Unit 5
Influencing the
American Political and
Economic Systems
Political activity is economic activity
Political Spectrum
Political Parties and our 2 party system
Interest Groups
Political Action Committees (P.A.C.)
Campaign Finance and Reform- hard money and soft money
Constituents (voters), their influence, pork, earmarks
Campaigns, Advertising, Marketing, Propaganda
The Media and current “news” sources
Game Theory, Rational Decisions
Allocating scarce resources that have alternative uses?
Political activity is economic activity
Politics- The act of Influencing Government decisions
Economics- Allocation of Scarce resources that have alternative uses to the most useful
purpose.
Political activity is Economic Activity.
The goal of any politician is to maximize their votes so that the can be elected into office and
influence government.
Through and economic perspective:
Allocation of Scarce resources that have alternative uses to the most useful purpose.
(Votes)
(voting for other candidates)
(voting for the candidate)
Political Spectrum
Liberal
Democrats
Communism
Moderate
Conservative
Republicans
Reactionary
Radical
Socially more freedom
Economically more
restrictions
Fascism
Socially more
restrictions
Economically more
freedom
http://ontheissues.org
Government Power
Monarchy
Oligarchy
Democracy
Republic
Anarchy
Government Power in the economy
Command
Mix Market
Free Market
A Different Spectrum
30
S
o
c
i
a
l
I
s
s
u
e
s
25
Left
Liberal
Libertarian
20
Centrist
15
10
Statist
Right
Conservative
5
0
5
10
15
Economic Issues
20
25
30
A Different Spectrum
For Social Issues count and Chart your “L” responses for the social statements
30
S
o
c
i
a
l
I
s
s
u
e
s
25
Left
Liberal
Libertarian
20
Centrist
15
10
Statist
Right
Conservative
5
0
5
10
15
Economic Issues
20
25
30
A Different Spectrum
For Economic Issues count and Chart your “C” responses for the economic statements
30
S
o
c
i
a
l
I
s
s
u
e
s
25
Left
Liberal
Libertarian
20
Centrist
15
10
Statist
Right
Conservative
5
0
5
10
15
Economic Issues
20
25
30
A Different Spectrum
30
S
o
c
i
a
l
I
s
s
u
e
s
25
Left
Liberal
Libertarian
20
Centrist
15
10
Statist
Right
Conservative
5
0
5
10
15
Economic Issues
20
25
30
A Different Spectrum
How do you compare?
30
S
o
c
i
a
l
I
s
s
u
e
s
25
Pelosi
Kucinich
Obama
Biden H. Clinton
Ron Paul
20
Gore
Reid
Bill Clinton
15
Casey
Bachmann
Corbett
Gingrich
Palin McCain
Cain
Bush
Perry
Romney
Toomey
10
5
0
Fitzpatrick
Christie
5
10
15
Economic Issues
20
25
30
A Different Spectrum
How do you compare?
30
S
o
c
i
a
l
I
s
s
u
e
s
25
Pelosi
Kucinich
Obama
Biden H. Clinton
Ron Paul
20
Gore
Reid
Bill Clinton
15
Casey
Bachmann
Corbett
Gingrich
Palin McCain
Cain
Bush
Perry
Romney
Toomey
10
5
0
Fitzpatrick
Christie
5
10
15
Economic Issues
20
25
30
A Different Spectrum
How do you compare?
30
S
o
c
i
a
l
I
s
s
u
e
s
25
Pelosi
Kucinich
Obama
Biden H. Clinton
Ron Paul
20
Gore
Reid
Bill Clinton
15
Casey
Bachmann
Corbett
Gingrich
Palin McCain
Cain
Bush
Perry
Romney
Toomey
10
5
0
Fitzpatrick
Christie
5
10
15
Economic Issues
20
25
30
People will stay on the beach and in between jettys and eat hotdogs
All vendors are the same, people will eat at the closet hotdog vendors
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Where do you place your hotdog cart if you are by yourself? Why?
Where do you place your hotdog cart if you have competition? Why?
What does a third hotdog vendor do to the situation?
10
Median Voter TheoremNash Equilibrium
The median voter theory, also known as the median voter theorem or Black's theorem, is a
famous voting theorem. It posits that in a majority election , if voter policy preferences can be
represented as a point along a single dimension, if all voters vote deterministically for the
politician who commits to a policy position closest to their own preference, and if there are
only two politicians, then a politician maximizes their number of votes by committing to the
policy position preferred by the median voter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/business/economy/07view.html
Problems with the Model
Although the Median Voter Theorem is sometimes thought to work well in predicting the
behavior of U.S. presidential candidates, there are certain key weaknesses in the model.
