1. The 2012 Presidential Election in Context POLI 423

2. The “Fundamentals” The outcomes of [Presidential] elections depend almost entirely on “fundamentals,” – not campaign resources and tactics, gaffes, etc. What are these fundamentals? First, most voters have made a “standing decision” to support one or other party and rarely vote otherwise. Second, certain given facts (especially the state of the economy) largely determine how the remaining voters will vote (or how many other voters may change their “standing decision”). But if the fundamentals point to a very close election, the other factors may determine the winner.

3. Fundamental 1: Party Identification First academic voting study, The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in Presidential Campaign, 1940 – Columbia University sociologists – emphasizing groups affiliations – local survey (Sandusky and Eire County, OH) – face-to-face personal interviews – panel survey (repeatedly interviewing same respondents) – control group – voting intentions fixed early and rarely changed – Index of Political Predisposition (IPP)

4. Party Identification (cont.) The American Voter, 1952 and 1956 – University of Michigan social psychologists political scientists – emphasizing opinions, attitudes, and orientation over group affiliations – national survey – face-to-face personal interviews – limited panel survey (pre- and post-election interviews) “Michigan Studies” evolved into the NSF-funded (American) National Election Studies

5. Party Identification (cont.) Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or what? [If Dem/Rep] Would you call yourself a strong Dem/Rep or a not very strong Dem/Rep? [If Ind] Do you think of yourself as closer to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party? Party ID – Seven-Point Scale Strong Democrat Weak Democrat Democratic Leaner Pure Independent Republican Leaner Weak Republican Strong Republican Other, DK

6. Long-term vs. Short-term Forces Long-term forces determine the “normal vote.” – Long-term forces pertain to the distribution of Party ID. – A substantial imbalance in Party ID creates a “majority party” and “minority party” (as in the 1950s). – The normal vote is not simply the ratio of majority to minority party identifiers (about 3 to 2 in favor of Dems vs. Reps in the 1950s). There is a “normal” rate of defection from party ID, which depends on the average strength of party ID – Any (equal) rate of defection relatively helps the minority party “Normally” Independents split their votes equally between the parties – This also helps the minority party Turnout increases with strength of party ID For sociological reasons, Democratic identifiers tend to have lower turnout than Republican identifiers of the same strength and to defect at somewhat higher rates. In 1950s, the normal vote was estimated to be ~53% Dem in high-turnout (Presidential) elections and ~54% in low-turnout (off-year Congressional) elections.

7. Long-term vs. Short-term Forces (cont.) Short-term forces pertain to a particular election and may cause the actual vote to deviate from the normal vote. Short-term forces include: – Personal characteristics of the candidates (Ike in 1952 and 1956) US Presidential vs. Congressional elections US Presidential elections vs. UK general elections – State of the economy The electorate tends to see the government as responsible for good/bad times, and the “the government” as basically the President, not Congress. – “political control of the economy” – timing of elections (UK vs. US) – Other circumstances or aspects of incumbent performance e.g., war and peace, scandals Short-term forces may be reinforcing or counter-balancing Net short-term forces may be strong or weak The normal vote may be more or less responsive to a given level of net short-term forces, – depending on the average strength of party ID.

8. A Typology of Elections Maintaining elections: – Short-term forces are relatively weak or counter-balancing, so – the actual vote is close to the normal vote, and the normal majority party is “maintained” in power. Deviating elections: – Short-term forces are strong and reinforcing, so – the actual vote deviates considerably from the normal vote, and either the normal minority party wins the election, or the normal majority party wins an unusual “landslide.” – 1948 as a maintaining election – 1952 and 1956 as deviating elections – 1960 as a “reinstating” election, i.e., a maintaining election following a deviating elections – Most (especially off-year) Congressional elections are maintaining.

9. A Typology of Elections (cont.) Realigning elections (or periods): – The long-term forces (the distribution of party ID) that are typically fixed themselves change. Voters (groups) chose up sides in a different way. Parties may switch majority vs. minority status. 1932 (1928-1936) demarcating shift from “Fourth Party System” to “Fifth [New Deal] Party System” 1952 was not realigning. Has there been a realignment producing a “Sixth [or even Seventh] Party System” – Clearly yes, but the realignment has been “secular” (long and slow), rather than (relatively) abrupt. – Most obviously, the (white) South has “switched sides.” – Some other changes have modestly helped the Democrats. – Party ID is now very closely balanced (normal vote ~50% for each party) with high average strength. Short-term forces have less impact. No landslide election since 1984.

10. Incumbent vs. Challenger For purposes of this discussion (and course), there is always an incumbent party, i.e., the party that controls the White House (as opposed to Congress). – So in 2008, John McCain was the candidate of the incumbent party (though not the incumbent President). On the other hand, in some elections there is an incumbent President running for re-election and in others there is not. – 2012 is such an election, 2008 was not.

11. Incumbency Advantage in Presidential Elections? A common observation pertaining to contemporary American politics is that Congressional (especially House) incumbents who seek re-election almost always win (~95% of the time). Is there a similar incumbency advantage in Presidential elections? PS #1, Problem 1.

12. As you may know, incumbency advantage appears to play a decisive role in Congressional (especially House) elections (when typically the over- whelming majority of incumbents who seek re-election are successful). Does the record indicate that there is a similar incumbency advantage in Presidential elections? Finding the data wherever you can (and citing the source, whatever it is), first classify all Presidential election into two types: (1) an election with an incumbent candidate seeking re-election (e.g., 2012) and (2) a “open seat” election (e.g., 2008). Then, within each type, classify each election into a “hold” for the incumbent party or “turnover” to the challenging (non-incumbent) party. (To illustrate example, these four elections illustrate all four possible types: 1988: open-hold, 1992: incumbent- turnover, 1996: incumbent-hold, and 2000: open-turnover.) Does the resulting cross-classification support the incumbency advantage thesis?

13. “Referendum” vs. “Choice” Elections This is a journalistic, more than political science, distinction. Referendum election: an election that may be viewed as referendum (“thumbs up” or “thumbs down”) on the incumbent’s performance. Depending on circumstances, incumbent or challenger may try to define an election as a referendum election. – “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” PM Macmillan in 1959: “You’ve never had it so good.” – Characteristics, platform, etc., of challenger candidate and his party are more or less irrelevant, provided they meet some “acceptable” standard. Carter vs. Reagan in 1980 – Such an election entails retrospective voting (by independents and weak party identifiers).

14. “Referendum” vs. “Choice” Elections (cont.) Choice election: an election that may be viewed as a choice between two rival plans, platforms, candidacies, futures. – Such an election entails prospective voting (by independents and weak party identifiers). Defining an election as one or other is an element of campaign strategy, depending on direction of short-term forces. – Republican theme: this is a referendum election. – Clinton speech: this is a choice election. – Ryan selection may have supported Clinton’s argument.