Unit III: Political Parties,
Interest Groups and Media
10-20%
Ch. 9, 11, 12
PARTIES: HERE AND ABROAD
I.
Decentralization/Weakening of Parties
A.
B.
Parties are groups of people who seek to control
government through winning elections and
holding public office.
Parties:
1.
2.
3.
C.
US parties have weakened
1.
2.
D.
E.
provide a label in the minds of voters
Choose a set of leaders in government
Are organizations that recruit and campaign
More independents
Weaker organizations since the 1960s
Federal system decentralizes power
Parties regulated by state and federal law
II. FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL
PARTIES
A.
Nominate candidates
Previously: party caucuses, nominating
conventions, Now: primary elections
Expansion of primaries means this role is
seriously diminished
1.
2.

B.
C.
D.
E.
Party leaders no longer control nominations; more
candidate-centered politics than party-centered
politics
Raise and spend campaign funds (less so now)
Register voters
Simplify decisions for voters
Unify diverse interests
1.
2.
FDR’s grand coalition
Means parties must take more moderate positions
F.
Act as moderating influence on government
1.
Nominate moderate candidates who appeal to
mainstream
G.
Reduce diffusion of power in government
1.
Theory: unifying force to overcome separation of
powers/checks and balances
2.
Reality: divided government, split-ticket voting
(office-bloc ballot)
H.
Provide patronage

Most government jobs filled by Civil Service
I.
Inform public: party platforms
J.
Agents of political socialization
K.
Linkage institution between people and government
RISE OF POLITICAL PARTIES
I. Origins
1.
2.
3.
Dangers of “factions”
mentioned by Madison in
Federalist #10 and
Washington’s warning about
the “baneful effects of the
spirit of the party”

Federalist #51: a
geographically large
republic reduces abuses of
factions
Yet, parties became necessary
to get things done.
Necessity of an institution
that unifies gov in order to
overcome the systems of
separation of powers and
checks/balances that divide
gov
Historical Development: the Six
Party Systems in US History
1.
1796-1820: 1st party systemFederalists vs. Jeffersonian
Democratic-Republicans
2.
1824-1856: Jacksonian Democrats
v. Whigs
3.
1860-1892: Republican dominance
as the party against slavery and
the party that put the Union back
together
4.
1896-1928: 2nd period of Republican
dominance with its coalition of big
business and the working classes
against Democratic rural interests
5.
1932-1964: Democratic dominance
under FDR and the New Deal.
FDRs grand coalition included
urban dwellers, labor unions,
Catholics, Jews, the poor,
Southerners, Blacks, farmers
6. 1968-PRESENT: ERA OF DIVIDED
GOVERNMENT/DEALIGNMENT
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
Split-ticket voting
Presidents of one party (typically Republican) with
Congresses of the other party (typically Democratic)
Era of party dealignment, as voters are increasingly
becoming independent (rejecting rather than changing
party)
Nixon and Reagan built a coalition of disenchanted
white suburban middle class, Southern white
Protestants, big business
Clinton won twice-resurrected FDRs coalition and women
voters
2000-Bush did not win popular vote, 50-50 Senate, narrow
Republican House majority
2004: unified Republican government
2006: divided gov
2008: return to unified gov
2010: divided gov – rise of Tea Party in 2009
2012: divided gov – 112th the real “Do-Nothing Congress”
2014: ???
II. RELATIVE PARTY STRENGTHS
A. National Gov
1.
2.
3.
4.
President: Democratic
House: (113th Congress
2013-15) 201 Dems, 233
Rep, 1 vacancy (Jul ‘13)
Senate (113th): 52 Dems,
46 Rep, 2 independent
Divided gov typical of
the past few decades.
The usual pattern has
been Republican
presidents and a
Democratic Congress.
B. State Gov
1.
2.
Governors: 19 Dems,
30 Rep., 1
Independent
State legislatures:
Democrats control 18
states, Rep control
27 states, 5 are split
or nonpartisan
III. PARTY WEAKNESSES
A. Parties lack strong rank-andfile members/grassroots
organization
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Anyone can join by
registering
No duties or dues
Most activities only occur at
election time
Most Americans are
spectators, rather than
participants, in party activity
Small percentage of “strong
Dems” or “strong Rep”
Increase in percentage of
Independents (though most
are “leaners”)
B. Many traditional functions of
parties have been lost or
weakened
1.
2.
3.
4.
Nomination of candidates

