POLITICAL BEHAVIOR NOTES

WEEK 1: PUBLIC OPINION POLLING

Historic Problems with Polls:

• 1) Biased Samples- 1936 Literary Digest poll example;
• 2) Time Bound polls- 1948 Dewey-Truman race, 1980 Reagan landslide;
• 3) Likely voter problems- Mason-Dixon 1991 Fordice problem.

Sample Error Correlates:

• 1) Sample Size- larger samples produce smaller error;
• 2) Homogeneity of Population- united populations produce smaller error;
• 3) Smaller populations produce less error; for larger areas, one must interview more people;
• 4) Cluster Samples- produce about 20% higher error.
  

(Source of table: Survey Research Methods, by Earl R. Babbie, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973, page 376)

HOMOGENEITY OF POPULATION

Note: Cell entries are sample error figures.

Types of Surveys: In-person; Telephone; Mail; Mixed Methods; briefly discuss each.

For further information, see Mail and Telephone Surveys, by Don Dillman, John Wiley and Sons Co, 1978.

PROS AND CONS OF SURVEY TYPES

In-person-- pros:
1) Observe and clear up R's confusion
2) Obtain objective information about R's (respondent) lifestyle
3) Visual Aids use
4) Establish rapport? High response rate?

In-person-- cons:
1) Expensive
2) Safety of interviewer
3) Interviewer fraud

Telephone-- pros:
1) Quick
2) Cost effective
3) Centralized interviewing- no fraud
4) Interviewer safety

Telephone-- cons:
1) Excludes those without telephones
2) No visual aids-- voice dependent

Mail-- pros:
1) Cheap
2) Use with specialized population

Mail-- cons:
1) Excludes illiterates
2) Can't control who answers survey
3) Can't control order of questions answered
4) Slow
5) Incomplete forms
6) Low response rate?

Probability Sampling. Definition of probability sample: each population unit has some chance of being in the sample, and that chance can be calculated. Types of probability samples:

• 1) Simple random sampling- each population unit has the same chance of being included in the sample; random number table or generator can be used
• 2) Systematic sampling- need a list of population units, use a skip interval.
• 3) Stratified random sampling- ensures the sample adequately represents certain population groups; used if a group is a small proportion of the population, or if researcher wishes to compare groups. Two types of stratified random sampling are:
  3a) Proportionate stratified sampling- number of units selected from each stratum is directly proportional to the size of the population in that stratum.
  3b) Disproportionate stratified sampling- a larger percentage of units is taken from some strata than from others (usually the smaller strata).
• 4) Cluster and Multi-Stage sampling- different stages may be PSU (primary sampling unit), city or rural route, 3 city blocks, 5 households, 1 adult in each.

Telephone Sampling Techniques:

• 1) Telephone directory sampling- problems;
• 2) Telephone directory sampling, randomize last digit;
• 3) 2-stage random digit dialing; pure random digit dialing is too inefficient
• 4) Purchase working telephone numbers from marketing firm

Sampling within the household:
1) Kish method, ask household resident to list first names of all adults, then toss dice to select adult to interview;
2) Carter-Trodahl method: multiple selection tables asking number of adults and number of men in household;
3) Sociological last birthday method; problem that it oversamples women.

Demographic Groups Undersampled in Surveys, especially Telephone Surveys:

• 1) High School Dropouts
• 2) Lower income
• 3) African-Americans, other ethnic minorities
• 4) Men
• 5) Young (big problem since 2005 due to cell phones)
• 6) Old

Weighing the Sample:

• 1) Weight by number of adults in household
• 2) Weight by inverse of number of different telephone numbers
• 3) Compare sample and census on demographics
• 4) Weight by undersampled groups, such as high school dropouts and men; compare sample and census
• 5) Repeat step 4 until obtain representative weighted sample

In the 2012 and 2014 Mississippi Polls, we included cell phones in our sampling frame, so underrepresenting the young was no longer as huge a problem as it had been in 2010.

Undersampled demographic groups in 2012 Mississippi Poll (our first poll to include cell phone numbers):
Men undersampled by 8.5%, 47.5% of adult population is male, we got only 39%;
Non-college graduates undersampled by 18%, 80.5% of adult population does not have a college degree, we got only 62.6%;
Young adults under 45 undersampled by 17%, 48.5% of adult population is under 45, we got only 31.9%;
African Americans undersampled by only 3%, 33% of adult population is black, we got 30% in our sample.

Check out how representative the three most recent polls were, and how each was weighted to compensate for demographic groups underrepresented, by clicking on the following links:

• 2010 weighting methodology
• 2012 weighting methodology
• 2014 weighting methodology

SURVEY RESEARCH-QUESTIONNAIRE CONSTRUCTION, IMPLEMENTATION

ACTUAL EXAMPLES:
(From Survey Research for Public Administration, by David H. Folz, Sage Publishers)

1) Perceptions of local problems- p. 5, 22, 107
A) No problem, Minor Problem, Major Problem
B) Most serious problem
C) Agree-disagree with problem statements

2) Quality of local services- p. 8
A) Excellent, good, fair, poor

3) Policy preferences- p. 5, 22
A) Single most important change
B) How improve quality of life- not important, somewhat important, very important
C) One policy- oppose or favor, strong or some.

4) Funding priorities- p. 5, 22
A) Single choice, reduce funding first
B) City spending- too little, about right, too much

5) Tax hike backing- p. 20
A) Specific increase for specific policy

6) Citizen usage satisfaction- p. 8
A) Filter question, did they use service?
B) Satisfied or dissatisfied, very or somewhat
C) How often policy met expectations

7) Business usage satisfaction- p. 6
A) Survey gov't workers about complaints heard
B) Survey businesses about specific problems, Overall satisfaction

8) Wording problems- p. 99
A) Loaded or leading
B) Double barreled
C) Too complex, double negative (Miss Poll)
D) Unbalanced alternatives (Blacks treated same as whites or worse)
E) Acquiescence bias (agreement bias)- especially on agree-disagree items
F) Sensitive items- use income categories
G) Social desirability- race items

Read Some 2014 Mississippi Poll Results, by Stephen D. Shaffer, SSRC, MSU, 2014.