First, the model assumes that voting preferences are arrayed along a single dimension. It could
be argued in response that political preferences are in fact multidimensional. Strangely,
although I think political preferences should be multidimensional, I find, in practice, there is
much to be said for the idea that people align themselves along a simple, single left-right
dimension.
Second, the model assumes that preferences are equally distributed along the spectrum when
in reality they might be skewed towards one end or the other. Actually, it turns out that this isn’t
that big of a problem. It just means that candidates will/should position themselves in the
middle of whatever the actual distribution is.
Third, the model assumes that candidates can simply pick the ideological position that suits
their needs. In reality, candidates come with histories (voting records, policy statements etc.)
that might make it difficult for such positioning to be credible to the electorate.
Finally, the model assumes that every voter actually votes. If not-voting is an option, things
become more complicated. The model also becomes more complicated when there are more
than two candidates running for election
If most citizens find themselves somewhere in the middle and candidates want to maximize their votes,
why don’t we find more moderate candidates?
Additionally, if the law of supply was applied wouldn’t candidates find themselves working toward the
place where the “price” was the highest?
And if the Median Voter Theorem has any merit wouldn’t it make sense for either one or both of the
candidates to work toward the other in hopes of cutting of the other candidate’s support?
Theories on why there isn’t as much moderation as you may expect.
People are not equally distributed. This relates to location, issues, and groups of people.
It is true that when added together, individual contributions amount to more than other contributors.
But the average single contribution per corporation, union, big business, and special interest group is
much larger. This reaffirms the law of supply. In short, a candidate doesn’t want to disappoint the larger
single contributors.
The median voter theorem does hold up. First, during the primaries competing candidates of the same
party must satisfy the median voter of the party. When the primaries have concluded it becomes
extremely difficult to become a moderate.
Median Voter Theorm
If the majority of people can be classified as centrist why are most politicians on the extremes?
Money!!!!!!!!!
Money from
Political Parties
Interest Groups
Big Business
Unions
The largest % of donations for campaigns always come from individuals.
So why don’t individuals have as much influence?
- Organization
- The list above contains groups that are extremely organized with a common goal.
- Their marginal benefit is much greater than their own share of the marginal social cost.
A Different Spectrum
Unions
Democratic party,
special interest,
PACs
30
S
o
c
i
a
l
I
s
s
u
e
s
25
http://www.opensecrets.org/
Pelosi
Kucinich
Obama
Biden H. Clinton
Ron Paul
20
Gore
Reid
Bill Clinton
15
Casey
Bachmann
Corbett
Gingrich
Palin McCain
Cain
Bush
Perry
Romney
Toomey
10
5
0
Fitzpatrick
Christie
5
10
15
Economic Issues
20
25
30
Republican Party
Big Business
Corporations
Interest groups
PACs
96% of all elections are won by the candidate who earns the most money
How would the political party react if a candidate became increasingly moderate?
How would the party react if a candidate suggested a compromise with the other party?
Political Parties
Political Parties are formed by people who share similar ideas. The goals of the party are to
influence and control government decisions by getting their representatives elected into public
office.
Conservative generally favor the Republican Party
Liberals generally favor the Democratic Party
We have a 2 party system
Why?
This does lead to stability
Roles of Political Parties:
Nominating Candidates and support them financially- GET THEM ELECTED!!!!!
Informing and activating supporters
Bonding (Stamp of Approval) – reputation
Governing (check and balance)
Watchdog
Interest Groups
Group Stimulation
How Interest Groups Form
• Who is Being Organized
– The wealthy, well-educated, and politically motivated
are more likely to form and join lobbies
– Factors affecting group organization
• A disturbance or adverse change may make people aware
that they need political representation
• The quality of leadership
• The higher the socioeconomic level of potential members,
the more likely those members are to join
• Establishment by an institution
Interest Group Resources
• Membership
– One of the most valuable resources a group can have is a large and
politically active membership
– Members provide political muscle and financial resources
– Maintaining Membership
• Ideological appeals
• Direct mail
• The Internet
– Free-rider problem: a situation in which people benefit from the activities
of the organization but do not contribute to those activities
• Lobbyists
– Can be either full-time employees of the
organization or hired from law firms or public
relations firms
– Lobbyists can be fundraisers for candidates
– Typical interaction between lobbyists and
policymakers is transmission of information
Lobbying Tactics
• Direct lobbying: attempts to influence a legislator’s vote through
personal contact
– Grassroots lobbying: lobbying activities performed by rank-and-file interest
group members and would-be members
• Information campaign: are organized efforts to gain public backing
by bringing the group’s views to public attention
• High-Tech lobbying: using e-mail, polling and the World Wide Web
to expand an organization’s reach
• Coalition building: the banding together of several interest groups
for the purpose of lobbying
Who Lobbies?