Now by primary elections
Funding of campaigns

Trend toward candidatecentered campaigns (especially
after FECA/BCRA)
Unifying gov

We often have divided gov, and
intra-party conflict can be
strong
Providing patronage

Jobs now filled by Civil Service
(Pendleton Act, 1883)
C. Weak Party Discipline
1.
2.
3.
Split-ticket voting-voters
less loyal to party

“vote the man, not the
party”
Few penalties for politicians
who stray from party line

Candidates nominated by
people, not party
Candidates finance campaigns
on their own

Don’t rely on parties
D. Intra-Party Divisions
1.
2.
3.
Between party regulars
and candidate
loyalists/issue advocates
Between Dem liberals
and moderates (“Blue
Dog” dems in Congress)
Between Rep
conservatives (Tea Party)
vs. moderates
SPLIT DISTRICT OUTCOMES: PRESIDENTIAL AND
HOUSE VOTING 1900-2000 (CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICTS CARRIED BY HOUSE AND PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES OF DIFFERENT PARTIES)
Split District Outcomes: Presidential and House Voting, 19002000 *
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
Year
Number of House Districts with Split Results
Percentage of House Districts with Split Results
2000
E. OTHER FACTORS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Rise of campaign consultants to take over many party
functions
Public disenchantment with parties and politics in 1960s
Growth of interest groups
Development of mass media
 Candidates rely on media, not party, to get message out
Evidence of “dealignment:” rejection of parties rather
than changing party membership (realignment)

growth of political independents
Counter arguments to dealignment theory:
1. even though % of independents has increased, 2/3 of
independents are actually “leaners”
IV. NATIONAL PARTY STRUCTURE
3 COMPONENTS OF PARTIES
A. Party-in-Government:
B. Party-in-Electorate:
Party leaders occupy
positions in:
1. Presidency
2. Congress
3. State governors
4. State legislatures
5. Local governments
1.
2.
3.
4.
Registered
Democrats
Democratic
identifiers/leaners
Registered
Republicans
Republican
identifiers/leaners
C. PARTY ORGANIZATIONS:
PARTIES ARE DECENTRALIZED ALONG
FEDERAL LINES
1.
National level

National Convention. Highest Authority

National Committee. When convention not in session

National Chairperson. (DNC: Representative Debbie
Wasserman Schultz (FL); RNC: Reince Preibus)

Congressional Campaign Committee (for House seats)

Senate Campaign Committee
2.
State Committee
3.
Local Committees: city, ward, precinct levels
4.
Neither DNC nor RNC can “punish” state/local committees if
they stray from the party line (decentralization)
V. NATIONAL CONVENTIONS
Sets the number of delegates for each state and rules
for how those delegates shall be chosen
 Historically, party bosses and corrupt political
machines controlled nominations while the young,
poor, and minorities were underrepresented
1. Progressive Era Reforms :







Direct primary elections
Nonpartisan elections at state and local level
Civil Service expansion – Pendleton Act (1883)
At State level, implementation of measures to increase
direct democracy: initiative, referendum, recall
17th Amendment
Hatch Act (1939): illegal for federal civil service
workers to engage in political campaigns or
activities
REFORMS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
SINCE 1970 (MCGOVERN-FRASER
COMMISSION)




Prohibited unit rule at the convention (winner-take-all
– Republicans still use in some states)
Developed a “quota system” to ensure that the young,
women, and minorities were represented in party
affairs (especially the national convention)
Superdelegates give the “party regulars” a chance to do
what is good for the party, and not necessarily the
people.
1986 Fairness Commission: lowered the threshold
requirement from 20% to 15% for candidates to receive
proportional delegates.
PARTY RESURGENCE
1.
National party organizations are better funded
than in the past.