The MSU Mississippi Poll project: a Political Analysis class project

Impact of the Mississippi Poll on Mississippi politics and public policy:

• First Mississippi polls are blasted by state officials unfamiliar with polling techniques. One accuses the university of being biased against the state legislature after release of results showing that Governor Winter is more popular than the state legislature. A white conservative Delta lawmaker expresses disbelief in any results showing public support for a tax increase, claims that any 12 Mississippians called at random would oppose a tax increase for any reason, then says that such a poll should exclude public school teachers.
• Governor Winter uses 1981 Mississippi Poll results showing public support for education reform to lobby legislators to enact his 1982 Education Reform Act. MSU Report on Poll appears on national TV's 20-20 program. 1982 poll asked specifics about Winter education reform plan, and half of sample claimed to have heard or read nothing about it, or had no opinions.
• After being cornered by reporters seeking a sensationalist headline, U.S. Senatorial candidate Haley Barbour blasts 1982 Mississippi Poll for allegedly being financed by the Stennis Institute of Government, named for his political opponent. State press covers news conference of Barbour's pollster, who claims that Barbour is tied with Stennis "among voters who have heard about both of the candidates," but admits that many voters have only heard of 35-year officeholder Senator John Stennis.
• The Mississippi Poll in 1984 six months before the election accurately predicts Republican Senator Thad Cochran's landslide re-election, as well as Reagan's easy victory.
• In 1986 when Governor Bill Allain blasts university presidents for seeking tax increase for higher education, university President directs publicly-funded university relations department to withhold MSU poll press release showing public support for a tax increase.
• Supporters of both U.S. Senatorial candidates Wayne Dowdy and Trent Lott in 1988 request MSU to conduct an objective, reputable poll on their contest. The poll, conducted two months before the election and right after a Lott media advertising blitz, ends up overestimating Lott's lead. Dowdy press secretary graciously contacts poll director and downplays poll results. Senator Lott after the election confirms that his own poll conducted at the same time yielded similar results to MSU poll.
• Speaker of the House requests results of 1992 MSU poll showing public support for a tax increase for education, rather than continued recession-caused budget cuts. He reportedly desires to use poll results to strengthen the backbones of legislators seeking to enact the tax increase over Governor Fordice's veto.
• MSU ceases releasing results of Mississippi Poll through University Relations, at the request of the poll director. Academic administrators' stress on research and publication downgrades this type of public service activity of faculty; budget cuts to higher education under Governor Musgrove reduces faculty time to devote to such efforts; poll director is also disillusioned with bias of media towards such liberal goals as focusing solely on public elementary and secondary education funding, and towards reporting poll results in sensationalistic and potentially unfair manner. In 2004, poll results are provided only to two prominent statewide columnists. Beginning in 2006, they are posted only on professor's website (only one reporter in 2006 quoted results of the poll).
• Stennis Institute of Government starts a polling operation. In 2004 its poll shows public support for a $1 a pack increase in the cigarette tax, which would bring in $200 million to help close a $1 billion state deficit. A conservative lawmaker blast the poll, claims to be a trustee instead of a delegate.
• Our department conducts its first national poll, directed by Dr. Barbara Patrick in the fall 2008 and funded by SSRC. It is expected to be the first of a series of national polls.

State presidential election polls in 2004 and 2008 were pretty accurate. Using the most recent polls was especially important. Review study of poll accuracy here.

WEEKS 2-3: PUBLIC OPINION

DOMESTIC ECONOMICS ISSUES

Americans are progressive on domestic economics issues, placing a high priority on issues that affect their everyday lives, and desiring more government spending to deal with those problems. Yet they also favor many conservative reforms in education, welfare, and other issues.

High priority items are domestic economic issues.

The most recent poll: CNN Poll conducted by SSRS. Oct. 12-15, 2017. N=1,010 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5. 3/17: CNN/ORC Poll. "Which of the following is the most important issue facing the country today: the economy, health care, national security, immigration, civil rights, foreign policy?" Options rotated.
National security- 21% (16% in March)
Health care- 21% (20% in March)
The economy- 17% (26% in March)
Civil rights- 14% (12% in March)
Foreign policy- 11% (7% in March)
Immigration- 10% (13% in March)
Other, Unsure- 6% (6% in March)

Another recent poll was: Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. Dec. 2-5, 2016. N=999 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1. "Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now? Unemployment and jobs. Health care. Terrorism. The federal deficit. Immigration. Taxes. Trade." Options rotated.
Unemployment and jobs - 26%
Health care- 20%
Terrorism- 15%
The federal deficit- 10%
Immigration- 9%
Taxes- 4%
Trade- 2%
Other responses- 13%

Two other recent poll results follow:

A Quinnipiac University poll, July 23-28, 2015. N=1,644 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.4.
"Which of these is the most important issue in deciding your vote in the 2016 general election for president: the economy and jobs, terrorism, immigration, the federal deficit, health care, foreign policy, climate change, or taxes?"

• Economy and jobs= 37%
• Health care= 13%
• Terrorism= 12%
• Foreign policy= 9%
• Immigration= 9%
• Climate change= 6%
• Federal deficit= 6%
• Taxes= 3%
• Unsure/No answer= 4%

A CNN/ORC Poll on July 22-25, 2015. N=898 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
"Which of the following issues will be MOST important to you when you decide how to vote for president: foreign policy, illegal immigration, health care, terrorism, or the economy?" Options rotated

• The economy= 44%
• Health care= 20%
• Terrorism= 12%
• Illegal immigration= 11%
• Foreign policy= 10%
• Other (volunteered)= 3%
• Unsure= 1%

A note on terrorism. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack temporarily elevated this issue above all others. Terrorism, fear of war, or national security were the number one issues of 59% of Americans in a November 2001 Gallup poll (Gallup Poll Monthly, November 2001 p.35). The economy or jobs were mentioned by 22%. All other issues were mentioned by 4% or fewer Americans.

