Search results

This study examines relationships among incumbency status, candidate considerations, and vote preference in U. S. House elections. I employ National Election Study data from 1980-2000 in order to build a model of congressional elections that incorporates existing theoretical explanations of incumbency advantage in addition to "substantive salience" factor—that is, the level of political importance individual voters attach to various types of evaluative criteria. Results show that voters consider incumbents and challengers very differently. While raw salience, in terms of recall and depth of image content, increases the likelihood of supporting candidates, individual congressional vote preference is also the product of emphasis on certain types of candidate considerations. Incumbents benefit when personality criteria, especially representative competency factors, are elevated in the judgmental calculus. On the other hand, challengers benefit when issues and party-based criteria carry more weight.

Answers to political sophistication questions are typically tied to theoretical or nonnative assumptions, which produce given sets of operational guidelines. In this study, I develop an understanding of election specific expertise, conceived of as three distinct dimensions-knowledge, interest, and media exposure. This methodological approach helps provide a richer appreciation of the unique effects of each dimension on the nature, number, and breadth of candidate considerations employed by voters. Results lend support for the overriding claim that sophistication is a critical source of heterogeneity within the American electorate. The classic democratic competency standard of an issue-driven voting public is achieved through a more knowledgeable, interested citizenry. At the same time, knowledge and interest produce divergent influences on particular types of personality-based candidate evaluations while media exposure is most remarkable for its absence of explanatory value. Adapted from the source document.

This study examines relationships among incumbency status, candidate considerations, and vote preference in U.S House elections. I employ National Election Study data from 1980-2000 in order to build a model of congressional elections that incorporates existing theoretical explanations of incumbency advantage in addition to "substantive salience" factor-that is, the level of political importance individual voters attach to various types of evaluative criteria. Results show that voters consider incumbents and challengers very differently. While raw salience, in terms of recall and depth of image content, increases the likelihood of supporting candidates, individual congressional vote preference is also the product of emphasis on certain types of candidate considerations. Incumbents benefit when personality criteria, especially representative competency factors, are elevated in the judgmental calculus. On the other hand, challengers benefit when issues and party-based criteria carry more weight. Adapted from the source document.

The fact that political parties hold competitive nomination contests that require voters to choose among multiple candidates leaves open the possibility that the contest itself could damage the prospects of an eventual nominee. In this study, we employ the American National Election Study panel survey data from the 2008 U.S. presidential election to assess the impact of the Democratic Party nomination process on candidate evaluations and general election vote preference. We find evidence that Barack Obama had greater difficulty uniting his party than his Republican counterpart due to the fact that Clinton voters were slow to coalesce around Obama. These supporters failed to report higher levels of favorability until Clinton conceded the race in the summer, while Huckabee and Romney voters were seen rallying to their party's nominee in the spring. In the end, many Clinton primary voters either abstained from voting in November or crossed over to support the Republican nominee.El hecho de que los partidos políticos realicen contiendas de nominaciones competitivas que exijan a los votantes elegir entre múltiples candidatos crea la posibilidad de que la contienda en sí misma perjudique las expectativas del candidato ganador. En este estudio, empleamos datos de una encuesta de ANES sobre las elecciones presidenciales del 2008 en los Estados Unidos para determinar el impacto del proceso de nominación presidencial del Partido Demócrata en la evaluación de los candidatos y las preferencias electorales generales. Encontramos evidencia de que Barack Obama tuvo una mayor dificultad unificando su partido que su equivalente Republicano debido a que partidarios de Clinton fueron lentos en sumarse a Obama. Estos partidarios no reportaron altos niveles de apoyo hasta que Clinton confirió la contienda en el verano, mientras que partidarios de Huckabee y Romney se concentraron en el candidato de su partido desde la primavera. Al final, muchos votantes adeptos a Clinton se abstuvieron de votar en noviembre o decidieron apoyar al candidato Republicano.

Structure & process theorists (McCubbins, Noll, & Weingast, among others), argue that the Administrative Procedures Act establishes a privileged position for the dominant organized interests of an industry in their dealings with regulatory agencies. We examined whether this was indeed the case with respect to the APA-required notice & comment period for rule making at the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). Based on an analysis of the commission's own statements regarding comment submissions in 1998, there is little to no evidence that interests that are more institutionally privileged are any more effective in changing the SEC's mind once the agency has proposed a rule. 7 Exhibits, 50 References. Adapted from the source document.