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

• 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

100P

erce

nt F

amil

iar

9/26

10/1

0

10/2

4

12/1

2

12/2

1

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

MomentumPublic Familiarity with Presidential Candidates, 2008

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

may 06 jan 07 ap 07 jun 07 drp p7 nov 07 dec 07 feb 08 ap 08

obama hear

hrc hear

mccain hear

Momentum

20

30

40

50

60

70

80P

erce

nt

9/26

10/1

0

10/2

4

12/1

2

12/2

1

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

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Momentum

10

20

30

40

50

perc

ent

nov1

4no

v23

nov2

8de

c5de

c12

dec1

9de

c26

jan2

jan9

jan1

2ja

n23

jan3

0fe

b2fe

b6fe

b9fe

b13

feb2

0fe

b27

mar

5m

ar7

mar

12m

ar14

mar

19m

ar26 ap

2ap

5ap

16ap

18ap

26m

ay3

may

10m

ay17

may

24m

ay31

june

7ju

ne14

date

Figure 6.1: Public Interest in the 2000 Presidential Election

Summary measureof attention

talked about election recently

NH

Momentum Candidates Rare

• Usually lose nomination– Carter 1976– Reagan 1976 (lost)– Hart 1984 (lost)– Buchanan 1992 (lost)

– Obama 2008

Nomination Rules (again)

• Dems use PR by state

• GOP mostly winner-take-all

Art, Sports and Democracy

Does Democracy Depend on our Bowling Together?

And:Baseball leagues, Quilting bees, Theater groups,Soccer (football) clubs, PTAs, League of Women Voters, Labor unions, Girl Scouts, Boy ScoutsElks, Lions, Moose, EaglesRed 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



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

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

Democraticperformance

Does this breed Civic Engagement?

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 41two social groups

Member of three or 31 31 29 25 22more social groups

Source: Authors’ calculations from raw data in GSS 1972 – 2000 cumulative datafile.

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Per

cent

Tru

stin

g M

ost o

r A

ll o

f th

e T

ime

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

Year

Trust in the Federal Government: 1958 - 2002

Source: National Election Study..... by 2004, trust at 47%

20

30

40

50

60

Per

cent

of

Res

pond

ents

1974

1979

1984

1989

1994

Year of Survey

Trends in Trust in Government, and Church- BasedGroup Membership USA: 1974 - 1994

Member of Church-basedGroup?

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?

Sports Church Arts

New Zealand 47.7 38.9 n/aNetherlands 35.2 26.9 10.7Denmark 34.8 20.9 10.3Germany (W) 27.9 15.9 4.9Norway 27.2 10.5 8.2Ireland 25.6 17.5 3.8Great Britain 23.8 19.4 6.8Belgium 21.9 8.9 14.1United States 21.6 33.4 9.8France 16.1 6.2 6.3Portugal 11.5 5.6 4.6Italy 10.2 8.8 6.5Spain 8.3 5.9 3.3Greece 6.5 1.8 5.6

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:

Europe New Zealandpolitical parties political partieslabor unions unionschurch groups church groupsarts groups cultural organizationshuman rights groups interest groupsecology groups interest groupsyouth groups youth groupsconsumer organizations interest groupssports groups sports groups"other" social groups. social clubs

community servicehobbies groups

Relative Strength of Association: Group Memberships and Political Engagement, Europe

Membership AloneUnion .63 all p < .01Human rights .59Charity Groups .59Consumer Groups .47Arts Groups .42Environmental groups .41

Youth Groups nsSports groups nsChurch group ns

Results Join a Party Freq. of Political DiscussionSports Arts Sports Arts

Norway .63 .88 .48 .84Denmark -.07 .47 -.04 .46Netherlands -.17 .89 -.29 .44Belgium .70 .43 .43 .16W Germany -.13 .86 .16 1.00France -.31 .62 -.18 .29Ireland -.09 -.28 .14 .97Portugal 1.41 .08 .30 .12Italy .50 .98 .34 .74Spain -.65 2.06 .12 .54Great Britain .20 1.11 -.08 .93Greece .15 1.29 -.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?

sk

jp

ne

dn

fn

swe

no

pr

sp

fr

ge

swi

gb

us

cn nz

au

as

cz

cl

svn

svk

hn

bl

tw

pl

cy

lt

is

0 10 20 30 40

join_sport

Cross National: Trust and Sports, 29 Nations 2004

Correlation btw % who join sports clubs and % trust people



TV = Time displacement effect ?

From Putnam’s book, Bowling Alone

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


• 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

Partisanship trends






• 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?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

Ind, Lean D

Ind.

Ind, Lean R

Total Ind.

Trends in US Party ID; 1952 - 2006

Independents vs. Partisans

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Ind, Lean D

Ind.

Ind, Lean R

1952 1962 1972 1982 1992 2002


• What do these responses mean?

• Party Identification strongest predictor of voting– learned early, social transmition– rarely changes over lifetime

• see F&Z figures


Funnel of Causality

socialbackground

Party attachments

Values

Groups

campaignevents vote

Time (years & years)


• 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


• 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


• 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


Strong

Democrat

Weak

Democrat Ind lean

Dem Ind. Ind lean

Rep Weak Rep Strong

Rep No 20 28 43 53 33 19 7 Yes 80 72 57 47 67 81 93 Source: NES 2004

Does a party represent you reasonably well


Strong Dem.

Weak Dem.

Ind lean D

Pure Ind.

Ind lean Rep.

Weak Rep.

Strong Rep.

Continuation of current system 50 36 24 25 26 40 61 No party labels 21 32 35 41 34 27 11 New parties 29 32 41 35 40 33 29


• 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

Documents

What is Momentum in Pres election?