A note on Iraq. When America is involved in a war, that also tends to be an important priority. Indeed, Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. Note the following December 2007 poll:
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Dec. 5-9, 2007. N=1,133 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.
"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"
War in Iraq- 25%
Economy/Jobs- 12%
Health care- 7%
Immigration- 4%
Environment- 3%
Gas/Heating oil crisis- 3%
Poverty/Homelessness- 3%
Terrorism (general)- 3%
Other responses- 36%
No Opinion- 4%

When the economy is bad, economic issues become most important. Indeed, Republicans lost the presidency in 2008 in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Polls conducted in late 2008 showed how important economic issues had become to voters. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, conducted in December 19-21, 2008 with an N size of 1,013 adults nationwide and a margin of error of ? 3, asked the sample: "Which of the following is the most important issue facing the country today?" The response was:
The economy = 75%
Health care = 7%
The War in Iraq = 6%
Terrorism = 6%
Illegal immigration = 5%
Other responses = 1%

Most Americans also wish for government to spend more on solving domestic problems. General Social Survey polls found the following percents of Americans believing that the national government spent "too little" on federal programs in 2012 (see Erikson and Tedin book, American Public Opinion, 9th edition, p. 94):

• Education = 73%
• Poor people = 63%
• Alternative energy = 60%
• Health care = 59%
• Social Security = 53%
• The environment = 52%
• Aid to blacks = 49%
• Police and law enforcement = 47%
• Childcare = 45%

Less popular programs, where more people saying too much was spent than too little were:

• Military and defense: 32% too much, 24% too little
• Welfare programs: 43% too much, 20% too little
• Space exploration: 30% too much, 20% too little
• Foreign aid: 60% too much, 8% too little

Public support for spending is so great that even a conservative, traditionalistic state like Mississippi has a public backing more state spending. The Mississippi Poll found the following percentages of the state public backing increased state spending in 2014:

• Public elementary-secondary education- 76%
• Streets and Highways- 62%
• Industrial growth and development- 61%
• Health care and hospitals- 55%
• Police forces- 55%
• Child Day Care facilities- 51%
• Colleges and universities- 50%
• Programs for the poor- 48%
• Encouraging tourism- 46%
• Environmental programs- 37%

Environmental programs in Mississippi were the lowest priority. While 37% said to spend more, 43% said spend the same amount, and 14% wanted to spend less (6% had no opinions)

Americans back increased education spending, but they also favor some conservative reforms. (November 2000 Gallup Poll)
Mandatory teacher testing in public schools is favored by 95%
National standardized tests for schools is favored by 75%
School vouchers is endorsed by 56%, opposed by 39%
President Bush's and the Republican Party's conservative education philosophy had public support, therefore.

An in-depth study of vouchers shows the public split on this specific education issue, resulting in vouchers often failing in public referenda in various states:
(Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll. June 5-26, 2002. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3. "A proposal has been made that would allow parents to send their school-age children to any public, private, or church-related school they choose. For those parents choosing nonpublic schools, the government would pay all or part of the tuition. Would you favor or oppose this proposal in your state?")
Favor = 52%
Oppose = 46%
No opinion = 2%
It is likely that the public would be more supportive of vouchers if they were limited to choice among the public schools.

Americans view health care from self-interest perspective.
For Medicare, don't raise eligibility from 65 to 67, but make wealthier pay more than lower income.
People want a universal system of health care, which includes high cost items like catastrophic illness coverage, nursing home care, and prescription drugs. But they want employers to pay for it, and don't want abortion covered. The public (73%) favors a government plan covering all children under 18, even if it requires a tax increase (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, May 4-6, 2007)
Clinton plan died because people saw it as: benefitting poor primarily; fewer medical choices; declining health care quality; increasing health care costs; too much government involvement.
Yet in a 2000 Gallup Poll, 64% still say it is the federal government's role to ensure that everyone has health care coverage. Furthermore, a June 12-15, 2008 ABC News/Washington Post Poll found that 66% of Americans favored providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, instead of holding down taxes at the cost of some Americans not having health care coverage.

The Obama health care plan (or the Democratic congressional plan) by late 2009 encountered some public resistance. An Ipsos/McClatchy Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs in November 2009 found that 46% of adults nationally opposed "the health care reform proposals presently being discussed," with 34% in favor and 20% unsure. When those opposed were asked: "Is that because you favor health care reform overall but think the current proposals don't go far enough to reform health care, or you oppose health care reform overall and think the current proposals go too far in reforming health care?", 66% said the proposals went too far, while 25% said they don't go far enough, and 9% were unsure. A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll the same month found that 51% of registered voters felt that abortion procedures should not be covered by private insurance plans, while 37% said they should be; also, 37% felt that the health care reforms would make their family worse off, and only 16% said better off, and 37% said no difference, while 9% didn't know. An August 2010 CNN Poll found that 56% of Americans opposed the new health care law. 56% opposed requiring that people get health insurance. More popular items were: 59% favored preventing health insurance companies from dropping seriously ill people; 58% favored preventing health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm).

By 2015 people seemed to have a more mixed view towards Obama's health care law. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll in June 25-29 found that 43% had a "generally favorable" opinion of it, while 40% were "generally unfavorable" and 17% were undecided.

When the same poll asked: "What would you like to see Congress do when it comes to the health care law? Expand what the law does. Move forward with implementing the law as it is. Scale back what the law does. Repeal the entire law," the responses were:

• Expand it = 25%
• Implement as is = 22%
• Scale it back = 12%
• Repeal it = 27%
• Unsure/other responses = 14%

Welfare Reform- ideologically diverse ways to deal with problem (USA Today and Gallup, 1994):
Conservative options backed by most people: job training; five year lifetime limit for adults; two year limit for those without jobs; no immigrant aid; people believe that "most" welfare recipients are "taking advantage of the system." Hence, even Democrat Bill Clinton supported welfare reform.
Liberal options backed by majority: child care for job seeking parents; commuting costs paid; government paid jobs; keep paying unmarried mothers, kids of unmarried moms, give kids separate benefits.