Political Parties
Nominate
Larger Scope and more issues
Obtain votes
Supports one candidate
Interest Groups
Supports
candidates
Raise $
Single issues
Solve
issues
Multiple candidates
Members
share views
Influence
Compete,
inform,
activate
Influence but don’t nominate
A Different Spectrum
Unions
Democratic party,
special interest,
PACs
30
S
o
c
i
a
l
I
s
s
u
e
s
25
http://www.opensecrets.org/
Pelosi
Kucinich
Obama
Biden H. Clinton
Using the law of
supply, P increase:
supply increases
Ron Paul
20
Gore
Reid
Bill Clinton
15
Casey
Bachmann
Corbett
Gingrich
Palin McCain
Cain
Bush
Perry
Romney
Toomey
10
5
0
Fitzpatrick
Christie
5
10
15
Economic Issues
20
25
Explain why special
interest, pol
parties, and pacs
draw candidates
away from the
center.
30
Republican Party
Big Business
Corporations
Interest groups
PACs
Political Action Committees
Political Action Committees (PACs): an organization that pools contributions from group
members and donates those funds to candidates for office
PACs are often created by big business, unions, and corporations
The are also PACs called leadership PACs that are created by other politicians, these politicians
raise money for other candidates in the hopes that if the candidate wins the election that they
will be rewarded by being promoted to leadership positions.
Remember + 90% of all elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money.
Key: Correlation does not mean causation
Primary goal of contributions is generally to gain access to incumbents.
Why do you think PACS donate more to incumbents (current office holders)
They win more often than not.
Relations developed between Interest groups and incumbent
Friendship is a Wonderful Thing
Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever- 2008
Big Spenders = Big Winners
Let's face it, candidates who are the bigger spenders may not always win but they usually do, as
has been the case over the last fifteen years in more than 80 percent of House and Senate
contests. Even in "open races," with no incumbent running, better-funded candidates won 75
percent of the time.
2010
In 85 percent of House races and 83 percent
of Senate races, the candidate who spent the
most money ended up winning.
2008
“In 93 percent of House of Representatives
races and 94 percent of Senate races... the
candidate who spent the most money ended
up winning.”
2006
“In 93 percent of House of Representatives
races and 67 percent of Senate races... the
candidate who spent the most money won.”
2004
“In 95 percent of House races and 91 percent
of Senate races... the candidate who spent the
most money won.”
2002
“Just over 95 percent of U.S. House races and
75 percent of Senate races were won by the
candidate who spent the most money.“
2000
“The candidate who spent the most money
won 98 percent of the elections for
positions in the House of Representatives.
In the Senate the percentage was 85
percent.”
1998
“In 94 percent of Senate races and 95
percent of House races, the candidate who
spent the most money won.”
1996
“92 percent of House races and 88 percent
of Senate races were won by the candidate
who spent the most on the election.”
A Different Spectrum
Unions
Democratic party,
special interest,
PACs
30
S
o
c
i
a
l
I
s
s
u
e
s
25
http://www.opensecrets.org/
Pelosi
Kucinich
Obama
Biden H. Clinton
Ron Paul
20
Gore
Reid
Bill Clinton
15
Casey
Bachmann
Corbett
Gingrich
Palin McCain
Cain
Bush
Perry
Romney
Toomey
10
5
0
Fitzpatrick
Christie
5
10
15
Economic Issues
20
25
30
Republican Party
Big Business
Corporations
Interest groups
PACs
Make a list of assumptions about raising money and elections
Use the information from the previous slides to help you with your educated assumptions
Assumptions about Raising money
Candidates do not like raising funds
If an Incumbent decides to raise funds= he/she will win the election
The Candidate who spends the most money wins the election. Therefore if a Challenger
decides to raise funds but the Incumbent doesn’t = Challenger wins
If neither attempt to raise money- the Incumbent will win
Payoffs for Incumbent
Inc. Wins and doesn’t raise funds = 10
Inc. Wins and raises funds= 8
Chal. Wins and inc. doesn’t raise funds= 3
Chal. Wins and inc raises funds= 1
Payoffs for Challenger
Chal Wins and doesn’t raise funds = 10
Chal. Wins and raises funds= 8
Inc. Wins and Chal. doesn’t raise funds= 3
Inc. Wins and Chal. raises funds= 1
Incumbent
Raise Funds
Challenger
Raise Funds
Doesn’t Raise Funds
8, 3
Doesn’t Raise Funds
Inc. wins
Inc. wins
8, 1
8, 3
Challenger 3, 8
Raise Funds
Chal. wins
Look forward and reason backward
Why do Incumbents raise money if they don’t like doing it?
