What to expect when you're electing: citizen forecasts in the 2020 election

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Science Research and Methods Pub Date : 2023-03-16 DOI:10.1017/psrm.2022.61
G. Huber, P. Tucker
{"title":"What to expect when you're electing: citizen forecasts in the 2020 election","authors":"G. Huber, P. Tucker","doi":"10.1017/psrm.2022.61","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Political divisions in the lead-up to the 2020 US presidential election were large, leading many to worry that heighted partisan conflict was so stark that partisans were living in different worlds, divided even in their understanding of basic facts. Moreover, the nationalization of American politics is thought to weaken attention to state political concerns. 2020 therefore provides an excellent, if difficult, test case for the claim that individuals understand their state political environment in a meaningful way. Were individuals able to look beyond national rhetoric and the national environment to understand state-level electoral dynamics? We present new data showing that, in the aggregate, despite partisan differences in electoral expectations, Americans are aware of their state's likely political outcome, including whether it will be close. At the same time, because forecasting the overall election outcome is more difficult, Electoral College forecasts are much noisier and display persistent partisan difference in expectations that do not differ much with state of residence.","PeriodicalId":47311,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Research and Methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science Research and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2022.61","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Political divisions in the lead-up to the 2020 US presidential election were large, leading many to worry that heighted partisan conflict was so stark that partisans were living in different worlds, divided even in their understanding of basic facts. Moreover, the nationalization of American politics is thought to weaken attention to state political concerns. 2020 therefore provides an excellent, if difficult, test case for the claim that individuals understand their state political environment in a meaningful way. Were individuals able to look beyond national rhetoric and the national environment to understand state-level electoral dynamics? We present new data showing that, in the aggregate, despite partisan differences in electoral expectations, Americans are aware of their state's likely political outcome, including whether it will be close. At the same time, because forecasting the overall election outcome is more difficult, Electoral College forecasts are much noisier and display persistent partisan difference in expectations that do not differ much with state of residence.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
选举时的预期:2020年大选的公民预测
2020年美国总统大选前的政治分歧很大,导致许多人担心,党派冲突的高度加剧,以至于党派人士生活在不同的世界,甚至在对基本事实的理解上也存在分歧。此外,美国政治的国有化被认为削弱了对国家政治问题的关注。因此,2020年为个人以有意义的方式了解其国家政治环境的说法提供了一个极好的(尽管很难)测试案例。个人是否能够超越国家言论和国家环境来理解州一级的选举动态?我们提供的新数据显示,总体而言,尽管党派在选举预期上存在差异,但美国人知道他们所在州可能的政治结果,包括是否会势均力敌。与此同时,由于预测整体选举结果更加困难,选举人团的预测也更加嘈杂,并显示出持久的党派预期差异,而这种差异与居住州的差异并不大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
Partisan communication in two-stage elections: the effect of primaries on intra-campaign positional shifts in congressional elections Election symbols and vote choice: evidence from India Local elections do not increase local news demand The (in)effectiveness of populist rhetoric: a conjoint experiment of campaign messaging Evaluating methods for examining the relative persuasiveness of policy arguments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1