Suchergebnisse

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.

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. Adapted from the source document.

Previous work has demonstrated presidents have a powerful influence on their party's popularity, reputation for competence, perceived ideological leanings, and attractiveness as an object of personal identification. This article extends the analysis by examining (1) how presidents shape popular opinions of congressional parties and leaders, (2) how evaluations of the president's handling of specific policy areas affect his party's reputation for effectiveness in handing these domains, (3) how presidents affect perceptions of their party's sympathy for ordinary people, (4) how presidents influence generic preferences for House candidates and party control of Congress as measured in surveys between elections, and (5) how presidents affect the partisan leanings of the generation that comes of political age during their administrations. The evidence confirms that popular reactions to presidents have both immediate and longer‐term consequences for how his party and, to a lesser extent, the rival party are regarded by the American people.