Because of how their opponent would react if they don’t.
3, 8
Doesn’t Raise Funds
Inc. wins
10, 3
Exponential Growth of PACs
The Most Powerful People in D.C.
Which Interests Are Best Represented?
Top PAC Contributors to
Federal Candidates in 2005-06
www.opensecrets.org










National Assn of Realtors $3,030,005
National Auto Dealers Assn
$2,376,600
National Beer Wholesalers Assn $2,364,500
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $2,311,650
Assn of Trial Lawyers of America $2,114,500
American Bankers Assn $2,047,774
Credit Union National Assn
$2,047,224
National Assn of Home Builders $1,982,500
AT&T Inc $1,972,515
United Parcel Service (UPS) $1,872,179
Top PAC Contributors to
Federal Candidates in 2005-06
www.opensecrets.org
 National Assn of Realtors
 48% to Dems and 51% to Republicans
 National Auto Dealers Assn
 28% to Dems and 72% to Republicans
 National Beer Wholesalers Assn
 29% to Dems and 71% to Republicans
 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 96% to Dems and 3% to Republicans
 Assn of Trial Lawyers of America
 96% to Dems and 4% to Republicans
Who Gives to Republicans & Democrats?
Campaign Finance Reform
Prior to 2002
Hard money- money directly donated to candidates was limited
IndividualPAC- -
$1000 per election
$5000 per election
Soft money- money indirectly donated to candidates (through the party) was unlimited
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 aka McCain-Feingold Act
Hard Money
Individual
$2,500 per election
$30,800 per year to party,
$10,000 per year to state/local
2 year cycle- $46,200 to candidates, $70,800 to parties
PACS
$5000 per election
$15,000 per party
Soft Money that is given to political parties for the sole purpose of elections is illegal
Soft money used for voter mobilization and “issue” ads but not directly endorsing or criticizing
as specific candidate are legal. This is called a 527
Campaign Finance Reform
Who cannot contribute?
Foreign nations
Unions and Corporations- they must form a P.A.C.
No cash over $100
No contributions in another name (parents cannot use their kid’s names)
2010
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission
Supreme Court Ruled that funding of independent political broadcast in candidate elections
cannot be limited pursuant with the rights entitled by the first amendment.
In short, it is unconstitutional to limit an independent corporation, union, group, or individual
from paying for an independent commercial or advertisement. So long as they are not
affiliated with a party or a candidate, anything goes.
Applying Supply and Demand to better understand Campaign Finance Reform.
It was believed that PACs, special interest groups, corporations, and unions had a potential unfair
advantage by donating unlimited amounts of soft money into elections. In other words, the amount of
campaign financing from contributors exceeded the “socially optimal” level.
Congress had a desire to shift the equilibrium points back to an optimal level. They could create a bill that
could shift the demand or the supply of campaign financing.
P
Congress could take a couple of different approaches.
1. They could limit their demand (willingness and ability)
to collect campaign contributors. This is unlikely because it
puts all candidates on equal footing and takes power out
of their hands.
pe
qo
qe
Q
Price- as a measure of time and effort for the politician
Q- as a measure of donations
qe- Quality at equilibrium (natural)
qo= Quality Optimal (MSC= MSB)
Congress could take a couple of different approaches.
They could limit their own demand (willingness and
ability) to collect campaign contributors. This is
unlikely because it puts all candidates on equal
footing and takes power out of their hands.
They could limit the ability of the suppliers
(donators). The increases the need to gain more
donators.
MSC
P
MSC
P
S1
p2
pe
pe
p2
MSB
qo
qe
D1
Q
Shifting the demand would lower the price for the
candidate- in this case the price can be viewed as a
measure of time spent and promises made.
This places all candidates on a level playing field.
In a sense this also forces the politician to accept a portion
of the blame by implying that it is they who are accepting
funds that exceed the socially optimal level.
MSB
qo
qe
Q
Shifting the supply would increase the price for the
candidate- in this case the price can be viewed as a
measure of time spent and promises made. This
additional burden is more difficult for the challenger to
absorb than the incumbent who already has “friends”,
money, and most importantly a reputation.
In a sense this allows the politician to pass the blame by
implying that it is the donators who are at fault because
they who are contributing funds that exceed the socially
optimal level. The politicians are now “fixing” the
problem.
Impact on Campaign Finance laws
The Bill has not resolved the issue.