2.
3.
4.
5.
Soft money (now banned) important factors in
elections in 1990s
National parties compensated for loss of soft
money by raising more hard money
Both parties, with better funding, hold training
sessions for candidates: how to plan, raise
funds, organize
Very strong party unity scores within Congress:
70-80%
Party I.D. is still the strongest predictor of
voting behavior
Party Identification in the US
40
Percentage
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1992
1996
2000
2004
Year
Democrat
Republican
Independent
2008
MINOR PARTIES
A. Types
1.
Ideological parties:

Apply a general philosophy to a
wide variety of issues
(Communist Party, Socialist
Party)
2.
Issue-oriented party:

Single policy parties (Free-Soil,
Know-Nothing, Prohibition)
3.
4.
Economic protest parties:

Regional economic concerns
(Greenback, Populist)
Factional: centered around a
strong personality (Perot, TR)
B. Contributions
1.
Raise issues that other
parties must address, and
often incorporate into
their own party platforms
(Populist Party: direct
election of senators,
income tax)
2.
Voice for the fringe
elements in society
3.
Safety valve for discontent
in society
C. Effects of Minor
Parties
D. Obstacles:
1.
Rarely win elections
1.
2-party tradition
2.
Influence the outcome of
presidential elections :
“spoiler role.”
2.
Single-member, winner-takeall district system for
congressional seats (more
associated with two-party
systems), as opposed to the multimember, proportional system
common in W. Europe
3.
Electoral college winner-takeall system (Perot won 19% of vote
in ‘92 but 0 electoral votes)
4.
Getting candidates on ballot
5.
Money
6.
Media coverage
7.
Exclusion from TV debates
IMPACT OF PARTIES ON
GOVERNMENT
A. Congress




Majority party has a
majority on all committees
and subcommittees
Majority party has
chairmen on all committees
 Minority party has
“ranking member” on
each committee, who
becomes chair when
party control changes
Majority party controls key
leadership positions
Staffers are partisan
B. Executive Branch
1.
2.
3.
Nearly all appointments
to White House Office
are partisan (many from
election campaign)
Nearly all appointments
to top positions in other
parts of exec branch are
partisan
Development of Civil
Service System has
greatly reduced party
influence over the
bureaucracy
C. Judicial Branch
1.
Nearly all
appointments are
partisan
D. State and local
governments
1.
2.
Most state
government
positions are
partisan
Many local
government
positions are
nonpartisan (school
board, city council)
CH. 11: INTEREST GROUPS
INTEREST GROUPS
1.
2.
Defined: a group with common interest that seeks to
influence government
Madison (Federalist 10): dilemma of wanting liberty and
order.

Political factions were inevitable, but their effects
must be controlled. A geographically large
republic is more likely to be able to cure the
“mischief of faction.”

Pluralism: growth of interest groups prevents the
concentration of excessive power in the hands of few, and
thus enhances democracy
REASONS FOR GROWTH
1.
The U.S. is a large, diverse nation with many kinds of cleavages

Americans are “joiners” (Tocqueville)

Diversity of population: social, racial, economic, and geographic
cleavages
2.
Multiple points of access to the government

Diffusion of power in government: plenty of places for a group to
argue its case means more groups to exercise influence

When governments (bureaucracy) create agencies, it creates entry
point for interest groups (New Deal, Great Society created
agencies, created need for interest groups to form to protect their
stakes)
3.
Development of non-profit organizations
4.
Weakness of political parties: when parties are unable to get
things done, interest groups have filled the power vacuum
5.
Reforms of the 1970s: FECA and the explosion of PACs
6.
Interest groups beget interest groups
7.
Technology: mass communication and media
INTEREST GROUPS
A. Institutional:
Goal: to promote economic interests
of its members
Types:
1.
2.
Agricultural (American Farm
Bureau (largest))
Labor (AFL-CIO, UAW,
Teamsters)