Social Security reform shows how public is unwilling to make sacrifices, as shown in a 2005 poll (ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 10-13, 2005. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.)
"I'm going to mention changes some leaders have proposed for Social Security. Please tell me if you support or oppose each one. . . ."
"Increasing the Social Security tax rate": 31% support, 64% oppose, 4% unsure
"Collecting Social Security taxes on all the money a worker earns, rather than taxing only up to the first $90,000 of annual income": 56% support, 40% oppose, 4% unsure
"Raising the retirement age to receive full Social Security benefits to 68, instead of the current 67": 33% support, 66% oppose, 2% unsure
"Further reducing the benefits paid to people who retire early. For instance, people who retire at age 62 would get 63% of their full benefits, rather than the current 70%": 36% support, 62% oppose, 2% unsure.
"Changing the way Social Security benefits are calculated so that benefits increase at a slower rate than they would under the current formula": 37% support, 57% oppose, 6% unsure.
"Reducing guaranteed benefits for future retirees": 20% support, 75% oppose, 5% unsure.

A February 15-18, 2013 Bloomberg National Poll suggests more public flexibility on fixing Social Security.
Flexibility may exist because 43% of respondents felt that Social Security will "not be there" when they retire, and 51% believe that "a major overhalf of Social Security is ... necessary to substantially reduce the deficit."
64% claim to favor "reducing the cost-of-living adjustment that automatically increases the amount of benefits Social Security pays out to help the program remain financially secure," while 35% oppose this measure.
59% claim to favor "a sliding scale for Social Security so that poorer people get more benefits and wealthy people get fewer benefits," while 35% are opposed.

Low priority items (on the most important problems facing America, open ended item) included many backed by partisan and ideological politicians: Racism - 2%; guns and gun control - 1%; AIDS, abortion - less than 1%, each. A 1997 Gallup Poll(The Gallup Poll Monthly, February 1997 p.11-13) found that other minor issues were: term limits, campaign finance reform, and capital gains tax cut.

Practical problems with balancing the budget. While a majority of Americans say that they believe in a Balanced Budget constitutional amendment, majorities tend to back cutting only less expensive programs such as arts funding. Majorities historically have also favored cutting welfare, food stamps, and defense programs, though practical problems make it hard to cut such programs (many welfare recipients are kids, for instance). Most Americans oppose cutting expensive programs such as medicare, social security, medicaid, school lunch, college loans, police grants.
A majoirty of the public has historically supported a line item veto for the President, like most state governors have.

Labor issues. A majority of Americans and Mississippians approve of the concept of labor unions, and of increasing the minimum wage. Usually, about 60% of Americans approve of labor unions (Gallup, August 2007 poll, and previous polls from 1978 thru 2006), though support was mixed more recently (53% approve, 38% disapprove in August 2014).
Raising the minimum wage is consistently favored by most Americans. In May 2015, when told that the federal minimum wage was $7.25 an hour, and asked about raising it to $10.10, 71% were in favor and 26% were opposed.

Environmental and Energy Issues-

A Pew Research Center poll during May 5-June 7, 2015 of 5,122 adults nationwide asked whether "In your view, is global warming a very serious problem, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not a problem?". 46% said very serious, 23% somewhat serious, 13% not too serious, 16% not a problem, and 2% were unsure.
A CBS News/New York Times Poll in September 2014 asked 1,000 adults nationally: "With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree? Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. OR, Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent." 58% said to give the environment priority, 37% said give economic growth priority, and 5% were unsure.
A Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company in June 6-9, 2014 of 1,005 adults nationwide, asked respondents: "Addressing climate change will mean more spending and potentially higher costs for consumers with the goal of reducing air pollution and preventing further damaging changes in climate. Are you willing or unwilling to pay more for energy if air pollution from carbon emissions could be reduced?" 62% favored more spending and higher consumer costs, 33% were unwilling, and 5% were unsure.
Despite such public support for fighting climate change, remember that this is probably not as high priority an issue as the economy, education, or health care.

Term limits backed by most Americans nationally.
But remember issue is a low priority one.
People back term limits due to rising public cynicism with government.
Public divided when reminded that they can't reelect someone doing a "good job." 74% of Mississippians backed a two-term limit of state legislators in 1992; when reminded about inability to reelect someone doing a good job, only 59% backed term limits in 1994 and 57% opposed it in 1996.

CRIME AND CIVIL LIBERTY ISSUES

CRIME

Crime is a top priority to the public. In a January 2001 Gallup Poll, crime was the third most important problem facing the nation, just behind moral issues and education. Americans are generally conservative on this issue, though it does favor some liberal provisions seeking to prevent crime.

People are frustrated with crime. In a 1993 Gallup Poll, a majority believe that the criminal justice system makes it too hard for the police and prosecutors to convict people accused of crimes (African-Americans are split 50-50, though). Frustration is reflected in a majority agreeing that criminal defendants should be required to prove their innocence, and disagreeing that it is better to let some guilty people go free than to risk convicting an innocent person. People respect police and believe in respect for authority figures. A majority believe that police testify truthfully, and believe that obedience and respect for authority should be the most important virtues taught children.

Death penalty for murder is supported by about two-thirds of Americans nationally in 2009 (65 favor to 31% opposed in October 2009 Gallup Poll). Death penalty was supported by three-fourths of Americans in the 1990s. The same level of support is found even if one out of one hundred people sentenced to death were innocent. Support nationally rose in 1976 and in 1985. Even among non-whites, some polls show a narrow majority backing it.
Question wording affects death penalty support. When given two options instead of one, 50% back the death penalty and 46% back life in prison without parole (ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 22-25, 2006). Similar margin (47-44%) in July 2008 Quinnipiac University Poll. In Mississippi Poll in 1996, when given three options, 56% backed death penalty, 42% life in prison without parole, and 2% a shorter jail term. Similar results in 2008 Mississippi Poll, with 48% backing death penalty, 44% life without parole, and 8% desiring a shorter prison term. The latest 2014 Mississippi Poll showed 44% backing life without parole, 39% favoring the death penalty, 8% backing a shorter jail term, and 9% being undecided.
Rising support for death penalty prior to 2000 was because of rise in actual violent crime rate after 1960, and rising percent of people who think that the courts are too lenient on criminals.
Death penalty opponents have stressed need for a moratorium in order to ensure that innocent people are not executed, and argue that the death penalty is unfair to the poor and minorities in its application. The public is split on a moratorium, but is sympathetic to claims of its unfairness.