1. More money than ever is collected.
2. Campaigns are now twice as long, some
experts even suspect that the campaign
season will never end, we will just simply
roll into the next campaign cycle
immediately after the election.
3. Politicians now use social media more than
ever so it is easier for them to obtain
massive amounts of funding without all of
the travel.
4. Contributors have circumvented the bill by
privately funding their own ads and
commercials.
2008 election
So far for the 2012 Election (as of 12/1/11)
It begs the question
If current office holders benefit so much from money why would they want to make it more
difficult to raise it?
Hint: Think about the Public Choice theory on why businesses like regulations.
Related capture theory to Campaign Finance
Median voter theorem and primaries
Median voter theorem and 3rd party candidate
Prisoners dilemma and 3rd party candidates
2012
January- June
Primaries throughout each state
Summer-
nomination conventions,
introduction of candidate,
platform and planks
Summer and Fall-
Campaigns/Ads/speeches/propaganda
October-
Debates
Tuesday after the first Sunday in November-
General Election
Winner take all in 48 states
December-
electoral vote
270 electoral votes needed- leads to a 2 party system, 2 candidate race, stablity
January-
Inauguration
General Elections
D
D
R
R
Closed Primaries
D
D
R
R
Closed Primaries- only registered party members may vote in closed primary elections. Resulting in the median voter
shifting farther from the center.
During closed primaries candidates attempt to move farther from the center to satisfy their median voter.
This results in general elections that have candidates starting farther apart.
In terms of a general election if a person votes for a 3rd party candidate and that candidate
doesn’t win who has voter helped?
Party Platform- Issues that the candidates/party are running on
Plank- individual issues of a platform
Republican Party platform 2008
Democratic Party platform 2008
Propaganda- click on each link to see examples
Types
Techniques used to influence thoughts, positions and actions
Advertising and Marketing - Information
Transfer (symbols)- taking a well known symbol and applying it to the message in attempt to
transfer the symbol’s meaning to your message.
Plain Folk- attempting to make connections between politicians and regular people
Name calling or mud slinging- pointing out the negatives of a candidate- usually focuses on
record http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ5CIkSlUFI
Glittering Generalities- attaching catching names and words to otherwise boring, non
committal, and negative ideas. Often used to cover up real meaning and substance. Examples:
dream act, no child left behind, patriot act, fair share Jobs Bill
Band wagon- people want to be associated with the winner
Endorsement/testimonial- Being supported by a celeb.
Emotional- using fear, happiness, security
Fear
Card stacking- stacking up information in one’s favor that usually leads to fallacy. Example: 1
% vs 99%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLCeUkg5b94
Summary
Provide an explanation as to why candidates seem to move away from the center even though
most voters are relatively moderate?
Money- Even though collectively more money comes from donations by individuals, when you
look at each donation the heavy hitters are the PACs that are created by unions, special
interest, and corporations. (law of supply)
Knowledge of Scope and issues- It is impossible to satisfy the needs and wants of every
individual and to know exactly why and what each person believes (remember the test 2 to
the 60th power). It makes the most sense to appeal to the average position of each issue
Primaries and especially closed primaries force each candidate to appeal to the voting base of
the political party (median voter theorem). This moves the candidate further from the center
prior to the general election.
Summary
Provide an explanation as to why candidates seem to spend more time on swing states like
Pennsylvania and Ohio and not bigger states such as California and Texas?
Reputation- California and Texas have established reputations and these reputations force
candidates to decide how to use the scarce resources of money and time.
Law of Supply- With some of the bigger states already “spoken for” the candidates will
allocate their resources on larger states that have a history of voting for both democrats and
republicans.
Summary
According to Public Choice Theory
Why don’t businesses mind regulations?
Why do incumbents vote for campaign finance reform?
Why do Presidents and members of Congress speak out against Earmarks and Pork barrel
legislation?
Why will Congress never vote for Congressional term limits?
Why is deficit spending politically correct?
Why would there never be a balanced budget amendment and why do we also raise the debt
ceiling?
Why does 6 and 7 make it difficult to place blame on a specific politician?
How does the political cycle coincide with the business cycle?
