Pub Date : 2024-05-24DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241253810
Philip Edward Jones
The labels used to describe sexual and gender minorities in the U.S. have shifted over time and become increasingly inclusive. Movement organizations have changed from describing the “lesbian, gay, and bisexual” (“LGB”) community to adding transgender (“LGBT”) and then also queer (“LGBTQ”) identities. Do these different labels affect public views of the group and support for their rights? I embedded a question wording experiment in a statewide survey, asking respondents about either LGB, LGBT, or LGBTQ people. The labels had no discernible effect on (1) support for requiring businesses to serve the group; nor (2) views of the group’s political leanings. There is no evidence that ideology and partisanship moderated these null effects: liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, were unaffected by the changing designations. This suggests public attitudes are not contingent on how the LGBTQ community is labelled, a finding with implications both for movement organizations and survey researchers.
{"title":"Language and LGBTQ Politics: The Effect of Changing Group Labels on Public Attitudes","authors":"Philip Edward Jones","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241253810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241253810","url":null,"abstract":"The labels used to describe sexual and gender minorities in the U.S. have shifted over time and become increasingly inclusive. Movement organizations have changed from describing the “lesbian, gay, and bisexual” (“LGB”) community to adding transgender (“LGBT”) and then also queer (“LGBTQ”) identities. Do these different labels affect public views of the group and support for their rights? I embedded a question wording experiment in a statewide survey, asking respondents about either LGB, LGBT, or LGBTQ people. The labels had no discernible effect on (1) support for requiring businesses to serve the group; nor (2) views of the group’s political leanings. There is no evidence that ideology and partisanship moderated these null effects: liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, were unaffected by the changing designations. This suggests public attitudes are not contingent on how the LGBTQ community is labelled, a finding with implications both for movement organizations and survey researchers.","PeriodicalId":504563,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":"5 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141099343","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-22DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241253813
Matt Grossmann, Christopher Wlezien
Are policymakers rewarded in elections when they succeed in moving public policy in their ideological direction? Or do they face a thermostatic backlash, as citizens judge their policy moves as too hot or too cold? Our analysis of Congressional election outcomes since 1948 adds information on Congressional policy actions to traditional election models emphasizing the surge and decline of presidential support and referendums based on presidential approval and the economy. We find that the electorate reacts to the ideological direction of policy, voting against parties that push policy further to the left or the right in both midterm and presidential years. Even after accounting for policy and traditional explanations, however, there remains a large midterm penalty for the president’s party.
{"title":"A Thermostatic Model of Congressional Elections","authors":"Matt Grossmann, Christopher Wlezien","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241253813","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241253813","url":null,"abstract":"Are policymakers rewarded in elections when they succeed in moving public policy in their ideological direction? Or do they face a thermostatic backlash, as citizens judge their policy moves as too hot or too cold? Our analysis of Congressional election outcomes since 1948 adds information on Congressional policy actions to traditional election models emphasizing the surge and decline of presidential support and referendums based on presidential approval and the economy. We find that the electorate reacts to the ideological direction of policy, voting against parties that push policy further to the left or the right in both midterm and presidential years. Even after accounting for policy and traditional explanations, however, there remains a large midterm penalty for the president’s party.","PeriodicalId":504563,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":"50 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141111650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-20DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241253262
Ali S. Masood, Ryan Strickler, Michael A. Zilis
A defining feature of democracies is an independent legal system, where elites and the public alike accept the broader legitimacy of its actions, even if they run counter to political preferences. Existing scholarship suggests that public support for rule of law institutions is rooted in perceptions of procedural fairness. However, amid increasing levels of affective polarization, we posit a partisan presidential heuristic wherein citizens’ views of legal institutions are influenced by their partisanship and signals from the president. Through multiple experiments, we demonstrate that support for two key institutions—the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice—is substantially derived from the intersection of one’s partisan identity and their partisan proximity to the president. These effects are strongest among respondents exhibiting high levels of affective partisanship. Our results suggest that in forming perceptions of the rule of law, partisan politics is increasingly competing with perceptions of procedural fairness, thereby subverting support for legal institutions in the United States.
{"title":"The Rule of Law in Red and Blue: Affective Polarization and Support for Legal Institutions in the United States","authors":"Ali S. Masood, Ryan Strickler, Michael A. Zilis","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241253262","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241253262","url":null,"abstract":"A defining feature of democracies is an independent legal system, where elites and the public alike accept the broader legitimacy of its actions, even if they run counter to political preferences. Existing scholarship suggests that public support for rule of law institutions is rooted in perceptions of procedural fairness. However, amid increasing levels of affective polarization, we posit a partisan presidential heuristic wherein citizens’ views of legal institutions are influenced by their partisanship and signals from the president. Through multiple experiments, we demonstrate that support for two key institutions—the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice—is substantially derived from the intersection of one’s partisan identity and their partisan proximity to the president. These effects are strongest among respondents exhibiting high levels of affective partisanship. Our results suggest that in forming perceptions of the rule of law, partisan politics is increasingly competing with perceptions of procedural fairness, thereby subverting support for legal institutions in the United States.","PeriodicalId":504563,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":"13 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141121157","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-19DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241253808
Brian T. Hamel, Jan Leighley, Robert M. Stein
Early voting laws intended to increase voter turnout seem to have had little to no effect on turnout. Why? We argue that the effects of early voting on turnout are contingent on campaigns providing citizens with information about the election, their choices, and how to vote early. When campaigns do so, turnout increases because citizens are more likely to vote – and more likely to vote early. Using individual-level panel data, we show that direct campaign contact increases turnout exclusively via the use of early voting. Using county-level data, we show that campaign ad volume also increases turnout via an increase in early voting turnout. Our results affirm our expectation that campaigns facilitate the expected mobilizing effects of early voting. At the same time, the effects of campaigns on early voting are small in magnitude, and emerge only under campaign mobilization conditions that are more the exception than the norm.
