The Dynamics of Partisanship Within Election Cycles
Curtiss L. Cobb III and Norman H. Nie
67th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)
May 2012, Orlando, FL.
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
1
Outline
1. Partisan Identities (PIDs)
2. Possible Impact of Campaigns on PI
3. Study 1; 2008 Presidential Election
4. Study 2: 1978 to 2006
5. Conclusions
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
2
2
1. Partisan Identities
Generally speaking, do you usually consider
yourself a Republican, Democrat, an
Independent, or what?
Would you call yourself a strong
[Republican/Democrat] or a not very
strong [Republican/Democrat]?
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
3
3
1. Partisan Identities
 Psychological self-identification
 Formed early in life
 Central orientation from which other dimensions of
political attitudes and behaviors emanate (funnel)
• Presidential popularity
• Support for redistributive policies
• Politics and religion
• Electoral realignments
• Early voting patterns
 “Normal” vote and defections
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
4
4
1. Partisan Identities
 Do political campaigns have systematic, short-term
influence on the partisan attachments of voters?
 Are there demographics factors that influence how
much impact campaigns may exert on partisan
attachments?
 Is partisanship more or less stable than other traits,
attitudes and behaviors?
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
5
5
1. Partisan Identities
 Rational Actor Models
• Voters rationally choose the party from which the
highest gains are expected
• “Cognitive Miser” models
• Retrospective voting
 Stability of Partisan Attachments
• Macropartisanship (MacKuen et al. 1989)
• 1980 ANES (4-wave panel study)
• 1984 ANES (pre- and post-waves)
• Partisan Hearts and Minds (Green et al. 2002)
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
6
6
1. Partisan Identities
 Stability of Partisan Intensity
• 52% of respondents to the 1980 ANES (4-wave panel study) gave
the exact same answer in terms of direction and magnitude.
• 41% of respondents changed between the pre- and post-waves of
the 1984 ANES.
• Changes in partisan strength corresponded to changes in vote
intention in 1984 using rolling cross-section studies (Allsop &
Weisberg 1988)
• Green, Palmquist and Schickler re-evaluated the data from each
of these studies and many others and conclude that the earlier
findings are the result of inadequate measurement model
specification.
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
7
7
2. Possible Impacts of Campaigns
Potential Impact of Campaigns on Partisan Intensity
Activation
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
8
8
2. Possible Impact of Campaigns
Potential Impact of Campaigns on Partisan Intensity
Activation
Confusion
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
9
9
2. Possible Impact of Campaigns
Potential Impact of Campaigns on Partisan Intensity
Activation
No Impact
Confusion
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
10
10
STUDY 1:
2008 Presidential Election
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
11
3. 2008 Presidential Election Study
• Associated Press/Yahoo News 2008 National Election Panel
Study
• 4,884 adults over the entire course of the 2008 election campaign
• 10 interview waves
-
First wave in November 2007
-
Final wave in December 2008
-
Each wave re-measured party ID, ideology, and a number of issue questions
-
Panel approach allows disaggregation of individual-level processes from
aggregate trends.
-
Attention was paid to panel attrition
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
12
12
55,000+ members
Probability-based ABS recruitment
Recruitment takes place throughout the year
Representative of U.S. adults
Includes:
Adults with no Internet access (24% of adults)
• KP provides laptop and free ISP
Cell phone only (30% of adults)
Spanish-language
Extensive profile data maintained on each member
• demographics, attitudes, behaviors, health, media usage, etc.
Samples from the panel are assigned to projects
• e-mail invitations and a link to the online survey questionnaire
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
13
13
3. 2008 Presidential Election
Aggregate Party ID by Wave
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
14
14
3. 2008 Presidential Election
Number of Partisan Switches
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
15
15
3. 2008 Presidential Election
Number of Partisan Switches
Average
Number
of Switches
Democrats
All Democrats
Strong Democrats
Weak Democrats
Republicans
All Republicans
Strong Republicans
Weak Republicans
Independents
Other Party
Actual Vote
Maintainers
Deviators
Political Interest
High
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
1.37
1.05
1.89
1.38
1.04
1.85
1.79
1.42
1.23
2.04
Average
Number
of Switches
Political Knowledge
High
Low
Age
18-30 years old
40+ years old
Education
High School or less
College or more
