Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11109-014-9296-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The tendency for lukewarm partisans to “come home” is generally regarded as the chief dynamic of presidential campaigns, but little is known about what draws these voters closer to their party’s candidate. The pattern is often taken as prima facie evidence that campaigns activate partisanship, but there is little direct evidence that party identification (PID) exerts any greater influence on candidate preference late in the campaign than it had earlier. This study uses panel surveys from two elections to uncover the mechanisms that lead partisans home. It demonstrates that past research focused on the fall campaign has missed evidence for activation of PID, which occurs as the primary phase closes. It also demonstrates that under certain conditions activation of ideology plays just as important a role in bringing partisans home as activation of PID. These findings indicate that the process whereby partisans “come home” is multi-faceted and may have nearly as much to do with ideology as with party loyalty.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 34 kb)11109_2014_9296_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., & Rhode, D. W. (1983). Change and continuity in the 1980 elections: Revised edition. Washington: CQ Press.
Allison, P. D. (2009). Fixed effects regression models. Los Angeles: Sage.
Alvarez, R. M. (1998). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review,102(2), 215–232. CrossRef
Bartels, L. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bartels, L. M. (2006). Priming and persuasion in presidential campaigns. In H. E. Brady & R. Johnston (Eds.), Capturing campaign effects (pp. 78–112). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Berelson, B., Lazars Feld, P., & McPhee, W. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. S. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Campbell, J. (2008). The American campaign. College Station: Texas A&M Press.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
Erikson, R. S., & Wlezien, C. (2012). The timeline of presidential elections: How campaigns do (and do not) matter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossRef
Feldman, S. (1989). Measuring issue preferences: The problem of response instability. Political Analysis,1(1), 25–60. CrossRef
Finkel, S. E. (1993). Reexamining the ‘minimal effects’ model in recent presidential campaigns. Journal of Politics,55(1), 1–21. CrossRef
Fiorina, M. P. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson.
Gelman, A., & King, G. (1993). Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science,23(1), 409–451. CrossRef
Henderson, M., Hillygus, D. S., & Tompson, T. (2010). ‘Sour grapes’ or rational voting? Voter decision making among thwarted primary voters in 2008. Public Opinion Quarterly,74, 499–529. CrossRef
Hetherington, M. J. (2011). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization (updated). In R. G. Niemi, H. F. Weisberg, & D. C. Kimball (Eds.), Controversies in voting behavior (5th ed., pp. 242–265). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Hillygus, D. S., & Henderson, M. (2010). Policy issues and the dynamics of vote choice in the 2008 presidential election. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties,20(2), 241–269. CrossRef
Hillygus, D. S., & Jackman, S. (2003). Voter decision making in election 2000: Campaign effects, partisan activation, and the Clinton legacy. American Journal of Political Science,47(4), 583–596. CrossRef
Hillygus, D. S., & Shields, T. G. (2008). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press. CrossRef
Holbrook, T. M. (1996). Do campaigns matter?. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Holbrook, T. M., & McClurg, S. D. (2005). The mobilization of core supporters: Campaigns, turnout, and electoral composition in United States presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science,49(4), 689–703. CrossRef
Johnston, R., Blais, A., Brady, H. E., & Crete, J. (1992). Letting the people decide: Dynamics of a Canadian election. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Johnston, R., Hagen, M. G., & Jamieson, K. H. (2004). The 2000 presidential election and the foundations of party politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Johnston, R., Thorson, E., & Gooch, A. (2010). The Economy and the dynamics of the 2008 presidential campaign: evidence from the national annenberg election study. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties,20(2), 271–289. CrossRef
Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., Cook, T. E., Kern, M., & West, D. M. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kaplan, N., Park, D. K., & Gelman, A. (2012). Understanding persuasion and activation in presidential campaigns: The random walk and mean-reversion models. Presidential Studies Quarterly,42(4), 843–866. CrossRef
Kenski, K., Hardy, B. W., & Jamieson, K. H. (2010). The obama victory: How media, money, and message shaped the 2008 election. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. R., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lenz, G. S. (2009). Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the evidence for the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science,53(4), 821–837. CrossRef
Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader: How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossRef
McClurg, S. D., & Holbrook, T. M. (2009). Living in a battleground: Presidential campaigns and fundamental predictors of vote choice. Political Research Quarterly,62(3), 495–506. CrossRef
Peterson, D. A. M. (2009). Campaign learning and vote determinants. American Journal of Political Science,53(2), 821–837. CrossRef
Piston, S. (2010). How explicit racial prejudice hurt Obama in the 2008 election. Political Behavior,32, 431–451. CrossRef
Sides, J., & Vavreck, L. (2013). The gamble: Choice and chance in the 2012 presidential election. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tesler, M., & Sears, D. (2009). Obama’s race: The 2008 election and the dream of a post-racial America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vavreck, L. (2009). The message matters: The economy and presidential campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press. CrossRef
Wiley, D. E., & Wiley, J. A. (1971). The estimation of measurement error in panel data. In H. M. Blalock (Ed.), Causal models in the social sciences (pp. 364–373). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press. MATH
Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.
- Finding the Way Home: The Dynamics of Partisan Support in Presidential Campaigns
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Neuer Inhalt/© julien tromeur | Fotolia