1. What is Momentum in Pres election? Rational or irrational behavior Learning (via media, ads,...) –policy –personality –viability –reduction in uncertainty Bandwagon effect ?

2. What is Momentum? Insurgent (anti-establishment candidate) Gaining in poll standing over time Usually no time to win w/ momentum –what effects frontloading? –less time for outsider to build momentum? –Carter (1976); Reagan (1976); Hart (1984); McCain (2000)....Obama (2008)

3. Momentum 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Familiar 9/26 10/1010/2412/12 12/21 1/19 2/4 2/20 2/29 Date, 1999 - 2000 Public Familiarity with Presidential Candidates, 2000 Hear of Gore Hear of Bush Hear of McCain

4. Momentum Public Familiarity with Presidential Candidates, 2008

5. Momentum 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent 9/26 10/1010/2412/12 12/21 1/19 2/4 2/20 2/29 Date, 1999 - 2000 Public Attitudes about Presidential Candidates, 2000 Favorable opinion of Gore Favorable opinion of Bush Favorable opinion of McCain

6. Momentum Public Attitudes about Presidential Candidates, 2008

7. Momentum NH

8. Momentum Candidates Rare Usually lose nomination –Carter 1976 –Reagan 1976 (lost) –Hart 1984 (lost) –Buchanan 1992 (lost) –Obama 2008

9. Nomination Rules (again) Dems use PR by state GOP mostly winner-take-all

10. Art, Sports and Democracy

11. Does Democracy Depend on our Bowling Together?

12. And: Baseball leagues, Quilting bees, Theater groups, Soccer (football) clubs, PTAs, League of Women Voters, Labor unions, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts Elks, Lions, Moose, Eagles Red Cross….. etc.

13. Sports, & Arts Groups as Venues to Build Social Capital Social capital = Networks of trust Skills of citizenship Working w/ others Interacting w/ different types of people

14. The Argument Democracy depends upon social capital cooperative relationships Social Capital built via voluntary social groups Participation in social groups in decline WHY? work-force change, commuting, suburbs, the 60s, mobility…AND... Decline in “civic engagement” product of decline in group activity

15. Topline: group memberships; 2nd line: turnout; 3rd line, read newspapers; 3rd & 4th lines = trust

16. The Argument Putnam: Democratic “performance” greater where more participation in social groups. In Italy, football clubs and choral societies. Verba, Scholzman and Brady: “Running a rummage sale to benefit the church day care center or editing a church newsletter provides opportunities for the development of skills relevant to politics even though the enterprise is expressly non-political.” Tocqueville: "the serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute" organizations alike would instil the habits of public spiritedness.

17. The Argument Active in vol. groups Trusting, skills Democratic performance

18. Does this breed Civic Engagement?

19. Why a decline of “civicness,” and political engagement in recent decades? trust in government down trust in elected officials down political efficacy fewer working on campaigns participation (voting, joining parties) down (?)

20. Levels of Social Group Membership, USA by Age Cohort AGE COHORT Tuned 18 in about: 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988. Not a member of 25% 26% 29% 36% 37% any group Member of one or 44 42 42 39 41 two social groups Member of three or 31 31 29 25 22 more social groups Source: Authors’ calculations from raw data in GSS 1972 – 2000 cumulative datafile.

21. 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent Trusting Most or All of the Time 19581962196619701974 1978 198219861990199419982002 Year Trust in the Federal Government: 1958 - 2002 Source: National Election Study..... by 2004, trust at 47%

22. 20 30 40 50 60 Percent of Respondents 19741979198419891994 Year of Survey Trends in Trust in Government, and Church- Based Group Membership USA: 1974 - 1994 Member of Church-based Group? Trust Government? Source: General Social Survey

23. Research Questions Is there an association between membership in groups and democratic virtues? Is the association stronger among some groups than others? Does joining a football club instil democratic virtues? Arts groups particularly well-suited to the task? Are things the same across all nations?