Election 2004 and Beyond
G. Terry Madonna
Center for Politics & Public Affairs
The Floyd Institute
Franklin & Marshall College
The Historical Perspective
• Presidential Election Parity
• Incumbency Problems
• Electoral College Balance
Presidential Election Parity
• 1948-2000: 10 presidents elected
• 5 Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson,
Carter, Clinton
• 5 Republicans: Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan,
Bush Sr., Bush
cont. Presidential Election Parity
• 4/10 elected for two terms: Eisenhower,
Nixon, Reagan, Clinton
• 6/14 elections: President elected with less
than 50% of popular vote: Truman, Kennedy,
Nixon, Clinton, Clinton, Bush
• 1/14 elections: Popular vote winner not
electoral vote winner: Bush (2000)
Incumbency Problems
TROUBLE since 1960
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kennedy: assassinated
Johnson: withdrew from reelection
Nixon: resigned
Ford: defeated
Carter: defeated
Bush Sr.: defeated
Clinton: impeached
Electoral College Balance
• Average electoral vote from last 5 presidential
elections (1984-2000)
• Needed to win: 270
• Republicans: 273
• Democrats: 265
• 2000 presidential elections:
• Bush: 271
• Gore: 267
Republican, Democratic and Swing States
Presidential Election 2004
States by Party, 2004
Presidential Election 2004
By Population
Presidential Election 2004
By Electoral College
Presidential Election 2004
By County
Presidential Election 2004
By County Population
Strategic Thinking
• Why all states are not equal
• Why all votes are not equal
• What calculus really does matter
All states are not equal
10 States:
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan,
Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Arizona, Iowa,
Minnesota
What Really Mattered
• War in Iraq 26%
• Terrorism and national security 24%
• The economy and jobs 21%
• Healthcare 12%
President, since 1964
• 10 Elections
7 Republicans
3 Democrats
• 3 Democrats Elected
1976: Carter, 50.1%
1992: Clinton, 43.2%
1996: Clinton, 49.0%
Congress
• US Senate
1964: D-68, R-32
2004: D-44, R-55
Net Democratic loss = 24 seats
• US House
1964: D-295, R-140
2004: D-200, R-231
Net Democratic Loss = 95 seats
Post Election Totals
2000
2002
PRESIDENT (Electoral Votes)
Republicans
271
Democrats
266
Other
1
GOVERNORS
Republicans
Democrats
Independents
Undetermined
29
19
2004
286
251
1
26
24
28
21
2
1
Post Election Totals
SENATE
Republicans
Democrats
2000
2002
2004
50
50
51
48
55
44
1
1
229
205
232
202
1
1
Independent
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Republicans
221
Democrats
212
Independents
2
Gallup: Party Identification
Democrats
Republicans
Independents
1964
53%
33%
14%
2004
34%
34%
31%
2004 Exit Poll
Protestants (53%)
Catholics (22%)
New Voters (11%)
Women (54%)
Veterans (18%)
Married (63%)
Not married (37%)
Gay (4%)
Gun-owners (41%)
Bush (51%)
58%
51%
45%
47%
57%
56%
40%
23%
61%
Kerry (48%)
41%
48%
54%
52%
42%
43%
59%
77%
37%
2004 Exit Poll, Age
18-29 (17%)
60 and older (25%)
Bush (51%)
44%
46%
Kerry (48%)
54%
53%
2004 Exit Poll, Church Attendance
More than weekly
(16%)
Weekly (26%)
Never (15%)
Bush (51%)
63%
Kerry (48%)
35%
58%
34%
41%
64%
How to think about the issues
Issue (total)
Bush
Kerry
Terrorism (19%)
86%
14%
Moral Values (22%) 79%
18%
Taxes (5%)
56%
44%
Education (4%)
25%
75%
Iraq (15%)
25%
74%
Health Care (8%)
22%
78%
Economy (20%)
18%
80%
2004 Exit Poll, Party Turnout
• Republicans: 37%
• Democrats: 37%
2004 Exit Poll
National Election Pool
1) Overstated Kerry’s share of vote nationally
and in many states
(Kerry- 51/48, Bush- 51/48)
1) Kerry voters more willing to participate
2) Bad weather in some places
3) Too few interviews in some precincts
4) Preliminary weighting overstated women
5) At least one database server problem
Bush and Religion
•
•
•
•
•
Evangelical Protestants- 88%
Other Christians- 80%
Traditional Catholics- 72%
Traditional Protestants- 68%
Moderate Protestants- 64%
(Pew 02/05)
Bush and Religion cont.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hispanic Protestants- 31% increase
Traditional Catholics- 17% increase
Black Protestants- 12% increase
Non-believers- 12% decrease
Progressive Catholics- 12% decrease
Mainline Protestants- 10% decrease
Kerry and Religion
•
•
•
•
•
Non-believers- 82%
Black Protestants- 83%
Progressive Protestants- 78%
Muslims- 77%
Jews- 73%
(Pew 02/05)
Kerry and Religion cont.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Progressive Catholics- 12% increase
Non-believers- 12% increase
Mainline Protestants- 10% increase
Hispanic Protestants- 31% decrease
Traditional Catholics- 17% decrease
Black Protestants- 12% decrease
Other Christians- 11% decrease
The Bush Victory
• Does Bush have “Political Capital?”
