TRENDS IN PARTY SUPPORT

1
TRENDS IN PARTYSUPPORT

• POLI 423
• N. R. Miller

2
American National Election Studies

• ANES studies have been held in conjunction with
  every Presidential election since 1952 (and most
  off-year) Congressional elections.
• A large portion of political science knowledge
  concerning U.S. electoral behavior is derived
  from this series of studies.
• Each ANES is a survey of approximately one to two
  thousand randomly selected respondents who
  collectively constitute a representative sample
  of the American voting-age population at the
  time.

3
NationalElectionDayExit Polls
4
Party Identification and Ideology (ANES)

• Party affiliation and identification
• Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a
  Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?
  If partisan Would you call yourself a strong
  Republican/Democrat or a not very strong
  Republican/Democrat? If Independent Do you
  think of yourself as closer to the Democratic
  Party or the Republican Party?
• About 95 of the mass public identify themselves
  as Democratic, Republican, or Independent.
• Ideology
• We hear a lot of talk these days about liberals
  and conservatives. Where would you place
  yourself in these terms, or havent you thought
  much about this?
• About 20-25 of the mass public havent thought
  much about this.

5
Party Identification 1952-2008
6
Dems, Reps, and Pure Independents 1952-2008
7
(No Transcript)
8
Ideology 1972 - 2008
9
Party ID and Ideology

• Note the anomaly
• more Democrats than Republicans, but
• more conservatives than liberals.

10
Party Identifi-cationand Ideology 1970s vs.
2000s
11
Ideology at the Mass Level

• Abortion and Health Insurance opinions are
  largely unrelated.

12
Ideology at the Mass Level

• Economic/New Deal Issues
• vs.
• Social/Cultural/Family Values Issues

13
Presidential Approval

• Do you approve or disapprove of the way George
  W. Bush is handling his job as President?

14
Party Identification Colors Presidential
Approval (and other opinions)
15
Obama Approval (Gallup)
16
Democratic Vote By Party ID
17
Turnout (Self-Reported) Voted by Party ID
18
What Is This Map?
19
2008 Electoral Map (Red ? Blue)
20
Voting by States

• The Electoral College system means that geography
  (in particular, state boundaries) is important in
  President elections.
• Historically, Presidential (and other) voting has
  exhibited sectional (geographical) patterns).

21
Sectionalism1904
22
Cartogram 2008Area Proportional to Electorate
23
Presidential Vote by County
24
County Bubbles (NY Times)
25
(No Transcript)
26
County Shifts 2004-2008 (NY Times)
27
Would You Vote for a Qualified Black Candidate
of Your Own Party? (Whites Only)

• Gallup 1958 Gallup 2007
• Yes 34 93
• No 58 5

28
(No Transcript)
29
We Would Expect Opinion to Vary with Age
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
Behavior vs. Survey Responses?
34
2004 Electoral Map (Red ?Blue)
35
2004 Pivot Map
36
The 2004 Battleground ( 3)
37
2000 Electoral Map
38
2000 Pivot Map
39
2000 Battleground
40
What Is This Map?
41
1896 Electoral Map
42
A Much Quicker Electoral Flip1956 vs.
1964
43
What Is This Map?
44
Median Household Income
45
(No Transcript)
46
What Is Going On?

• Wal-Mart or Sams Club Republicans?
• Trust fund Democrats?
• Whats The Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives
  Won the Heart of America? (Thomas Frank)
• Are we that far beyond the New Deal electoral
  alignment?
• Actually -- No

47
(No Transcript)
48

• Uses 2000 and 2004 National and State Exit Polls
• Plus ANES
• Andrew Gelman et al., Rich State, Poor State,
  Red State, Blue State Whats the Matter with
  Connecticut, Quarterly Journal of Political
  Science (March 2007)
• The following charts are all from the 2000
  National and State Exit Polls.

49
(No Transcript)
50
(No Transcript)
51
(No Transcript)
52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
(No Transcript)
58
2004 If Only Rich Voted
59
2004 If Only Middle Voted
60
2004 If Only Poor Voted
61
Rich vs. Poor States/Rich vs. Poor Voters
62
Bartels Whats the Matter with Whats the
Matter with Kansas

• Yes, white (working class) voters without
  college degrees have become less Democratic in
  voting habits.
• But this results almost entirely from the
  realignment in the South.
• Moreover, while social/cultural issues have
  become more important, they are more important
  among (middle/upper class) voters with college
  degrees than those without.
• Many middle/upper class voters in blue states are
  socially liberal and vote Democratic, many fewer
  in red states.

63
(No Transcript)
64
(No Transcript)
65
(No Transcript)
66
(No Transcript)
67
(No Transcript)
68
(No Transcript)
69
Religion and Class Voting Around the World
70
Religion and Class Voting Around the World
(cont.)
71
(No Transcript)
72
(No Transcript)
73
1960 vs. 2000 Red Gets Reder and Blue Gets Bluer

• Mean Winners Margin in Victory at State Level
• Unweighted Weighted by States Electoral
  Vote
• 1960 2000 1960 2000
• 8.5 14.6 6.5 12.6
• 1960 2000
• CA Nixon 0.5 Gore 11.7
• FL Nixon 3.0 Bush 0.0
• IL Kennedy 0.2 Gore 12.0
• MI Kennedy 3.1 Gore 5.2
• NJ Kennedy 0.8 Gore 15.8
• NY Kennedy 5.2 Gore 25.0
• OH Nixon 6.6 Bush 3.6
• PA Kennedy 2.4 Gore 4.2
• TX Kennedy 2.0 Bush 21.7
• Mean 2.6 11.0

74
1960 vs. 2000 (cont.)

• Many of the most lopsided states in 1960 were
  even more lopsided in 2000.
• KS Nixon 21.4 Bush 20.8
• MA Kennedy 20.6 Gore 27.3
• NE Nixon 24.2 Bush 20.8
• RI Kennedy 27.2 Gore 29.1
• UT Nixon 9.6 Bush 40.5
• WY Nixon 10.0 Bush 40.1
• Mean 18.3 30.0

75
1960 vs. 2000 (cont.)

• Here is a more comprehensive overview.
• Kennedy vote in 1960 vs. Gore
  vote in 2000
• Unweighted Weighted by
  States Electoral Vote
• 1960 2000 1960 2000
• Min 37.9 28.3 37.9 28.3
• Max 63.8 65.7 63.8 65.7
• Mean 49.2 47.4 50.2 49.8
• SD 5.7 9.1 5.0 8.0
• All percentages are based on the two-party vote
  only, and DC which did not vote in 1960 and MS
  where a slate of unpledged electors won in 1960
  are excluded from the statistics.

76
1960 vs. 2000 (cont.)
77
1960 vs. 2000 (cont.)
78
Battleground State in a 50-50 Election, State
Winner Would Get less than 53
79
(No Transcript)
80
(No Transcript)
81
(No Transcript)
82
(No Transcript)
83
(No Transcript)
84
(No Transcript)
85
(No Transcript)
86
(No Transcript)
87
(No Transcript)
88
(No Transcript)
89
(No Transcript)
90
(No Transcript)
91
The Shrinking Battleground
92
(No Transcript)
93
(No Transcript)
94
The Bradley/Wilder and Whitman Effects?
95
The Front-Runner Effect?