Unions have seen decline in
membership (shift to service
industry, lack of popular
approval)
3.
Business (Chamber of Commerce,
Nat’l Assoc. of Manufacturers)
4.
Professional (AMA, ABA)
B. Membership:
Goal: to protest the status of
its members and to convince
government to take
remedial action
Examples:
1.
NAACP
2.
NOW
3.
Sierra Club
4.
NRA
5.
MALDEF
6.
ACT UP
TYPES OF INTEREST GROUPS
D. Public Interest
C. Single Issue
Goal: to get government
action on one overriding
issue
Examples:
1. Right to Life League
2. NARAL
3. NRA
4. MADD
5. PETA
6. NORML
Goal: to bring about good policy for
society as a whole
Examples:
1.
Common Cause: campaign finance
reform
2.
Public Citizen (Nader): consumer
advocacy
3.
League of Women Voters:
encourages people to become
informed, to register to vote, and to
vote
4.
Various Environmental groups:
Sierra Club, Wilderness Society,
WWF
501(c)(3) groups: tax exempt, cannot
be involved in election campaigns
(Girl Scouts, FBLA)
E. Ideological
Goal: to convince government to
implement policies that are
consistent with their
philosophies
F. Governmental
1.
National League of Cities,
National Association of
Governors
G.
PACs
Examples:
1.
Christian Coalition, People for
the American Way, ACLU
2.
Think Tanks: Public-interest
organizations that conduct
research on policy questions, most
are ideologically based (Brookings
Institute, Children’s Defense
Fund, Heritage Foundation, Cato
Institute)
Reasons for Joining:
A. Irrationality of Joining:
1.
2.
Single person may not
make much difference
People likely to receive
benefits from the group
anyway

“free rider” problem:
need for groups to offer
incentives for people to
join
B. Types of Incentives:
1.
2.
3.
Solidary incentives
Material incentives:
Purposive incentives:
TACTICS OF INTEREST GROUPS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Use of mass media
Grassroots mobilization
Boycotting
Litigation
Use of amicus curiae briefs
Campaign contributions
Endorsement of candidates
“targeting” of unfriendly candidates
Issuing “report cards” to rate candidates/congressmen
Initiative, referendum, and recall at state and local levels
Lobbying
Mass mailings.
FACTORS INFLUENCING INTEREST GROUP
STRENGTH
I.
Nature of membership
A.
Size:

More members=more money, more votes.

More members also means greater cross-pressure
among members and possibly less focus
B.
Spread: the degree to which a group’s membership is
either concentrated or dispersed
C.
Cohesiveness: degree to which members are
committed to the “cause”
D. Leadership
E.
Resources: money, expertise, reputation, connections
LOBBYING
I. Defined: Attempting to influence government.
Interest group lobbying is generally most
effective on narrow, technical issues that
are not well-publicized.
A. Iron triangle: informal coalition of interest
groups/congressional committee/federal
agency that seeks to influence public policy.
B. These are sometimes known as issue networks,
policy networks, subgovernments
II. TYPES OF LOBBYING
1.
Cooperative Lobbying:

2.
3.
Groups with a similar purpose combining their
efforts
Grassroots lobbying:

GRASSROOTS MOBILIZATION:

Building support among the public for social change or to
prevent change. May be leveraged into change at the
legislature, in the courts, in the economic system, or other
areas of society. It is developing awareness of an issue among
large numbers of people in order to support an action.

Organizing lobbying efforts at the local level to put
public pressure on government officials
“Netroots” lobbying:

Political activism organized through blogs and other
online media
III. Functions of lobbyists:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Influence
government
Provide
information to
government
Testify at hearings
Help write
legislation (a “third
house of Congress”)
IV. Regulation of Lobbying:
1.

1.