24. Sources: Authors’ analysis of raw data files - Europe, 1990 Eurobaromerter Survey 34.0; New Zealand, 1999 New Zealand Election Study; USA, 1994 General Social Survey. Percent of Adults Claiming Group Memberships in 14 Democracies

25. Types of groups: EuropeNew Zealandpolitical parties labor unions unionschurch groups arts groupscultural organizations human rights groupsinterest groups ecology groupsinterest groupsyouth groups consumer organizationsinterest groupssports groups "other" social groups.social clubs community service hobbies groups

26. Relative Strength of Association: Group Memberships and Political Engagement, Europe Membership Alone Union.63all p <.01 Human rights.59 Charity Groups.59 Consumer Groups.47 Arts Groups.42 Environmental groups.41 Youth Groups ns Sports groups ns Church group ns

27. Results Join a Party Freq. of Political Discussion Sports ArtsSportsArts Norway.63.88.48.84 Denmark-.07.47-.04.46 Netherlands-.17.89-.29.44 Belgium.70.43.43.16 W Germany-.13.86.161.00 France -.31.62-.18.29 Ireland-.09-.28.14.97 Portugal1.41.08.30.12 Italy.50.98.34.74 Spain-.652.06.12.54 Great Britain.201.11-.08.93 Greece.151.29-.19.21 BOLD = significant...larger number (+/-) = greater effect Controlling for age, income, gender, education, religion, ideology

28. Major findings: Not all groups have same relationship w/ engagement More time spent with social groups = more political engagement Many non-political groups have no association Churches Sports – only in NZ, Norway, Belgium, Port. Arts groups trump sports groups Sports: Correlation, not causation?

29. Cross National: Trust and Sports, 29 Nations 2004 Correlation btw % who join sports clubs and % trust people

30. TV = Time displacement effect ?

31. From Putnam’s book, Bowling Alone

32. Partisans vs. Independents Generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Dem., Rep., or independent –[If D or r]: Would you call yourself a strong [D or R]? –[If Ind]: Would you say you think of yourself as closer to the Ds or Rs

33. Partisans vs. Independents As of 2004: –Strong D17 –Weak D16 –Ind D1749 D –Ind1010 I –Ind R1241 R –Weak R12 –Strong R16

34. Partisanship trends

35. Partisans vs. Independents When we lump independent‘leaners’ in w/ partisans, not much change in D vs. R distribution since 1984 Slight GOP gain –some oscillation What about those independents?

36. Partisans vs. Independents Trends in US Party ID; 1952 - 2006

37. Independents vs. Partisans

38. Partisans vs. Independents What do these responses mean? Party Identification strongest predictor of voting –learned early, social transmition –rarely changes over lifetime see F&Z figures

39. Partisans vs. Independents Funnel of Causality social background Party attachments Values Groups campaign events vote Time (years & years)

40. Partisans vs. Independents Partisans –identify w/ party early –identification stronger over lifetime –partisans more interested in politics –Today, Party ID an even stronger predictor of voting than ever 90%+ of strong ID vote w/ party hence, elections somewhat predictable

41. Partisans vs. Independents Independents –fastest growing group of voters ‘leaners’ –ID as “independent” but say they are “closer” to one particular party –Leaners may be more ‘partisan’ than weak partisans Vote party if forced to chose btwn D and R Highly interested

42. Partisans vs. Independents Independents –but, independents less happy w/ choices than weak or strong partisans –more willing to defect if offered a 3rd choice –Important aspect of dealignment more independents, who are more volitile

43. Partisans vs. Independents Does a party represent you reasonably well

44. Partisans vs. Independents

45. Anderson (+ others) 1980 –26% of Ind Dems, 14% of Ind, 12% of weak R Perot 1992 –23% of Ind Dems, 36% of Ind, 26% of Ind R, 25% of weak Rs Nader 2000 –8% of Ind Dems, 6% of Ind, 6% Ind Reps –0% from weak/strong partisans