Search results

AbstractTo varying degrees, every postwar president has influenced opinions of, beliefs about, identification with, and voting for the president's party—just as partisanship has affected opinions of every president. During his three‐plus years in office, Donald Trump has had a stronger impact on public reaction to his party—and partisan priors have had a stronger impact on opinions of him—than any of his predecessors. This article reviews a selection of the evidence for this conclusion, considers why it pertains, and examines how attitudes toward the president and the parties have shaped and been shaped by reactions to signal events of Trump's presidency: his impeachment and acquittal, the coronavirus crisis, and the protests against racial injustice. It also considers Trump's past and prospective influence on the electoral fates of down‐ballot candidates and his longer‐term impact on the party coalitions.

Presidents from Truman through Obama have influenced their party's popularity, reputation for competence, presumed policy commitments, appeal as an object of identification, and electoral performance. Despite Donald Trump's singularly unorthodox campaign and early presidency, survey data available for his first 15 months in office suggest that opinions of his performance are having at least as large an impact as that of his predecessors' on affect toward his party generally and its congressional wing in particular, as well as on its reputation for handling at least one policy domain (health care). Trump also appears to be widening the demographic and cultural differences between ordinary Republicans and Democrats, exacerbating the gender, age, and racial gaps between the party coalitions in a way that threatens the long‐term vitality of his party. Generic House election polls pointing to 2018 suggest that if his approval ratings remain at or below 40 percent, as they have through the first quarter of 2018, Democrats have excellent prospects for winning control of the House.

The American electorate has grown increasingly divided along party lines in recent decades, by political attitudes, social values, basic demography, and even beliefs about reality. Deepening partisan divisions have inspired high levels of party-line voting and low levels of ticket splitting, resulting in thoroughly nationalized, president- and party-centered federal elections. Because of the way the electoral system aggregates votes, however, historically high levels of electoral coherence have delivered incoherent, divided government and policy stalemate. The 2016 nomination campaigns have exposed deep fissures within as well as between the parties, and their results threaten to shake up electoral patterns that have prevailed so far during this century, with uncertain and perhaps unpredictable consequences for national politics. The 2016 election is certain to polarize the electorate, but the axis of polarization may not fall so neatly along party lines as it has in recent years.

Past research has shown that the perceived successes or failures of presidents have a durable influence on the partisan leanings and political attitudes of people who come of political age during their administrations. Here, I examine data from 344 Gallup surveys with a total of 399,755 respondents interviewed during the Obama presidency to (1) document the extent to which generational imprinting is visible among citizens and demographic subgroups in their party identification and ideology, (2) determine how the political identities and ideologies of people who have come of age during Obama's presidency have evolved compared with those of earlier presidential generations, (3) explore the implications of the population's changing demographic makeup and the political attitudes expressed by younger age cohorts for the future partisan balance of the American electorate, and (4) consider how the competition to succeed Obama is likely to affect partisan identities forged during his administration.

Previous research has shown that presidents have a powerful influence on their party's popularity, reputation for competence, perceived ideological leanings, attractiveness as an object of personal identification, and electoral fortunes. Drawing on data from multiple Gallup Polls covering presidential candidates from Eisenhower and Stevenson through George H. W. Bush; the Annenberg surveys for 2000, 2004, and 2008; the American National Election Studies (ANES) 2009‐2009 panel study; and ANES time series studies from 1978 through 2012, this article examines how the reciprocal relationship between affective reactions to presidential candidates/presidents and their parties evolves prior to and during campaigns, over presidencies, and after presidents or former candidates are no longer in office or on the ballot.

A review of the evidence leaves no doubt election campaigns do matter in a variety of important ways. The serious questions concern when, where, why, how, for what, and for whom they matter. This essay reviews a selection of high-quality studies that address these questions, focusing on several distinct lines of research that have been particularly productive in recent years: on the effects of events and advertising in presidential elections; on the effects of campaign spending in elections for down-ballot offices; on the effects of mobilization campaigns on voting turnout; on campaign influences on the vote choice (with special attention to the effects of negative campaigns); and on the nature of persuadable voters. It also offers some suggestions of areas where additional research should be productive.