• The 2nd Term Jinx
• Republicans
– picked up 4 Senate seats and 6 House seats
• Red states: redder
Why Kerry Lost
• The Democrats in Therapy
• Kerry the candidate
• The Democrats
– Security Gap
– Religion Gap
– Culture Gap
Democratic Revival
• Civil liberties and The Patriot Act
• Defeating totalitarian Islam- the case for
national security
• Curb the “radical” cultural agenda
• Return to its roots
Primary Turnout Averages
1996 GOP Primary Averages
31%
Bob Dole
24%
16%
Colin Powell
Jack Kemp
Primary Turnout Averages cont.
2000 Democratic Primary Averages
46%
Al Gore
10%
Jesse Jackson
9%
Bill Bradley
7%
Dick Gephardt
4%
Bob Kerrey
3%
John Kerry
2000 GOP Primary Averages
29%
Colin Powell
17%
George W. Bush
13%
Jack Kemp
11%
Elizabeth Dole
10%
Dan Quayle
Primary Turnout Averages cont.
2004 Democratic Primary Averages
41%
Al Gore
19%
9%
8%
7%
4%
2%
2%
Hilary Clinton
Joe Lieberman
Bill Bradley
Dick Gephardt
John Kerry
John Edwards
Bob Kerrey
Primary Turnout Averages cont.
2008 Democratic Primary Averages
40%
Hilary Clinton
19%
John Kerry
14%
John Edwards
6%
Joe Biden
3%
Wesley Clark
2008 GOP Primary Averages
31%
Rudy Guliani
27%
John McCain
16%
Condoleezza Rice
10%
Jeb Bush
7%
Newt Gingrich
Presidential Primary Turnout
2004 Democratic 11.4% (estimated)
2000 Democratic 10.1%
2000 Republican 14.9%
1996 Republican 11.2%
1992 Democratic 12.7%
1992 Republican 10.1%
1988 Democratic 15.8%
1988 Republican 10.0%
Bush: The Second Term
•
•
•
•
Cabinet reshuffle
Govern as conservative
The legal question
The issues are ambitious
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Social Security
Tax cuts
Supreme Court
Health care
Deficit reduction
Tort reform
Iraq and terrorism
Voter Consensus
•
•
•
•
Importance of religion
Power of individual initiative
Need to protect the environment
Movement toward racial progress
(Pew 02/05)
Lack of consensus
• Republicans: 89% Approve of job Bush has
done so far
• Democrats: 77% Disapprove of job Bush has
done so far
(Pew 02/05)
Partisan Differences:
Homeland Security
R
D
R
D
Bush
Kerry
34%
76%
66%
27%
66%
70%
Diplomacy is best for peace
Fight, right or wrong
Force best way to defeat terrorists
Too much force helps terrorists
More Partisan Differences
R
D
R
D
R
36%
58%
50%
24%
50%
D
68%
R
D
R
D
35%
81%
46%
64%
Gays should be accepted
The poor have easy lives
Government should do more to help
the poor
Health coverage for the uninsured
should be a high priority
Profits too high
Swing voters
• Female, middle class, some college
• More bearish on economy, more conservative
on economic matters, more liberal on social
questions
• Overall, not optimistic about economic
prospects
• Bush over Kerry: leadership qualities,
trustworthy, likeable, down to earth
• Kerry over Bush: More caring
What is public policy?
• Simple definition: whatever government
chooses to do or not to do
• Not simply acts of Congress: Congress passes
an average of 300-400 laws each year
• Most governmental output comes from
bureaucrats
Key Features of Public Policy
– Purposive or goal-oriented
– Consists of courses or patterns of action taken over
time by governmental decision
– Emerge in response to policy demands (claims for
action made by other actors, including citizens, interest
groups, public officials) upon government officials and
agencies
– May be positive or negative
– Based on law and authoritative
– Political/communal
What affects the construction of
public policy?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interest groups
Elites
Federalism
Separation of powers
Institutions of government
American ideology
Public opinion
Public Opinion
Mass Preference
Percentage Percentage Current
Policy
For
Against
Balanced budget amendment
Yes
83
14
No
English as the official language
Yes
82
16
No
Congressional term limits amendment
Yes
74
23
No
Prayer in public schools amendment
Yes
73
25
No
Reducing all government agencies
Yes
71
23
No
Doctor-assisted suicide
Yes
68
29
No
School choice
Yes
59
37
No
Teaching creationism in public schools
Yes
58
36
No
Ban on partial-births abortions
Yes
57
39
No
Five-year freeze on legal immigration
Yes
50
46
No
Federal flat tax system
Yes
49
39
No
School busing for racial balance
No
34
62
Yes
Racial preferences in jobs and
school
No
14
83
Yes
Source: Thomas R. Dye (2001) Top Down Policymaking. New York: Chatham House. (p. 118)
The Policy Process and Public Opinion
•
•
•
•
•
•
Problem identification
Agenda setting
Policy formulation
Policy adoption
Policy implementation
Policy evaluation
Problem Identification
• Publicizing societal problems. Problem definition is a
political process whose outcome determines appropriate
solutions. Strategic representation of issues. Policy image:
how a policy is understood and discussed. Plays a critical
role in the expansion of issues to the previously apathetic.