Public wishes to reduce crime rate regardless of ideological direction of policy. Some gun control options favored by the public include:

• 92% favor requiring background checks for all gun buyers (2014 poll)
• 89% support laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (2014 poll)
• 81% favor making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks (2013)
• 66% favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (2013)
• 66% favor requring gun owners to register with the state or local government and provide a set of fingerprints (2013)
• 56% support a nationwide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets (2013)
• 54% favor a ban on assault-style weapons (2013)

• Tax increase or federal money for more police on the streets
• Three strikes and you're out for serious felonies
• Community notification when sex offenders are released
• Limit death penalty appeals
• For social programs for low income children, such as midnight basketball.
• A November 2000 Gallup Poll showed 83% favoring Hate Crime legislation.

Similar results were found in a 2000 poll by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (The survey was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Assoc. April 12-16, 2000. N=1,000 adults nationwide. "Now, I am going to read you some things that might be done to reduce violent crime in this country. As I read each one, please tell me if you think it would reduce the amount of violent crime a lot, a little, or not at all.")
"More job and community programs for young people"- 63% lot, 29% little.
"Longer jail terms for those convicted of violent crimes"- 49% lot, 33% little.
"Restrictions on the amount of violence shown on TV"- 48% lot, 37% little.
"More police on the streets"- 46% lot, 45% little.
"Stricter gun control laws"- 41% lot, 33% little.

CIVIL LIBERTY ISSUES

In 2001, moral issues, ethics, religion, dishonesty, and the decline of the family was the most important problem facing America, according to 13% (12% picked education). Average Americans tend to be conservative on some moral issues, though liberal or ambivalent on some life-style issues.

Americans are generally conservative towards legalized drugs. 67% opposed legalization of marijuana in a 2009 Gallup Poll. Examples of George McGovern and Jocelyn Elders being hurt politically by backing decriminalization of soft drugs. Yet medical use of marijuana is backed in some state referenda. Also, the conservative National Review and William F. Buckley Jr. back decriminalization of some drugs, expressing concern over large jail population for drug possession. However, the Erikson and Tedin textbook (p. 106) shows how public support for marijuana legalization has increased greatly between 1996 and 2014.

Americans are also relatively conservative on school prayer. About 70% believe that prayer should be allowed in the public schools, and 69% (November 2000 Gallup, 2004 GSS polls) even back a constitutional amendment. Americans back letting religious groups use public school facilities after school hours, saying prayer at graduation ceremonies, and posting the Ten Commandments on public property.
The vast majority of Americans also favor keeping the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. A June 2002 ABC News/Washington Post Poll found that 89% favored keeping this religious phrase in the Pledge, and only 10% wanted to remove it.
Indeed, two-thirds in a June 2000 Gallup Poll even endorsed teaching creationism along with evolution, though a majority opposed eliminating evolution teaching.
Yet when asked whether prayer should be solely Christian, the same margin favored permitting all major religions, including Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu. Also, when asked about a moment of silence or silent prayer, over 70% backed that instead of spoken prayer.
Is America a "Christian" nation controversy.

Much liberalization has occurred on the issue of Gay Rights.
Whereas a Pew Research Center poll in 1996 found that only 27% of Americans favored "allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally," by July 2015 54% were in favor with 39% opposed. An August 2017 NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that 60% favored "allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages" with only 33% opposed.

Even before support for gay marriage reached a majority, many Americans were willing to grant either civil unions or legal marriage to gays. A February 2012 CBS/New York Times poll found 40% backing legal marriage, 23% for civil unions, and 31% opposing any legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship (with 6% undecided).

Mississippi is also split three ways on this issue, but is more opposed to gay relationship recognition than is the nation. In the 2014 Mississippi Poll, 31% backed legal marriage, 21% favored civil unions, and 38% opposed any legal recognition of gay relationships (10% were undecided).

Opinions towards gays in sensitive occupations has also liberalized over the years. Historically, most Americans believed that the Boy Scouts should not be required to allow openly gay adults to serve as Boy Scout leaders. A May 2013 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 56% of Americans were opposed to "the plan by the Boy Scouts of America to continue to ban gay adults from being scout leaders," while 39% supported the ban on gays.
Americans oppose job discrimination against gays in most occupations, except those where they have contact with children.
A July 2017 Quinnipiac University poll found that 89% thought that it should be illegal "for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on their sexual orientation" with only 8% saying it should be legal.

In previous years, most Americans backed the moderate "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy towards gays in the military. However, 2008 polls showed support for gays in the military; a December CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll found that 81% believed that "people who are openly gay or homosexual should... be allowed to serve in the U.S. military," while 17% said should not; December Newsweek poll had 66-29% split. A May 2009 USA Today/Gallup Poll also found that 69% favored "allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the mililtary," while 26% were opposed and 6% were unsure. A July 2017 Quinnipiac University poll found that 68% thought that "transgender people should be allowed to serve in the military" with 27% saying should not be allowed.

Americans are divided on the issue of abortion. Only about one-fifth wish it always legal and one-fifth wish it always illegal, while 60% wish it legal only under certain circumstances. Over 70% back legal abortions for rape, incest, life of mother endangered. A bare majority favor permitting abortions for reasons of mental health of mother, or if fetus has fatal birth defect (See FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24, 2007)
Abortion restrictions backed. Majorities back: 1) Requiring doctors to inform patients about alternatives to abortion; 2) 24 hour waiting period; 3) Requiring husband to be notified; 4) Parental consent for those under 18; 5) Partial birth abortion ban (63% in a November 2000 Gallup);
An attack on a pregnant woman that results in the death of a fetus should be treated as murder, according to 79% of Americans in a July 2003 Fox News Poll.
Americans are evenly divided on legal abortions for: single women who don't want to get married, women who cannot afford children, or for married women who don't want more children. A plurality of 47% oppose an abortion pill (RU-486), but 39% favor it.
Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade decision. A June 2009 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 64% would not like to see Roe overturned by the Supreme Court, while only 29% wanted to see it overturned (7% were unsure). (Margins opposing overturning Roe in previous polls were 67% versus 30% in a November 2000 Gallup Poll, and 53-35% in a May 2007 Gallup Poll).

Americans are liberal on sex education and freedom of expression. 89% back sex education in schools. 63% oppose a ban on pornography for adults, though most back ban for minors (Erikson and Tedin, page 107).

RACIAL ISSUES

Americans have become more liberal over time on the general issue of racial discrimination, but are divided over how to deal with concrete examples of lingering racial problems.

