Vote or Die
The longer-term electoral effect of carrying a state in U.S. presidential elections
B.K. Song
Economics Letters, forthcoming
Abstract:
Under the U.S. Electoral College system, battleground states receive a degree of attention from candidates and political parties that is out of proportion to their contribution to the vote total because they can effectively determine the outcome of a presidential election. Although the public and researchers tend to focus on the immediate impact of winning a battleground state on the current contest, the outcome of a following election may also be affected. In this paper, I investigate the effect of winning a state on the outcome of the next election, using a regression discontinuity (RD) design. The results of my RD analyses indicate that winning a state increases the party’s vote share in the next election. I also find evidence of a positive spillover effect of winning a state in a presidential election on later House of Representatives elections.
Reluctant Republicans, Eager Democrats? Partisan Nonresponse and the Accuracy of 2020 Presidential Pre-election Telephone Polls
Joshua Clinton, John Lapinski & Marc Trussler
Public Opinion Quarterly, forthcoming
Abstract:
Using the registration-based samples and disposition codes of state-level pre-election telephone polls conducted by the National Election Pool as part of the National Exit Poll in 12 states, we test whether likely Democrats were more likely to cooperate with the National Exit Poll than likely Republicans and independents. Using information about both respondents and nonrespondents, we find that Democrats are more likely to cooperate with telephone interviewers than Republicans and independents by 3 and 6 percentage points, respectively, even after controlling for individual and geographic features plausibly related to nonresponse (e.g., age, gender, race, urban/rural, community support for President Trump, and effects of COVID-19). Equalizing the partisan cooperation rate when post-stratifying to account for the partisan differences in cooperation decreases the average polling error on the margin of victory by 4 percentage points in the polls we examine, but sizable errors remain in critical swing states because of within-party differences in who responds and/or errors in the available partisanship measures in the voter file.
The Conditional Effects of Latino Candidates and Partisanship on Latino Turnout
Ivelisse Cuevas-Molina et al.
American Politics Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
Does the presence of a Latino congressional candidate increase Latino turnout? An ongoing debate exists regarding the mobilizing effect of Latino candidates on Latino turnout. However, scholars on both sides of this divide have, as of yet, failed to detect the critical role that a Latino candidate’s partisanship may have on Latino turnout. Using national turnout data and leveraging the exogenous shock of redistricting between 2010 and 2012, we find evidence that while the presence of a Latino congressional candidate increases turnout among Latino co-partisans, the presence of Latino congressional candidates who do not share the partisan identity of Latino voters depresses turnout. We conclude by emphasizing the importance of the reinforcing power of shared partisan and pan-ethnic identities in empowering Latinos to vote.
Dark Money in Congressional House Elections
Christian Cox
Economics Letters, forthcoming
Abstract:
The deregulation in campaign finance, stemming from the 2010 United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, has led to nonprofit organizations with anonymous donors spending on advertisements targeting candidates. I study the effects of this “dark money” 501(c)(4) nonprofit spending on election outcomes in US Congressional House elections. Since 501(c)(4)s are not legally required to disclose spending to the Federal Election Commission, I use advertising data to measure their behavior. I estimate a model of the voter’s candidate choice, which is influenced by the spending of different groups. I find that 501(c)(4)s do not have significant effects on candidate vote share when accounting for the spending of candidates, parties, PACs, and Super PACs.
Mobilizing the White: White Nationalism and Congressional Politics in the American South
Amanda Weiner & Ariel Zellman
American Politics Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
To what extent do white nationalists influence Congressional representative conservatism? Although ethnocentrism, out-group prejudice, and racial threats strongly predict American political attitudes and voter behavior, how social movements predicated on these beliefs shape political outcomes is rarely considered. We argue that white nationalist activities significantly contribute to the radicalization of Congressional representatives’ policy agendas in a manner non-reducible to demographic or socioeconomic conditions. By mobilizing white voters against racial status threats, they indirectly compel politicians to adopt more radically conservative agendas. We quantitatively test these propositions by examining distributions of white nationalist groups in the American South against Congressional representative conservatism from 2010–2017. Analyses reveal that white nationalists indeed appear to significantly impact representative radical conservatism, even controlling for numerous factors commonly theorized to explain their rise. In doing so, we contribute to emerging insights on the political influence of the radical right on the contemporary American conservative “mainstream.”
Who has room for error? The effects of political scandal for minority candidates
Akhil Rajan & Christina Pao
Electoral Studies, June 2022
Abstract:
It is well established that voters often hold politicians accountable for misbehavior. But are minority (Black, gay, and/or female) candidates sanctioned more severely for their transgressions? Using a vignette experiment (N = 4129) in the United States, we find that gay candidates (regardless of gender and race) are indeed less likely to win elected office than their more “traditional” counterparts in the aftermath of scandal. However, contrary to the existing literature, the mechanism for this lessened electability does not lie in greater penalties. Instead, we find evidence that it originates in lower pre-scandal vote shares, an effect driven by Republican voters. Sharply lower starting points mean that gay candidates are less able to prevail in an election, even in the face of potentially diminished penalties. In what we term the “Room for Error” hypothesis, we document how even facially neutral accountability structures can have discriminatory effects.
Tell Us How You Feel: Emotional Appeals for Votes in Presidential Primaries
Zachary Scott & Jared McDonald
American Politics Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
Emotions are an important feature of representation, as they allow politicians to reflect the feelings of their constituents. Yet studies of elites’ use of emotions have been confined to examinations of strategic incentives. We build on these studies by incorporating elites’ group identities as a theoretical consideration. Our theory blends perspectives on the group identities of partisanship, gender, and race with political psychology research on emotions. We hypothesize that Republicans use more fear and disgust language than Democrats, that women candidates use more joy language than men candidates, and that Black candidates use less anger than white candidates. We test these hypotheses by applying emotional sentiment dictionaries to a corpus of primary candidates’ speeches. The evidence supports our claim that Republicans use more fear and that women use more joy, but we find no significant differences in the use of disgust and anger language by partisanship and race, respectively.
Mobilizing Peripheral Partisan Voters: A Field Experimental Analysis From Three California Congressional Election Campaigns
Daron Shaw, Lindsay Dun & Sarah Heise
American Politics Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
Since the early 2000s, an array of experimental research has demonstrated that face-to-face canvassing is the most effective form of get-out-the-vote campaigning. Recent scholarship, however, suggests that text messaging can also have powerful mobilization effects. Can the effects of text messaging match those of canvassing? We present a field experiment gauging the effects of text messaging, canvassing, mail, and phone calls among medium propensity evangelical Christian voters in three California battleground congressional districts for the 2018 midterm election. The results show significant turnout effects associated with texting as well as any form of outreach followed by a late-October text message. This challenges the widely held notion that personalized contacting is required to get voters to the polls; rather, we find that peripheral voters — often targeted by campaigns for mobilization — may be receptive to anonymous but timely outreach.