Much was made of McCain’s difficult task in unifying the GOP a few months back as he clinched the nomination, and likewise much hand-wringing has emerged over Obama and the problem of the Hillary voters. However, the odds are quite good, despite all the furrowed brows and deep concern within the punditocracy, that the two parties will coalesce around their candidates (yes, even those angry Clinton voters!).
Political scientist (and blogger) John Sides dealt with this issue in the LAT a couple of weeks ago using (*gasp*!) actual social science instead of rank speculation: Patching up the parties
Both parties can rest easy. Despite ugly battles and policy differences that sometimes seem intractable, the reality is that presidential campaigns tend to unify each party behind its nominee. Political scientists call this phenomenon the “reinforcement effect.” It was described in 1940 in the first major study of a presidential campaign. The study’s authors — Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson and Hazel Gaudet — noted that voters tended to “join the fold to which they belong,” with Democrats gravitating to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Republicans to Wendell Willkie. These voters were not blindly following whichever shepherds their parties nominated, the study concluded. Rather, their partisan loyalties reflected their underlying values, and the parties’ nominees solidified their support by emphasizing these same values as the campaign unfolded.
That last sentence is key (and why I have maintained that I do not believe that the a bunch of Clinton voters will jump ship): partisan identification (and candidate preference) is driven by one’s political values. One is therefore unlikely to switch one’s vote based on a fit of pique. Only a shift in one’s own values, or a shift in the values of the candidates nominated by a given party, is likely to result in such a shift.
The column is worth a read in its entirety, however, let me point to this in case one doesn’t wish the partake of the whole thing:
The reinforcement effect is especially likely to be strong this year, for two reasons. One is that partisan loyalties are increasingly salient to voters. Over the last 50 years, the proportion of Americans who identify with or lean toward either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party has held steady or slightly increased, according to the American National Election Study, the longest-running academic survey of political attitudes. Currently, 90% of the electorate identifies with one or the other major party. And during this same period, partisans have become increasingly loyal to their party’s candidates, as in 2024 and 2024.
Sphere: Related ContentThe second reason is that the Democratic and Republican parties have become more polarized, especially during the Bush administration. Democrats and Republicans are more divided in their views of President Bush and the Iraq war than they have been for any other president or war, according to data compiled by Gary Jacobson, a political science professor at UC San Diego. For instance, in a May Rasmussen poll, 70% of Republicans, but only 11% of Democrats, approved of the president.Given this gulf, most Democrats and Republicans are unlikely to find the opposing candidate attractive, especially after that candidate is criticized by their party’s nominee for months on end.
Wouldn’t this information tend to support the idea that this election will not turn out to be terribly different from others in recent history?
If that’s the case, why are so many of the pundits so convinced of an impending landslide victory by Obama? This author seems to think that both parties will “rally ’round the flag” for their respective candidate, and if that’s the case. . .
Shouldn’t we expect another fairly close race whereiin the faithful of each party vote their party, and the election is decided by a few states that could swing either way based on a very small margin of fickle and unpredictable swing voters?
This author at least seems to think along the lines that I have been thinking for some time; I don’t think Republicans are going to boycott or jump to Obama in droves just because they are disillusioned with the party. They are also quite scared of Obama and what he might bring (like socialized medicine and a foreign policy likened to appeasement and accomodation). I don’t think a lot of Democrats will bail, either; but probably some of each will bail, and we’ll end up with a prototypical election, and all the talk about a landslide for Obama will amount end up being a lot of hot air; we’ll get a close race that could go either way.
Why would disappointed Democrats vote but not disappointed Republicans? This logic escapes me, but it seems quite prevalent among the pundits.
Comment by Captain D — Tuesday, June 10, 2024 @ 2:30 pm
Well, I haven’t really seen that many folks who have predicted an Obama landslide (I certainly haven’t). However, one can be fairly confident that an Obama win is more likely than a McCain one and not be advocating for a landslide.
Indeed, the reasons that I have articulated to support the argument that Obama will win are based on long-term patterns (such as the incumbent president’s approval rating and numerous economic factors).
The problem with your argument here, and in several similar posts, is that you seem to assume an even Dem/Rep split in the electorate–which is not the case. Further, the Bush administration has done a good job of increasing Dem party ID and decreasing Rep party ID.
beyond all of that, the likelihood is that the enthusiasm of Dem voters will be higher this year than will be the case for Rep voters.
Put is this way: yes, things will be relatively close this year, as is normal. BUT, which party do you think has the advantage going into the contests in the fall, the Dems or the Reps?
The Dems have 8 years of pent-up resentment to express.
The Dems have a fundraising advantage.
The Dems have the more exciting candidate.
The Reps have $4/gallon gas
The Reps have the largest jump in unemployment in 20 years ish
The Reps have a president whose approval rating in at or below 30%
and so forth.
Who has the edge?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, June 10, 2024 @ 2:44 pm
The Democrats have an edge. I just don’t think it’s totally insurmountable. I accept that it is more probable that Obama will win than McCain; but I’d have a hard time making odds on it. 2:1? 3:1? If I was a betting man, I’d not go higher than that.
I must be weird, because I think that McCain is a much more exciting candidate. Probably my military experience creating bias, but this guy was a fighter pilot and a prisoner of war. He was tortured. He’s had a fascinating life. Obama has done very little that I find interesting. I’m not even sure I’m willing to call him the first black nominee; his mom was white, after all; he could be as easily called white as black, as either describes only half of his ethnic heritage. Why do we call someone with a parent of each color black and not white? Couldn’t we call them either?
I mean, I know he’s seen as the first black candidate within the black community, but it’s a given that they will vote Democrat anyway. The swing voters? I’m not sure they care.