Increased white liberalization over time. Over 80% of whites back abstract concepts of school integration, integrated neighborhoods, and voting for an African-American for President (Erikson and Tedin textbook, page 99). There is less support, however, for concrete governmental actions to guarantee racial equality. Some reasons are: whites may continue to harbor racial prejudice; whites prefer self-reliance over governmental action; whites favor equal opportunity, not government guaranteeing equal results.

Affirmative Action for minorities and women- Mend, Don't End. (USA Today Poll, March 1995). This in-depth study of different aspects of affirmative action was commissioned after Republicans gained control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in forty years, and President Clinton had to fight to preserve aspects of affirmative action. The poll found that:
Over 70% of whites backed: 1) Outreach, identification, and encouraging blacks to apply for jobs; 2) Job training programs to improve qualifications to get better jobs; 3) Special educational programs to make them better qualified for college.
Over 60% of whites opposed: 1) College scholarships available for only women and minorities; 2) Quotas for jobs or college admissions; 3) Favoring a less qualified minority over a white in a business with few minority workers. A November 2000 Gallup Poll showed that 85% of Americans opposed racial or gender preferences in jobs and schools, which I believe reflects this perception of quotas and special preferences. A June 2003 Gallup Poll found that 69% of Americans believe that only merit should be used in deciding entry into universities.
This was not a salient issue to many whites. Only 12% of whites say they lost a job that went to a minority; only 8% were passed over for promotion that went to minority. Issue is more salient to minorities, where 32% believe they lost a job or promotion because of racial discrimination.

African-Americans are concerned over racial discrimination. In a CNN/ORC Poll, conducted February 12-15, 2015 of 1,027 adults nationwide, when asked: "In general, do you think blacks have as good a chance as white people in your community to get any kind of job for which they are qualified, or don't you think they have as good a chance?" 81% of whites said "as good a chance" while 54% of blacks said "not as good a chance."
In a CBS News Poll conducted June 18-22, 2014 of 1,009 adults nationwide, when asked: "How much discrimination do you think there is against African Americans in our society today: a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?": 41% of blacks said a lot and 47% said some, compared to only 14% of whites who said a lot and 51% who said some.

There are big racial differences in perception of how police treat African Americans.
An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted July 17 and July 19, 2015 of 1223 U.S. adults found the following:
When asked: "Have you personally ever felt treated unfairly by a police officer specifically because of your race?" 50% of African Americans said yes, compared to only 3% of whites.
Asked: "In general, do you think police in most communities are more likely to use deadly force against a black person, or more likely to use it against a white person, or don't you think race effects use of deadly force?" 85% of blacks said more likely to use deadly force against blacks. Among whites, only 39% said more likely to use deadly force against blacks, and 58% said race had no effect on use of deadly force.
Asked: "How do you think police officers who cause injury or death in the course of their job are treated by the criminal justice system? Too leniently fairly, or too harshly?" Among whites, 46% say fairly, and 32% say too leniently. Among blacks, 70% say too leniently, and only 20% say fairly.

Racial Profiling. Results from 2014 Mississippi Poll, question included in poll by former MSU PhD student LaShonda Stewart:
Have you ever been a victim of racial profiling? Of blacks, 38% say yes, 62% say no (for whites, it is 8-92 split).
Do you believe that racial profiling is a widespread practice in Mississippi? Of blacks, 85% say yes, 15% say no (for whites, 47-53 split)
Do you believe that law enforcement officers should be allowed to use racial profiling to fight crime? Of blacks, 4% say yes, 96 say no (for whites, 24-76 split).

Confederate Flag issue.
A CBS News/New York Times Poll conducted July 14-19, 2015 of 1,205 adults nationwide, asked: ""Do you, yourself, see the Confederate flag more as a symbol of Southern pride or more as a symbol of racism?" Among Americans overall, 51% said Southern pride, and 35% said racism. Among whites, 57% said southern pride, and 30% said racism. Among Afircan Americans, 21% said southern pride, and 68% said racism.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Americans are basically internationalist. Generally, about twice as many say that our country should "take an active part in world affairs," as say that we should "stay out of world affairs." In Mississippi the isolationist sentiment is higher, however. Internationalist sentiment is affected by world events. It rose after the 9-11 terrorist attack, but declined after Vietnam and after the Iraqi war dragged on (see Erikson and Tedin chart, page 103).

Defense spending preferences are influenced by external events. Vietnam era of early 1970s saw cynicism towards war and military causing desire for spending cuts. Iran and Afghanistan crises in 1980 and perception of American weakness caused desire for more spending. After 1984 support for defense spending declined, as defense spending increased greatly under Reagan and Eastern Europe was freed in 1989 from the Soviet Union, and the USSR itself dissolved in 1991. The terrorist attacks of September 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon naturally caused public support for defense spending to increase. By 2007, a fading memory of the 9-11 attack, plus public cynicism over the Iraqi war, were likely explanations for a plurality of Americans now saying that too much was being spent on defense. (See Erikson and Tedin chart on page 104)

These defense spending patterns are paralleled in Mississippi. In 2002, 55% of Mississippi adults wanted to increase defense spending. From 2008-2014, between 45% and 54% of Mississippians said to keep defense spending the same. Only 29-39% wanted defense spending increased, and 12-16% wanted it deceased in the 2008-14 period.

If you get into a war, win it. Most Americans rated World War 2 and Persian Gulf Wars as "just wars," but most viewed our Vietnam troop involvement as a mistake and people were divided over Korea as well.

Americans are generally supportive of the issue of a missile defense system. A February 2003 Gallup Poll found that 46% favored spending for "research and possible development" of such a system with only 21% opposed and 33% unsure. A July 2001 CNN/Time Poll conducted by Harris Interactive warned people about the cost of such a missile defense plan, plus its possible interference with current U.S.-Russian treasties, so support for a missle defense plan went down to 52% with 40% opposed.

Cuba relations. A November 2000 Gallup Poll saw 56% favoring re-establishing relations with Cuba, while 35% opposed it.
A Pew Research Center poll conducted July 14-20, 2015 of 2,002 adults nationwide, asked "All in all, do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba?" 73% approved, 20% disapproved, and 7% were undecided.