1946 Federal Regulation of
Lobbying Act:
Required registration and
disclosure, but was full of loopholes
Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995:
Tightened up registration and
disclosure requirements
1.
Restrictions on gifts, meals, and
expense paid travel that members
of Congress may receive from
lobbyists
2.
Former agency employee must wait
two years before lobbying that
agency
V. THE CASE FOR LOBBYISTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
They provide useful information to the
government
They provide a means of participation for the people
They provide a means of representation on the
basis of interest rather than geography. A
“linking mechanism” between the people and
government. A “third house of Congress.”
1st Amendment protection (assemble and petition)
Madison in Federalist 10: the “remedy” of curing
evils of faction by eliminating their causes is worse
than the disease. Potential loss of liberty is worse
than the abuses of lobbyists.
VI. THE CASE AGAINST LOBBYISTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Rich and powerful interests are overrepresented.
Average and poor people are under-represented
By safeguarding liberty, equality is sacrificed
Single-issue lobbies, in particular, contribute to
political polarization
Lobbies contribute even further to diffusion of
power, making it even more difficult for
government to get things done
National interest is sacrificed for narrow
interests
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES
I. Explosive growth of PACs: groups that raise
funds for favored candidates
A. In 1974, only 600 PACs existed. Now: more than
4,600
B. Reason: congressional legislation that had the
intent of preventing a few wealthy campaign
contributors from helping candidates “buy”
elections. Instead, Congress wanted to “open up”
campaign contributions to the masses, as
represented by PACs
NUMBER OF PACS: 1974-2006
Number of Political Action Committees
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
Year
1994
1998
2002
2006
C. FECA OF 1974:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Individuals could contribute no more than
$1,000 (now $2,600 for 2013-14)
Individuals could also, however, contribute
$1,000 to a PAC with no limit on the number of
PACs they could contribute to
PACs could contribute 5x (now ~2x) what an
individual could contribute, and there is no limit
on the total amount that a PAC can contribute
in any one year
In addition, there is no limit on the amount of
independent expenditures that a PAC can make
PAC CONTRIBUTIONS 1980-2004
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
PAC Contributions
900
800
Millions of Dollars
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1980
1984
1988
1992
Year
1996
2000
2004
II. EXPLOSIVE GROWTH OF PAC
CONTRIBUTIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In 1972, PAC contributions to congressional
races totaled only $8.5mn. By 2004, that figure
was $384mn.
50 House candidates raised > $500,000 each
from PACs in 1998 (only 4 lost)
38 Senate candidates raised > $500,000 each
from PACs in 1998 (7 lost)
PACs even donate to candidates facing no
opposition at all. Why?
Perspective: most congressional campaign
money comes from individual contributions.
PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO HOUSE &
SENATE CANDIDATES (1984-2004)
III. PAC STRATEGIES
A.
Campaign Contributions
(Factors Affecting Who Gets
PAC Money)
1.
2.
Incumbents
Winners
B.
Voter education projects
(mailings, fliers, commercials)
C.
Independent expenditures, issue
advocacy ads
D.
“bundling”
E.
527 groups:
1. Run issue advocacy ads
2. Not regulated by the FEC
3. Not subject to contribution
limits as PACs; many are run
by interest groups to get
around limits/regulations
3.
Those who share a similar
philosophy
4.
Those who are likely to grant access
5.
Those in positions of special
influence, e.g. party leaders,
committee chairs, important
committee seats
6.
PAC money makes up a higher % of
congressional campaign funds than
presidential campaign funds.
IV. Who has PACs?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Corporations: ~50% of
all PACs. Largest
growth in these since
1970s.
ideological organizations
Professional/trade/health
associations
Labor unions
Leadership PACs: formed
by congressional leaders
V. Dangers of PACs:
1.
Ethical concerns: does a
contribution “buy” anything?
2.
Special access of PACs that the
average person lacks
3.
Drives up the cost of
campaigning; more time spent
by Congress on fundraising
4.
Over-representation of those
wealthy enough to have PAC
representation
5.
Under-representation of
those who lack it
6.
Further incumbency advantage
VI. IN DEFENSE OF PACS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Provide a means of participation and representation for
the average person (linkage institution)
Without PACS, maybe only the wealthy could afford to
run for office
1st Amendment right to petition the government
Contributions are nonpartisan
No conclusive evidence that PACs change congressional
votes. More likely to make a difference in obscure
issues with little public awareness than in issues of
major importance with much public awareness
Provide political education
Diversify political funding. With over 4,600 PACs,
many interests are represented.
CH. 12: THE MEDIA
WHO ARE THE MASS MEDIA?
I.
A.
B.
C.
“Old” Media:
Declining circulation of
newspapers and news
magazines
Trend towards mergers
and consolidation means
less competition
TV: Decline of 3 major
networks with cable TV
II. The “new media”
A.
Examples: Cable TV, the Internet:
A.
blogs, YouTube, CNN, FNC, The
O’Reilly Factor, The Daily Show, The
Colbert Report, Rush Limbaugh, talk
radio…
B.
Characteristics:

More interactive

More emphasis on entertainment
“infotainment”