{"title":"Why Making Voting Easier Isn’t Enough: Early Voting, Campaigns, and Voter Turnout","authors":"Brian T. Hamel, Jan Leighley, Robert M. Stein","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241253808","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241253808","url":null,"abstract":"Early voting laws intended to increase voter turnout seem to have had little to no effect on turnout. Why? We argue that the effects of early voting on turnout are contingent on campaigns providing citizens with information about the election, their choices, and how to vote early. When campaigns do so, turnout increases because citizens are more likely to vote – and more likely to vote early. Using individual-level panel data, we show that direct campaign contact increases turnout exclusively via the use of early voting. Using county-level data, we show that campaign ad volume also increases turnout via an increase in early voting turnout. Our results affirm our expectation that campaigns facilitate the expected mobilizing effects of early voting. At the same time, the effects of campaigns on early voting are small in magnitude, and emerge only under campaign mobilization conditions that are more the exception than the norm.","PeriodicalId":504563,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141123753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-17DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241253259
Ryan E. Voris, Austin Trantham
Geography has long played a significant role in American electoral politics. Candidates engage in “retail politics” by visiting fairs, festivals, schools, churches, and businesses, to meet and greet potential voters. However, systematically understanding where candidates are actually going has plagued prior work due to small sample sizes and lack of data availability. Presidential elections have been used with success in previous scholarship, but there are few viable candidates to compare within a single cycle. Utilizing competitive gubernatorial elections, this work attempts to address these deficiencies by utilizing social media posts to track multiple candidates in real-time across the 2018 campaign cycle at the state level. The paper tests competing theories of candidate engagement regarding travel decisions: do candidates (1) focus their attention on their partisan base or (2) try to attract independent or “swing” voters? Following an original and intensive data collection effort, we identified location-specific information for over 4700 campaign stops made by major-party candidates across seventeen states. Our results lend support to candidates spending time with their respective bases of partisan support, with Republicans going to rural areas with non-college educated individuals while Democrats travel to urban counties with a more diverse electorate.
{"title":"Oh, the Places They’ll Go: A Geographic Analysis of Gubernatorial Campaigns","authors":"Ryan E. Voris, Austin Trantham","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241253259","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241253259","url":null,"abstract":"Geography has long played a significant role in American electoral politics. Candidates engage in “retail politics” by visiting fairs, festivals, schools, churches, and businesses, to meet and greet potential voters. However, systematically understanding where candidates are actually going has plagued prior work due to small sample sizes and lack of data availability. Presidential elections have been used with success in previous scholarship, but there are few viable candidates to compare within a single cycle. Utilizing competitive gubernatorial elections, this work attempts to address these deficiencies by utilizing social media posts to track multiple candidates in real-time across the 2018 campaign cycle at the state level. The paper tests competing theories of candidate engagement regarding travel decisions: do candidates (1) focus their attention on their partisan base or (2) try to attract independent or “swing” voters? Following an original and intensive data collection effort, we identified location-specific information for over 4700 campaign stops made by major-party candidates across seventeen states. Our results lend support to candidates spending time with their respective bases of partisan support, with Republicans going to rural areas with non-college educated individuals while Democrats travel to urban counties with a more diverse electorate.","PeriodicalId":504563,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":"49 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140965062","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-17DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241254375
Emily Thorson, Kris-Stella Trump
Public support for redistributive policies (e.g., Medicaid) depends in part on the perceived need and deservingness of beneficiaries. However, the average citizen is not well informed about the economic conditions of their fellow citizens. In this article, we explore how information about average earnings of the working poor (a group generally seen as deserving) influences support for redistributive spending. Two survey experiments test whether support for such spending is affected by information about the average incomes of low-wage occupations (e.g., home health aides and retail sales workers). We additionally explore potential mechanisms for this effect, including empathy. An exploratory study finds an effect, but a pre-registered confirmatory study yields substantively small findings with inconsistent significance. Even when participants both receive detailed information about low-wage occupations’ salaries and are encouraged to recall people who they know in those jobs, the treatment has no substantial effect. Given the strength of this treatment and the lack of consistent effects, we conclude that interventions providing information about low-income salaries (e.g., in news coverage or interpersonal conversation) are unlikely to have a substantive effect on support for redistribution.