• Participants
– mass media
– interest groups
– citizens
– public opinion
– elites
Agenda Setting
• Deciding what issues will be addressed by
government
• Participants
–
–
–
–
–
mass media
elites
parties
candidates
public opinion
Policy Formulation
• Developing policy proposals to resolve issues and
address problems
• Participants
– Legislative and executive staff
– Congressional committees
– interest groups
– think tanks
– elites
Policy Adoption
• Selecting a policy from the many possible
policies available
• Participants
– President
– Congress
– Courts
Policy Implementation
• Process by which a law or policy is put into
operation by the bureaucracy
• Participants
– Bureaucracies
– Congress
– Courts
Policy Evaluation
• Learning about the consequences of public
policy
• Participants
– Bureaucracies
– Congress
– mass media
– think tanks
– public opinion
The Big Question:
Do Public Officials Lead Public
Opinion or Follow Public Opinion?
• There are both elected and non-elected public
officials. The impact and importance of public
opinion may differ for both.
• There is no definitive answer to the question.
Elected Officials
• Adherence to a set of American ideals establishes the
broad framework for the trajectory of American policy.
These ideals are used as reference points by political
elites.
• Political officials have significant freedom to operate. This
freedom increases or decreases depending on the
visibility and technical complexity of an issue.
Elected Officials cont.
• Elected officials understand that all decisions have the
potential to become issues during the electoral process.
• Political officials have significant opportunities to lead and
manipulate opinion on any given issue.
• Evidence suggests that polls are used to shape ends and
suggest issues rather than establish policy.
Bureaucrats
• Bureaucrats have significant control over information,
which they can use to drive policy making.
• Bureaucrats’ technical expertise, too, gives them a
decided advantage in policy development.
• Bureaucrats are interested in their organization’s survival,
so they will react accordingly.
Bureaucrats cont.
• Bureaucrats have different motivations for enacting policy
beyond organizational survival.
• Bureaucrats are asked to arbitrate between competing
interests because of legislative delegation. Process is most
important in this process—there is no public good to
which they aspire.
• Bureaucrats experience little oversight in most situations.
The Case for Polls
• Establish a framework for issues
• Provide information for public debate and
discussion
• Explain the views people hold
• Are the best tools we currently have for
understanding public attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviors
Sampling Issues
• How are respondents selected?
• Probability samples
– Use of probability samples allows survey results to
be generalized to the larger group from which the
sample was selected.
• Non-probability samples
The Sampling Error Issue
• Sampling error: “Error created from using a
sample to represent a larger population.”
• Sampling error is known and calculable.
• Non-sampling error (errors that arise from
questionnaire design, interviewing, data entry,
and data analysis) is not calculable.
Interviewing Issues
• How many calls are made to reach a
respondent?
• Which days of the week are interviews
conducted?
• How many days are included in the sample?
• What about people who refuse?
The Question Wording Problem
• The wording of questions can create “context
effects” that alter survey results.
• Illustration of the problem: “horse race”
question wording
– Labels with candidate names
– Unaided candidate recall
– How many candidates?
– List biases
– Presence of “don’t know” category
Time and Poll Stability
• As election day nears:
– More voters make a firm commitment.
– Polls tend to become more stable.
• Remember:
– Individual polls will differ given the many tasks
required to complete a poll.
– We should expect that campaigns will change
voters’ preferences.
Key Points in Media Analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Who sponsored the poll
Model used to collect the data
What kind of sample is used?
Sample size
Response rate
When were interviews conducted?
Can I get the questionnaire?
Pew
06/06
Pew
06/06
Pew 06/
Pew 06/06
Pew 06/06
Pew 06/06
Email terry.madonna@fandm.edu
http://politics.fandm.edu
Keystone Polls
Voter and political analysis
Politically Uncorrected
TV
media
Voters
Earmarks
Pork
Tragedy of the commons
Election year events
Money and primaries
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blorgs.htm
http://pag.vancouver.wsu.edu/alpha.html