How Energy Issues Might Affect
This Election
• Issue Publics
• News Media Priming
• Gasoline Prices
Issue Publics
Preference about
What Government
Should Do on Some
Issue
β
Vote Choice
Gabriel Almond (1950): The Attentive Public
15%
Identifying Issue Public Members
“How important is this issue to you personally?”
•
•
•
•
•
Extremely important
Very important
Moderately important
Slightly important
Not important at all
The Issue Public
Issue Publics in the United States
Abortion
31%
Government Social Services Programs
21%
Global Warming
17%
Gun Control
17%
U.S. Military Spending
16%
Capital Punishment
14%
Women’s Rights
12%
Race Relations
10%
Unemployment
9%
Other Sources: National Election Studies, General Social Surveys
Doubling of the
Issue Public Since 1997
(51 million people)
18%
16%
14%
12%
17%
10%
8%
6%
4%
11%
8%
2%
0%
1997
1998
2006
Size of the Issue Public
2 5 %
2 0%
1 5 %
1 0%
5 %
0%
Pacific
East
South
Central
New
England
West
North
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Atlantic
West
South
Central
East Mountain
North
Central
Impact of Attitudes on Candidate Preferences
1968
0.25
0.45
0.4
0.2
0.35
0.3
0 . 15
0.25
0.2
0 .1
0 . 15
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
L ow
0
H ig h
Low
Urban Unrest
Vietnam
H ig h
1980
0 .3
0.25
0 .2 5
0.2
0 .3
0 .4
0.3
0 .3 5
0 .2 5
0 .3 5
0 .3
0 .2
0 .2
0 .2 5
0.15
0 .2
0.1
0 . 15
0 . 15
0 .1
0 . 15
0 .1
0 .1
0.05
0 .0 5
0 .0 5
0 .0 5
0
0
Low
Low
H ig h
High
Low
Unemployment
Defense
0 .4
1
0
0
Low
H ig h
H ig h
Russia
Govt. Services
0.5
0 .3 5
0 .8
0 .6
0 .3
0.4
0 .2 5
0.3
0 .4
0 .2
0 .2
0 . 15
0.2
0
0 .1
0.1
0 .0 5
- 0 .2
Low
H ig h
0
0
Low
Abortion
Jobs
Low
H ig h
Minorities
Hi gh
1984
0 .6
0 .5
0 .5
0 .4 5
0 .4
0 .4 5
0 .4
0 .3 5
0 .3
0 .3 5
0 .2 5
0 .2
0 . 15
0 .2 5
0 .2
0 .4
0 .3
0 .3
0 .2
0 .2
0
Low
H ig h
Govt. Services
* p < .05
0 .3
0 . 15
0 .1
0 .1
0 .0 5
0
0 .1
0 .1
0 .4
0
Low
H ig h
Central America
0 .0 5
0
Low
H ig h
Women
Low
H ig h
Jobs
Lesson Learned
Energy issues will influence vote
choices:
AMONG people who care deeply
about these issues
IF candidates take clear and
distinct positions on the issues.
Candidates Ignore Environment Issues
October 3, 2006
Lowndes Citizens United For Action is as dismayed as the rest of Alabama over the
advertisements on television for the governor's race.
We know as the races heat up that the ads will get even more negative, and that all sorts of
attacks will be made by both candidates. It really does not have to be this way, and in fact,
though studies show that negative ads seem to work, we believe that if the candidates would
promote their stand on the issues, all of Alabama would be better educated and better voters.
Take the issue of environmental justice. That issue pits the haves against the have-nots nearly
all the time. Yet the failure of Alabama to adequately address this issue brings the whole state
down.
In environmental circles across the country, Alabama is known as a "sacrifice zone." Just like
we seem easily led by the negative ads, we are easily led by the public relations efforts of
those who would dump on Alabama, pollute our waterways and destroy our natural resources.
Our next governor should have a strong background in environmental issues, yet we hear
nothing from the candidates. What we want is a specific plan to address the issues: the
funding and reforming of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, a strong
policy on landfills, the candidates' support or nonsupport of Sen. Quinton Ross' environmental
justice bill, and a plan to save our natural resources statewide.
Debra Harris, President, Lowndes Citizens United for Action
News Media Priming
β1
How well is
the President
handling energy?
How well is the
President doing
his job overall?
β2
Intended
Vote Choice
News Media Priming
Political
Knowledge
News Media
Attention
To an Issue
Trust in the
News Media
Inference that News
Personnel Believe
the Issue is Nationally
Important
Belief that the Issue
is More Nationally
Important
Choice to Place More
Weight on the Issue in
Formulating Presidential
Evaluations
r-9
1
-9
1
Ju
n91
Au
g91
O
ct
-9
1
D
ec
-9
1
Fe
b92
Ap
r-9
2
Ju
n92
Au
g92
O
ct
-9
2
Ap
Fe
b
-9
0
ct
-9
0
D
ec
O
Total Number of Stories
New York Times Stories on the Economy
120
100
80
60
40
20
Month
Ja
n91
M
ar
-9
1
M
ay
-9
1
Ju
l-9
1
Se
p91
N
ov
-9
1
Ja
n92
M
ar
-9
2
M
ay
-9
2
Ju
l-9
2
Se
p92
N
ov
-9
2
% Change in CPI
2
20
1.5
15
1
10
.5
5
0
0
Month
Inflation
Unemployment
% Unemployed
Inflation and Unemployment Rates During 1991 and 1992
Impact of Economic Performance on Overall Performance
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
.99
0.6
1991
1992
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
.34
0.1
0
1991
1992
Gasoline Prices
40 50 60 70 80
Approval
Presidential Approval (1990-2006)
1990
1995
2000
Years (Monthly)
2005
100 150 200 250 300
Gas Price in cents
Average Gas Price
1990
1995
2000
Years (Monthly)
2005
140
80 100
60
Gas Price in cents
Inflation Corrected Gas Prices (1982-84 as base)
1990
1995
2000
Years (Monthly)
2005
Longitudinal Time Series Analysis
• Gasoline prices are a determinant of
approval of President Bush.
• Approval of President Bush is a
determinant of intended Congressional
vote choice.
150
50
0
Number or Articles
250
Number of NY Times Articles on Gas Prices
1990
1995
2000
Years (Monthly)
2005
Longitudinal Time Series Analysis
• Gasoline prices are a determinant of
approval of President Bush.
• Approval of President Bush is a
determinant of intended Congressional
vote choice.
• News media attention to gasoline prices is
NOT increasing their impact.
• When people can see the reality at the gas
pump, they don’t need the media to help.
Conclusions
• Public preferences about energy policy will have
impact among people who care deeply about the
issue when candidates take CLEAR and
DISTINCT positions.
• Public approval/disapproval of the President’s
handling of energy issues will affect voting
among people who are highly politically
knowledgeable and trust the news media if the
media devote LOTS of attention to energy
issues.
• Gasoline prices will affect presidential approval,
which in turn will affect vote choices. Dropping
prices will increase approval of the President.