The problem I see with some of the things that will be “issues” in this election is that I’m not sure how well they will all translate into voting behavior.
I’m a swing voter. I don’t live in Ohio anymore but I used to :). I understand that gas prices are not something a president can fix, nor is 4-dollar gas Bush’s fault (and even if it was, he’s not up for re-election). Unemployment - there is not a lot a president can do about this. And I don’t like Bush, but I understand that McCain is not Bush, McCain is McCain, even if they’re in the same party.
Yes, I’m mad, disillusioned, and frustrated with domestic and foreign policy in the United States. BUT - I see equal fault for the situation in both parties, as our problems have a deeper historical basis than the Bush administration. The existence of Al Qaida, the government of Iraq, the instability of Afghanistan - these things all have long stories to tell that predate both Bush administrations. I understand all of this, and am not going to go to the polls with my underwear wadded up in anger and blindly vote for the opposition party.
I have to believe there are others like me, who will not blindly vote in anger. If I stop believing that I’ve given up on my country, and I can’t do that.
To be honest I’ve not made up my mind yet what I’ll do - but I know that gas prices, unemployment, and Bush’s unpopularity will not be issues that affect my voting behavior, as these are not things that either candidate has control over.
Comment by Captain D — Tuesday, June 10, 2024 @ 3:10 pm
The issue is, I suppose, as to the degree to which you are a representative voter.
My guess is that you aren’t.
I am also willing to bet that the GOP will suffer blame at the polls for gas prices, unemployment and number of other issues, regardless of whether they can be rightly blamed or not.
And while I agree that there isn’t anything that Bush can do now about gas prices, I do think that some of policies and decisions have contributed to the current spike in price (although most of it is demand-driven from India and China, over which he has no control whatsoever).
Another thing: there is the very real possibility that some past-GOP voters will vote Obama, and not out of blind anger, but because in situation with only two choices (effectively, anyway) the only way to get one’s desired outcome (perhaps on Iraq, perhaps on executive power, perhaps on Gitmo or something else) may be to vote for a Democrat this go ’round.
Still, I don’t think that the election will turn on that. I think it will turn on a combination of enthusiasm for Obama and frustration with the entire GOP brand.
Still, we shall see in just over five months!
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, June 10, 2024 @ 3:47 pm
I’m probably not a representative voter. I’m not as smart at most people owing to the brain trauma.
What is a representative voter? I think that is a worthy question.
I gave some real thought to it. This is what I came up with:
-Unhappy about Iraq;
-Unhappy about economy;
-Unhappy about gas prices;
-Dissatisfied with Bush;
-Dissatisfied with Democratic Congress;
-Dissatisfied with Republican Congress;
-No longer really worried about terrorist attacks on the mainland; (I think this is huge)
-Not concerned with general expansion of executive power, but has specific fears related to such (rules about wiretapping, etc.) that will be pinned on the Bush administration;
-On immigration, thinks there is a problem and something different should be tried, but there is no agreement as to what that should be;
-Thinks the cost of healthcare is too high, but there is no agreement as to what should be done about it
All in all this is a miserable person.
I guess to my model voter, Obama might look like the better candidate, all things being equal, but it would depend on what that voter thought the solutions are to their concerns about healthcare, immigration, and the wars. Everyone hates the situation, they differ on what to do to fix it.
I’m actually not really interested in the representative voter in all of America except as an academic exercise. They don’t matter. The only “representative voters” that matter are the ones that live in the battleground states and are not already sold to one party, maybe a few hundred thousand people total. I’m wondering if the people in the battleground states who are not strongly identified with a party are “representative voters” along the typical vein, or if they have characteristics that make them atypical. I don’t know. I’m not sure if there’s a way to find out.
Comment by Captain D — Tuesday, June 10, 2024 @ 6:05 pm
Possibly off topic (but related):
I worry about the validity of long term studies like this that don’t even mention the virtual demise of political patronage jobs in the American workforce. Well into the 80’s getting a job with the state or county governments in the South was very often a function of one’s willingness to register in a certain way and to work for the correct party (usually Dems in the South) leading up to election day. Getting a patronage job meant that extended family members were expected to register and vote the way that keeps the relative employed. That means that one’s values may shift to the other party, but one’s registration and outward displays will be watched to ensure conformity.
Personal story: My father got a job driving a truck for the State Road (now called dept of highways) in the 70’s through the patronage system. Leading up to the 1976 election he had to regularly contact relatives and neighbors to talk up the democratic candidates. He was regularly scolded about folks in the neighborhood who had registered republican and had to pay a visit to try to talk them out of it.
I was able to register to vote for the first time in 1976. I went to the clerk’s office with the intention of showing my independence and registering R, mostly to show I was my own man instead of listening to my dad.
However when I got there I accepted what today would be called a bribe. When I asked to register R, the clerk told me that the Jungle Beach (local bar) was giving a free beer per week from now to the election for all 18 year old new democratic registrants (and new drinkers).
I couldn’t be be threatened into registering D by my dad, but my introduction to free Pabst Blue Ribbon was very nice ….
Comment by Buckland — Wednesday, June 11, 2024 @ 9:15 am
It would take something much better than Pabst to influence my voting behavior.
Comment by Captain D — Wednesday, June 11, 2024 @ 11:57 am
Of course, there is also a substantial difference between how one registers and how one votes. Of course, in the mid-70s in the South, one only had one real option to begin with for anything other the presidency, and that was the Democratic Party.
Regardless, in re: Buckland’s comment, I would think that you are over-estimating the significance of said patronage system. Beyond that, if you you look at the column, much of the data is fairly recent. Beyond that, what you are talking about would have been more a local phenomenon, while what Sides is discussing are national trends in regards to the presidency.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, June 11, 2024 @ 12:33 pm