Race/Ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
1.41
1.89
1.74
1.53
1.75
1.47
1.56
1.64
1.68
1.46
16
16
3. 2008 Presidential Election
Transitions
Party Identification (t)
Party Identification
(t-1)
Strong Democrat
Strong
Weak
Independe
Democrat Democrat
nt
.855
.110
.029
(.864)
(.106)
(.026)
Weak
Republic
an
.003
(.002)
Strong
Republic
an
.002
(.002)
Other
.001
(.001)
Weak Democrat
.136
(.146)
.708
(.711)
.122
(.114)
.027
(.023)
.003
(.003)
.004
(.003)
Independent
.012
(.010)
.047
(.047)
.871
(.871)
.048
(.050)
.014
(.014)
.008
(.009)
Weak Republican
.003
(.000)
.021
(.022)
.123
(.124)
.724
(.735)
.126
(.117)
.003
(.001)
Strong Republican
.001
(.001)
.003
(.002)
.025
(.024)
.113
(.101)
.855
(.871)
.002
(.001)
Other
.005
(.008)
.036
(.017)
.246
(.258)
.041
(.017)
.031
(.008)
.641
(.692)
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
17
17
3. 2008 Presidential Election
Percent Reporting Same Party (Direction Only)
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
18
18
3. 2008 Presidential Election
Average Partisan Intensity by Initial Party ID
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.57
1.544
1.53
1.421
1.413
1.391
1.411
1.457
1.388
1.444
1.48
1.427
1.487
1.4
1.476
1.413
1.5
1.414
1.477
1.382
1.2
1
0.975
0.8
0.933
0.955
1.06
1.03
1.03
1.04
1.05
0.364
0.34
0.341
0.348
0.315
5
7
8
9
0.99
1.01
All
All Democrats
All Republicans
Independents
0.6
0.4
0.272
0.136
0.2
0.352
0.189
0
0
1
2
3
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
4
10
11
19
19
3. 2008 Presidential Election
Average Partisan Intensity by Initial Party ID
2
1.8
1.69
1.656
1.578
1.6
1.573
1.678
1.674
1.681
1.712
1.035
1.004
1.645
1.584
1.4
1.2
1.146
1.063
0.938
1
0.8
0.64
0.6
0.875
0.955
0.945
0.723
0.729
0.886
0.698
0.937
0.646
0.804
0.708
0.708
10
11
0.521
0.51
0.4
0.2
0
1
2
3
4
Difference
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
5
7
Maintainers
8
9
Deviators
20
20
3. 2008 Presidential Election
1. Partisanship appears stable in the aggregate, but a
substantial amount of individual-level party identity
switching occurred.
2. Switching occurred most during the primary season.
3. Switches occurred least after nominating conventions
(when vote intent stabilizes).
4. Net result is that only 82% of respondents give the same
party direction in the final wave as the first wave and only
72% given the same direction and strength.
5. Maintainers are stable, while deviators are not.
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
21
21
3. 2008 Presidential Election
Is partisanship more stable than other traits?
Alpha
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Scale
Type
Scale
Points
W
George W. Bush—Job Approval
.8551
.8382
.8680
O
5
5
Iraq War—Favor/Oppose
.8533
.8347
.8698
O
4
2
Ideology—Liberal/Conservative (7pt)
.8521
.8390
.8641
O
7
5
Party Identity—Direction and Strength
.7886
.7661
.8099
N
6
10
Ideology—Liberal/Conservative (5pt)
.7764
.7541
.7969
O
5
4
Party Identity—Direction Only
.7702
.7481
.7925
N
5
10
George W. Bush—Favor/Unfavor
.7674
.7430
.7921
O
5
9
Bill Clinton—Favor/Unfavor
.7517
.7279
.7762
O
5
5
Hillary Clinton—Favor/Unfavor
.7428
.7184
.7667
O
5
9
Democratic Party—Favor/Unfavor
.7281
.7012
.7551
O
5
8
Sarah Palin—Favor/Unfavor
.7099
.6860
.7348
O
5
4
Republican Party—Favor/Unfavor
.6901
.6611
.7219
O
5
8
Party Identity—Strength Only
.6802
.6400
.7187
O
2
10
Vote Intent
.6704
.6374
.7006
N
4
5
Party Identity—Independent Leaners
.6621
.6271
.7014
N
3
10
Barack Obama—Favor/Unfavor
.6535
.6270
.6807
O
5
9
Joe Biden—Favor/Unfavor
.6460
.6167
.6748
O
5
4
Nancy Pelosi—Favor/Unfavor
.6382
.6058
.6721
O
5
5
Michelle Obama—Favor/Unfavor
.6118
.5797
.6431
O
5
5
Item
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
22
22
4. 1978 to 2006
• 161 public opinion polls from 1978 to 2006
•
Publically available
•
Nationally representative sample
•
Sample size of n=1,000 or more
•
“Michigan” series of questions
• Over 400,000 respondents
• 4-year election cycle broken into 16 quarters
• Control for “house effects”
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
23
23
.75
.8
.85
.9
.95
4. 1978 to 2006
0
2-AMJ
1-JFM
4-OND (no election)
3-JAS
5-JFM
6-AMJ
8-OND (Congress)
7-JAS
9-JFM
10-AMJ
12-OND (no election)
11-JAS
13-JFM
14-AMJ
16-OND (Pres)
15-JAS
Political Quarter
Partisan Strength
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
95% CI
24
24
5. Conclusions
1. Campaigns and elections lead a substantial
amount of individual-level partisan change.
2. Partisan change occurs systematically in relation
to events, candidates and issues.
3. Partisanship is no more stable than other
attitudes.
4. This is theoretically satisfying.
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
25
25
Thank you!
curtiss.cobb@gfk.com
Curtiss L. Cobb III is Director of Survey Methodology at GfK.
Norman H. Nie is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Chicago
and Stanford University, and co-founder of Knowledge Networks, now a GfK company.
© GfK 2012 | Title of presentation | DD. Month 2012
26