Personalized

Emotional

Informal

Opinionated

topical
EFFECTS OF THE MEDIA ON
POLITICS
I.
II.
Symbiotic relationship between government
and the press: journalists need politicians to
inform and entertain their audiences, and
politicians need journalists for media exposure
Roles of media:
A.
B.
C.
Gatekeeper: influence which subjects are of
national importance, i.e. help to set national
agenda
Scorekeeper: keep track of, and help make, political
reputations, e.g. importance attached to Iowa and
NH. Emphasis on horse race element of elections
at expense of issues.
Watchdog: scrutinize people, places, and events
(Watergate, Iran-contra)
III. IMPACT OF NEWSPAPERS
A.
B.
perception of liberal bias
Complaints from both liberals and conservatives:
1.
2.
C.
D.
E.
Conservatives claim that reporters are too liberal: college
graduates (often from elite schools) with hostility towards
middle class values
Liberals claim that publishers are conservative and
therefore are more concerned with sales and profits than
exposing social/political/economic evils.
Lack of competition: most cities now have only one major
newspaper
Largest amount of presidential campaign coverage
devoted to day-to-day campaign activities.
“horse race” coverage
IV. IMPACT OF TELEVISION
A.
B.
C.
D.
Most people now get their news and political info from TV.
Decline of substance in coverage and rise of image and slogans.
Concern that TV is allied with “big government:” use of TV as
electronic throne of President
1. President can now bypass journalists’ annoying questions
and go right to the people with a speech
2. Decline in number of presidential press conferences
3. White House manipulation of TV with photo opportunities
and sound bites.
Concern that TV has fostered cynicism, distrust, and
negativism towards government and politics (adversarial
journalism)
Concern that people look at politics through the “camera lens”
rather than the “party lens” (further decline of party)
THE MEDIA AND PUBLIC OPINION
Do the media influence public opinion? Mixed evidence.
A.
Yes
1.
TV “personalizes” candidates and elections
2.
Media stress short-term elements of elections at expense of longterm
3.
Those who “consume” media in turn influence others
4.
Media help set national agenda
5.
Rise of advocacy journalism/adversarial journalism rather
than objective journalism.
6.
Studies show that journalists are more liberal than public as a
whole
7.
Media are a primary linking mechanism between public and
government
8.
Profit motive, emphasis on boosting ratings, “trivialization” of
news, people less informed on important issues
B. No.
1. Mass public pays little attention to the news and often forgets
what it sees or reads
2. Selective attention:
3. Selective perception:
4. Media are only one source of influence-political
socialization suggests importance of family, schools, peers,
and other influences
5. People consume media for variety of reasons other than
information: boredom, entertainment. These people are less
likely to pay close attention to “hard” news and analysis
NATURE OF MEDIA INFLUENCES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Most influential at the agenda-setting phase of
the policy making process
Issue framing: once an issue is on the national
agenda, media provide context for
understanding that issue
“sameness” of coverage
Media companies are businesses, objective:
make money
Forum for building candidate images
Linking mechanism between government and
people
1.
2.
Past: people-parties-government
Now: people-media-government
G.
H.
I.
J.
Contribute to higher cost of campaigning
Contribute to candidate-centered campaigns
Increase the role of campaign consultants.
White House manipulation of media (electronic
throne)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Photo ops
Sound bites
Spin control
Staged events
Trial balloons
“going public” when president takes case directly to the
people
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
Negative coverage of Congress. Congress seen as
obstructionist foil to president.
Emphasis on sensationalism and scandal: “feeding
frenzy”
Far less coverage of SCOTUS than of Congress and
president
Media most influential
1. In primary elections
2. On undecided voters
Increasing importance of Internet (“net roots”)
1. Fundraising
2. Communicating with public: websites, YouTube,
MySpace, Facebook, Twitter
Television Viewership and Coverage of National
Nominating Conventions: 1960-2000
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
Year
Percent Viewing Rep.
Nat'l Convention
Percent Viewing
Dem. Nat'l
Convention
Network Hours
Telecast of Rep. Nat'l
Convention
Network Hours
Telecast of Dem.
Nat'l Convention
Hours of Convention Coverage on
CBS, NBC, ABC
Coverage of Party Conventions on Network TV: 19562000
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
Election Year