Iran Nuclear Deal. This is a complex foreign policy issue. A CBS News Poll conducted July 29-Aug. 2, 2015 of 1,252 adults nationwide, asked: "Recently, Iran and a group of six countries led by the United States reached an agreement to limit Iran's ability to make nuclear weapons for more than a decade in return for lifting economic sanctions against Iran. From what you've heard or read so far, do you approve or disapprove of the recent agreement with Iran, or don't you know enough about it yet to say?" 20% approved, 33% disapproved, 46% said they didn't know enough to say, and 1% had no answer.

Immigration.
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R) in July 26-30, 2015 of 1,000 adults nationwide, asked: "Would you say that immigration helps the United States more than it hurts it, or immigration hurts the United States more than it helps it?" Public was divided, as 47% said it helps more, while 43% said it hurts more, with 10% saying a little or both or being unsure.
When asked: "When it comes to foreigners staying illegally in the United States, which one statement comes closest to what you think? We should allow these people a pathway to citizenship to eventually become citizens of the United States. We should grant these people legal status so they can live and work here, but not become citizens. We should do neither one of these and work to find and deport people who have come to this country illegally:" 47% backed a pathway to citizenship, 17% said legal status but not citizenship, 32% said find and deport, and 4% were unsure.
An ABC News/Washington Post Poll conducted July 16-19, 2015 of 1,002 adults nationwide, asked: "Do you think undocumented immigrants from Mexico are mainly undesirable people like criminals, or mainly honest people trying to get ahead?" 74% said honest, and only 16% said undesirables, while 10% were unsure.

• Social Class: working class and lower income people tend to be more liberal on domestic spending programs; working class tends to be more conservative on crime and civil liberty issues.
• Race: African Americans tend to be more liberal than whites on most issues, particularly race and domestic spending issues; also, some civil liberty issues such as death penalty and gun control.
• Age: Young adults under 30 tend to be more liberal than older adults over 55 on domestic spending (such as health care and student loans), racial integration, and some civil liberty issues (like same sex marriage). Biggest age differences are on type of media followed, as older generation is more into newspapers, while younger use the Internet more. (see chart in Erikson-Tedin text, page 199).
• Religion (Erikson-Tedin text, page 202): Evangelical Protestants and Mormons, a significant majority are Republican, conservative self-identifiers, and pro-life. Black Protestants and Jews- over two-thirds are Democrats; a majority of Jews call themselves liberals. Among No Religion group, compared to average Americans, they are less Republican, more liberal and less conservative in identification, and less pro-life. Another good chart is on page 205, which shows big differences between seculars and evangelicals. Among 4 religious groups, Seculars are most pro-choice, pro gay marriage, most Democratic and most liberal in self-identification. Among the 4 groups, evangelical Protestant church goers are most against ObamaCare, against government helping blacks, against gun control, least Democratic and liberal self-identification, and least likely to have voted for Obama.
• Sex: Women are more compassionate on domestic spending issues, and more opposed to the use of force (military, gun control, death penalty) than men.
• Region- the South
  The South has historically been more conservative than the North.
  Yet during the 1930s New Deal of FDR, the South backed his liberal economic programs, because of its poverty.
  Today, regional differences in issue attitudes have diminished. Northern whites have become more conservative on race and social issues, while southern whites have become less conservative.
  White high school dropouts remain the most racially conservative, especially in the South. In a 1988 study, about one-third of white southern high school dropouts backed segregation in the public schools. Similar results occurred in Mississippi.
  Problem of socially desirable responses in survey data. Using unobtrusive measure of racial hostility, a recent study examining whites in the South and non-South found that only southern whites became angry if "a black family moves next door," and that white anger was concentrated among men rather than women.
  Regional differences in party identification among whites has been eliminated and even reversed a bit. White Southerners used to be very Democratic, but the decade of the 1990s saw an even split between the parties. The new century has seen Republicans outnumbering Democrats among white southerners.
• Source: Erikson and Tedin textbook, Chapter 7

WEEK 4: PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF POLITICAL ATTITUDES

FUNCTIONALISM- attitudes serve a psychological need relating to person's personality, helping them fit into their environment. Attitudes change only when their personality and psychological needs change. Four needs that attitudes serve:
1) Instrumental- material needs, like money; social needs, like fitting in. Peer groups- opinions may mirror their views.
2) Ego Defense- self-worth proving (like prejudice, putting others down)
3) Value Expressive- self-identity (example of clothes making a statement)
4) Knowledge- attitudes can exist to simplify reality (like party labels)

BELIEF-BASED MODEL (FISHBEIN)
Attitudes exist in response to a person's beliefs.
Hyman-Sheatsley study found that between 1942 and 1963, as more and more Americans came to believe that blacks were as intelligent as whites, more and more Americans supported racial integration in schools, neighborhoods, and public transportation. A problem with the study is that it didn't show what caused what to change--perhaps attitude changes caused belief changes, rather than vice versa.
Harry Reynolds tested the Fishbein model, and found support for it. He argued that one's attitude towards a candidate was a product of their belief about that candidate, and their attitude towards that belief. A = a X b. Both a and b were measured with scales ranging from +3 to -3, with +3 indicating a certainty that a candidate had a particular attribute, or high approval of that attribute, and -3 indicating the reverse. Using the 1968-1970 National Election Studies, for each of 8 issues tested the bivariate correlations ranged from .2 to .45, and including all 8 issues raised correlation to .57. Model works even better for all types of beliefs. Including social group related beliefs, personality, and issue beliefs at the same time raised correlation to .75.
Example of 1988 presidential election. Bush Sr. went negative against Dukakis, painted him as a liberal. As more and more voters perceived Dukakis as a liberal, support for him went down.
Example of 2012 presidential election. When Romoney made his 47% comment about people not paying any federal income tax, perhaps more people viewed him as being a rich white guy and not caring about the average working class person.

BALANCE THEORY

Balance theory is a cognitive consistency theory, whereby people seek to maintain consistency among their beliefs and attitudes to reduce psychological tension that inconsistency causes. Terminology-cognition includes beliefs and attitudes.