{"title":"The Effects of Wage Information on Support for Redistributive Spending","authors":"Emily Thorson, Kris-Stella Trump","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241254375","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241254375","url":null,"abstract":"Public support for redistributive policies (e.g., Medicaid) depends in part on the perceived need and deservingness of beneficiaries. However, the average citizen is not well informed about the economic conditions of their fellow citizens. In this article, we explore how information about average earnings of the working poor (a group generally seen as deserving) influences support for redistributive spending. Two survey experiments test whether support for such spending is affected by information about the average incomes of low-wage occupations (e.g., home health aides and retail sales workers). We additionally explore potential mechanisms for this effect, including empathy. An exploratory study finds an effect, but a pre-registered confirmatory study yields substantively small findings with inconsistent significance. Even when participants both receive detailed information about low-wage occupations’ salaries and are encouraged to recall people who they know in those jobs, the treatment has no substantial effect. Given the strength of this treatment and the lack of consistent effects, we conclude that interventions providing information about low-income salaries (e.g., in news coverage or interpersonal conversation) are unlikely to have a substantive effect on support for redistribution.","PeriodicalId":504563,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":" 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141126896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-14DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241253256
Meagan Tadevich, Ashley C. F. Hutson, Gregory Shufeldt
A woman has not yet shattered the “hardest, highest glass ceiling” of the American presidency. Our research answers two questions: Which groups are more likely to believe electing a woman president to be historically important? (R1), and When a presidential election is at stake, who is likely to support a woman candidate? (R2). Using observational data ( n = 1075), our findings indicate that women, people who recognize sexism within politics, Democrats, and liberals are more likely to view a woman president as historic. Utilizing a list experiment of hypothetical 2024 presidential matchups, few who claimed to view a woman president as historic were willing to cast a vote in their favor. When push came to shove, Democratic women were the group most likely to vote for a woman presidential candidate. As parties look toward the future, this study offers insight into how voters respond to potential nominees and who parties will nominate.
{"title":"When Push Comes to Shove: An Experimental Analysis of Voter Support of a Woman President and the 2024 Nomination","authors":"Meagan Tadevich, Ashley C. F. Hutson, Gregory Shufeldt","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241253256","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241253256","url":null,"abstract":"A woman has not yet shattered the “hardest, highest glass ceiling” of the American presidency. Our research answers two questions: Which groups are more likely to believe electing a woman president to be historically important? (R1), and When a presidential election is at stake, who is likely to support a woman candidate? (R2). Using observational data ( n = 1075), our findings indicate that women, people who recognize sexism within politics, Democrats, and liberals are more likely to view a woman president as historic. Utilizing a list experiment of hypothetical 2024 presidential matchups, few who claimed to view a woman president as historic were willing to cast a vote in their favor. When push came to shove, Democratic women were the group most likely to vote for a woman presidential candidate. As parties look toward the future, this study offers insight into how voters respond to potential nominees and who parties will nominate.","PeriodicalId":504563,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":"5 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140980758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-08DOI: 10.1177/1532673x241253242
Rafael Molina
A frequent question in discussions about democracy is whether input from the public is ever considered and to what extent by politicians. This influence of public opinion on the realm of welfare policies has not been extensively explored, and most analyses are less precise for being conducted before the passage of the national welfare reform in 1996, better known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). Bringing the analysis to a period after the reform to account for contextual changes since its passage, this study uses the multilevel and poststratification (MRP) model considered superior in analysis of subnational opinion using national survey data to assess the influence of public opinion on welfare policies at the state level. Collecting data from the 2014 CCES and a new developed welfare generosity index, I find that public opinion does not have any influence on how generous welfare programs turn out in their states, unless it is interacted with state government ideology. It seems that the ideology of the state government and the state poverty rate are the major determinants on welfare policies outcomes in the states, although the latter had different effects for TANF and SNAP.
{"title":"Welfare at the Statehouse Democracies: Assessing the Impact of Public Opinion on Welfare Policies at the State Level","authors":"Rafael Molina","doi":"10.1177/1532673x241253242","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x241253242","url":null,"abstract":"A frequent question in discussions about democracy is whether input from the public is ever considered and to what extent by politicians. This influence of public opinion on the realm of welfare policies has not been extensively explored, and most analyses are less precise for being conducted before the passage of the national welfare reform in 1996, better known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). Bringing the analysis to a period after the reform to account for contextual changes since its passage, this study uses the multilevel and poststratification (MRP) model considered superior in analysis of subnational opinion using national survey data to assess the influence of public opinion on welfare policies at the state level. Collecting data from the 2014 CCES and a new developed welfare generosity index, I find that public opinion does not have any influence on how generous welfare programs turn out in their states, unless it is interacted with state government ideology. It seems that the ideology of the state government and the state poverty rate are the major determinants on welfare policies outcomes in the states, although the latter had different effects for TANF and SNAP.","PeriodicalId":504563,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":" 30","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140998496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：