'Bases Loaded' documents the shift away from persuasion toward base mobilization in the context of US presidential elections. Panagapoulos explains that this phenomenon is likely linked to several developments, including advances in campaign technology and voter targeting capabilities as well as insights from behavioural social science focusing on voter mobilization. The analyses show the 2000 presidential election represents a watershed cycle that punctuated this shift. The text concludes that these patterns have contributed to heightened partisan polarization in the United States.
One of the hallmarks of the Trump Administration has been the president's frequent use of Twitter to express his approval of or disdain for firms such as L.L. Bean or Macy's. The suddenness with which corporations have come into the political spotlight presents a research opportunity to scholars interested in opinion leadership and partisan polarization. To what extent do presidential tweets lead to polarization of Democrats' and Republicans' opinions about the firms that are praised or excoriated? Are these effects especially strong among co-partisans? How long-lasting are they? Using weekly evaluations of firms that came under fire from President Trump's tweets, we model the net brand ratings of Democratic and Republican respondents. Our time-series results suggest that presidential criticism via Twitter typically has strong immediate effects on net ratings that subside after a few months. One noteworthy exception is presidential criticism of Apple, which coincided with criticism from prominent Democrats as well. Overall, the magnitude of the immediate effect demonstrates the role of elite opinion leadership in precipitating polarized assessments of firms that were previously evaluated similarly across the political spectrum.
AbstractKey [1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: A.A. Knopf] observed voters tend to support local candidates at higher rates, a phenomenon he termed "friends-and-neighbors" voting. In a recent study, Panagopoulos et al. [2017. Political Behavior 39(4): 865–82] deployed a nonpartisan randomized field experiment to show that voters in the September 2014 primary election for state senate in Massachusetts were mobilized on the basis of shared geography. County ties and, to a lesser extent, hometown ties between voters and candidates have the capacity to drive voters to the polls. We partnered with a national party organization to conduct a similar, partisan experiment in the November 2014 general election for the Pennsylvania state senate. We find localism cues can stimulate voting in elections, including in neighboring communities that lie beyond the towns and counties in which the target candidate resided, at least among voters favorably disposed to a candidate and even when voters reside in the home county of the opponent.
This paper is the result of a nationwide study of polling place dynamics in the 2016 presidential election. Research teams, recruited from local colleges and universities and located in twenty-eight election jurisdictions across the United States, observed and timed voters as they entered the queue at their respective polling places and then voted. We report results about four specific polling place operations and practices: the length of the check-in line, the number of voters leaving the check-in line once they have joined it, the time for a voter to check in to vote (i.e., verify voter's identification and obtain a ballot), and the time to complete a ballot. Long lines, waiting times, and times to vote are closely related to time of day (mornings are busiest for polling places). We found the recent adoption of photographic voter identification (ID) requirements to have a disparate effect on the time to check in among white and nonwhite polling places. In majority-white polling places, scanning a voter's driver's license speeds up the check-in process. In majority nonwhite polling locations, the effect of strict voter ID requirements increases time to check in, albeit modestly.