


19



Amsterdam

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

20


Amsterdam

Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?

21


Amsterdam


22


Amsterdam


23


Amsterdam


24


Amsterdam

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

25


Amsterdam

Voter flows

26

May 17th- May 23rd


Amsterdam

Voter flows

27


Amsterdam

Voter flows

28


Amsterdam

Attribution of success and failure late March: all PvdA

29

March 15th - March 28th


Amsterdam

Early april: VVD more success than PvdA

30

March 29th - April 11th


Amsterdam

Attribution of success and failure in May: all VVD

31

Mai 10h – Mai 23th


Amsterdam

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

32

variable type variable B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B)voter predispositions Last week's preference for party 6.26 0.06 12385 0.00 523.78

subjective media performance party 2.02 0.17 143 0.00 7.53media performance party leader 1.05 0.17 39 0.00 2.85

content of one's media success and failure 0.05 0.01 12 0.00 1.05 (IP=issue position party)support from other parties -0.03 0.01 5 0.02 0.97

IP administrative reforms, efficiency 0.21 0.08 8 0.01 1.23IP rightist issues, gov.cuts 0.06 0.02 6 0.01 1.06IP EU, euro 0.29 0.12 6 0.02 1.33IP (Christian) norms and values 0.16 0.07 5 0.03 1.17IP immigrants and crime -0.13 0.07 3 0.06 0.88IP employment, valence issues -0.07 0.05 2 ns 0.94IP environment -0.06 0.07 1 ns 0.95support from societal actors 0.02 0.03 0 ns 1.02IP leftist issues, social security, health, educ 0.02 0.05 0 ns 1.02IP Dutch military interventions -0.02 0.04 0 ns 0.99support from the media 0.00 0.03 0 ns 1.00Constant -4.62 0.04 11901 0.00 0.01

n=90909 nested party-voter-waves units; -2LL=11860; % correct = 99.0%; R2=0.75


Amsterdam

Logistic model per party

o Christian Democrats (CDA) o strong impact of the (negative) media performance of the

party on the voters (leadership of Balkenende, extramarital affair of family man De Vries).

o Impact of news on struggles within (doubts about Balkenende, De Vries)

o positive impact with their issue positions, for example with a strong position against crime.

o The Socialist Party (SP)o Until May 23rd unable in 2010 to make impressions on the

voters with issue positions. o Strong recovery after 2nd television debate; the come back

of leftist issues

33


Amsterdam

Logistic model per party

o The Labour Party (PvdA) o did not succeed in making an impact with its issue positions

in addition to the effects of subjective media performance until late April

o 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

o VVDo strong impact due to its issue positions on rightist

issues (cuts in government expenditures, tax cuts), government efficiency, norms and values.

34


Amsterdam

Evaluation of the campaign

o Highlightso Respect of party leaders for each othero Issues, although not always the most relevant

issues (not: EU, Afghanistan, climate)o Sense of shame

o Fragmented television debates fragmented political landscape

o lack of clarity with regard to social effects of party programmes (e.g. de Volkskrant – Nyfer)

o NOS journaal Mai 1st: internal dissent news about anonymous CDA-leaders who did not trust Balkenende

35


Amsterdam

Summary / Discussion Dutch Elections 2010

o It’s cuts in government expenditures,

o It’s only the right side of the left-right axis

o It’s the VVD


Amsterdam

Cross-national proximity scaling of party-issue-landscape

-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500

DIM_2

PDPBDNJPLL PADPDrPR PSDPS

AL BY BA BG HR CZ EE

HU LV LT MK MD PL RO

RU SR SK SI UA AU AT

BE UK CA CY DK FI FR

DE GR IS IE IL IT LU

MT NL NZ NI NO PT ES

SE CH TR US JP

APBBPFBSDHBSDP-NH

KPBCCP-BPF

LP

LDPBPKB

UCPWP

HDZSBiHPDPSDASNSDSDS

SDPSPRS

BZNSBBB

BKPBSP

BNDPBSDPDPSNDSTGODSVMRO

HBHDZHSS

HNS

HSPHSLSDC

IDSLSLIBRASDP

SNKKDUODS

KSCMCSSD

USSZ

MDS

NKL

SZJRMS

KeskEKRP

Ref

ESDTPRLEÜRP

IsamMõõdResP

-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500

DIM_2

SZDSZCENTRUM

FIDESZMDFMIÉP

MSZP

FKGPMUNKÁS

TB/LNNKPCTVLZZSLPPJL

TSPTP

TSLDPLKDLSDPNS/SLLiCS

LKDSVNDPS

DAVMRO-DPMNEDPADSDUILDPLPPDP SDSMSPM

UCMPPCDPDAMPDMPCRM

PSD-PASLMNPSDM

SLDPOUW

UPPiSLPRPSLS

AWSUPR

PNTCDPD

PRMPURPNLUDMRPSD

-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500

DIM_2

KPRFLDPRRODINA

SPS

ERYABLOKO

DSDSSSRSSPS

SPO

RPS

KDHOKSHZDS

ANO

SmerSDL'SMKLU

KSS

SKDU

SNSSDA

DeSUS

LDSNSiSLSSNS

SDSSMSZLSD

KPUZYUJTSPUSDPU-oNU

ADGRNALPLPANPON

OVPSPOFPO Gru

-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500

DIM_2

CD&V

EcoVB

VLD

Gro!CDHFN

N-VAMRSPSpPS

ConLabLDPCySNP

BQCA

GPCLPC NDPPC

ADIKAKEL

DIKODISIEDIKOPEDEKNEO

CD

DF EnhFrP

KFKrF

RVSD SF

V

KOK

PSKESKKDSDPSFP

VASVIHR

UEM

FN

VMPF

PCFPSRPFRPRUDF

-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500

DIM_2

CDU/CSUFDP

DKPDVUGRÜ

NPDSchil PDSRep

SPD

KKE

NDPASOKSYN

X-B

X-FX-N

X-SX-D

X-U

FFFGGR

LBPD

SF

BalaAEHada

IHUD

LabLikMerz

NRPShas

Shin

RaamYhT

ANDSGreen

FIMargLN

PannIt.Val.

MSFTPDCIRC

SDIUDC

ADRCSVDP

LSAPGDL

-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500

DIM_2

ADMLP

NP

CDACU

D66GL

LPF PvdASP

SGPVVD

ACT

AllcGPAPCNZFPNZLPNP UF

APNI

DUP

NIWCPUP SFSDLP

UUP

DNAFrPH

KrFRVSpSVV

PEVBECDS/PPPCP

PSDPS

CiUIU

PNVPPPSOE

-0.500-0.250

0.000

0.2500.500

DIM_1

-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500

DIM_2

C

FPKD

MP

M

SAPV

-0.500-0.250

0.000

0.2500.500

DIM_1

CVP

EDUEVPFDP

GPSLPS

PdASD

SVPSPS

-0.500-0.250

0.000

0.2500.500

DIM_1

AKPANAP

CHPDEHAP

DSPDYPGPMHP

-0.500-0.250

0.000

0.2500.500

DIM_1

DemRep

-0.500-0.250

0.000

0.2500.500

DIM_1

DPJCPKom.LDPNCPSDP

Documents

Vraag voor de campagne: wat wordt HET thema