Fritz Heider especially used the Triad to illustrate balance theory. A political science example would have the three corners of the triangle being a voter, a candidate, and an issue. The three sides of the triangle would be the voter's attitude towards the candidate, the voter's attitude toward the issue, and the voter's perception of the candidate's position on the issue. Think of liking or association as a + sign, and disliking and issue rejection as a -. Multiply all three signs together. A Balanced state is a positive product, while an Imbalanced state is a negative product. Example--I like George W. Bush (+), I like cutting taxes (+), and I think that Bush is for a tax cut (+). Hence, I am balanced. But what if I like Bill Clinton (+), I favor high moral values (+), but believe that Clinton does not back high moral values (-). Then, imbalanced state.

How to achieve balance: 1) Change one of the three cognitions--for instance, I can begin to dislike Clinton, I can start promoting immoral values, or I can in my own mind perceive Clinton as favoring high moral values; 2) Selection Misperception--misperceive the candidate's position, such as begin believing that Clinton really does promote high moral values, such as by his pro-family policies; 3) Denial--reject these untrue "rumors" about Clinton told by lying women; 4) Disassociation--the three cognitions don't really go together (allegations about one extra-marital affair should not reflect on a person's entire moral character); 5) Avoidance--stop watching and reading about the Clinton scandal, so that one doesn't hear about his alleged low moral values.

Problems with balance theory: 1) Person may not perceive the linkages being interrelated; 2) People can tolerate inconsistency; 3) Reality exists, and it may limit your perceptions; 4) Hard to predict which of the three cognitions will change; 5) Attraction-agreement effects.

Shaffer Balance Theory article.

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

Social Judgment is a perceptual approach to attitude theory, whereby one's perception of an attitude object can cause attitude change. People have an issue position, and latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and non-commitment. High ego involvement increases the latitude of rejection, as does an extreme issue position.

Message falling within latitude of acceptance will be Assimilated: 1) Person will perceive message as closer to their own position than it actually is; 2) Message will be favorably evaluated; 3) Person's own attitude will shift towards that of the message; 4) Person's own attitude will change more if person is less ego involved.

Message falling within latitude of rejection will be Contrasted: 1) Person will perceive message as farther from their own position than it actually is; 2) Message will be unfavorably evaluated; 3) Person's own attitude won't change, or will change in direction opposite to that of the message; 4) Attitude change effects are greater for less ego involved people.

Other aspects of social judgment theory:
1) Unequivocal messages of an extreme position are accurately perceived by everyone, but attitude change can still occur;
2) Fence straddling messages are assimilated toward person's own position. Example of Carter's 1976 ambiguous abortion position.
3) Affect towards the source of the message affects the range of the latitudes. A liked or respected source increases assimilation and assimilation range; a disliked or low prestige source increases contrast and contrast range.

Examples of social judgment theory: 1) Liberal newspapers labeling conservatives as "ultra-conservatives". 2) Civil War with both the North and South misperceiving each other's positions as being more extreme than it really was. 3) Congress members of both parties are very polarized today. Perhaps each party is so extreme (liberal Democrats, conservative Republilcans) that the other party's statements fall within their latitude of rejection.

Erikson and Tedin textbook discusses dogmatism, the authoritarian personality, and other factors that bear on American democracy, such as political efficacy and political trust. Such individual psychological processes are also evident at the elite level, such as in presidential decisionmaking.

Textbook has an extensive discussion about Tolerance for unpopular groups. How does Political Correctness fit into this concept? Does it reduce tolerance towards conservative groups, for example, and is this harmful to American democracy?

Two classic processes are presidential character and groupthink.

PRESIDENTIAL CHARACTER book by James David Barber
Two dimensions used to classify Presidents: activity in the job--active versus passive; attitude toward the job--positive versus negative. Classification scheme yields four groups of Presidents:
Active-positive--most psychologically healthy type, high energy level due to healthy personality, openness to other points of view, self-confidence, high personal efficacy, positive childhood experiences that built that personality. Genuinely enjoys the job. Examples are: FDR and Kennedy.
Active-negative--most psychologically defective personality, has a high energy level and works hard as a way of filling psychological inadequacies. Negative childhood experiences caused lack of self-worth, seeks to build self-esteem through hard work. Compulsive character, does not enjoy the work, which is seen as a burden. Examples are: Wilson, Hoover, Johnson, Nixon.
Passive-positive-- enjoys the job, but doesn't work very hard. Often becomes a captive of the people around him. Harding, Reagan.
Passive-negative--doesn't enjoy the job, sees it is a duty to perform, doesn't work very hard. Example is Eisenhower.
Controversies: classifying Carter and Ford as active-positives, as well as Truman.
How would you classify Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Clinton, and Obama?

GROUPTHINK book by Irvin Janis.
American foreign policy disasters: Bay of Pigs; Korean War, and Chinese entry; Vietnam War escalation; Pearl Harbor. Why did they occur?
Causes of Groupthink. 1) Decisionmakers are a cohesive group; that group is insulated; group lacks impartial leadership; similar social background and ideology of group members. 2) Provocative Situation: high stress from external threat, with little hope of better solution than the leader's; low self-esteem caused by recent failures, hard current decision, moral dilemmas that violate ethical standards.
Symptoms of Groupthink, which is Concurrence-Seeking. 1) Overestimation of Group: Invulnerability illusions; Belief in group's inherent morality. 2) Closed mindedness: collective rationalizations; Stereotype Out-Groups. 3) Uniformity pressures: self-censorship, direct pressure on dissenters, illusion of unanimity.
Defective Decisionmaking Symptoms: 1) incomplete survey of alternatives; 2) incomplete survey of objectives; 3) failure to examine risks of preferred choice; 4) failure to reappraise initially rejected alternatives; 5) poor information search; 6) selective bias in processing information; 7) failure to work out contingency plans.
Result: Low Probability of Successful Outcome.
Avoiding Groupthink: Cuban Missile Crisis. Devil's advocate, leaderless groups.
Other examples of Groupthink: MSU Policies and Priorities process; Clinton sex scandal? Bush Iraqi war?

WEEK 5: THE MASS MEDIA

Influence of mass media: direct effects model, versus filter.
Stages of filter model:
1) Individual's characteristics: pre-existing attitudes; personality characteristics; selective exposure; selective perception and retention.
2) Group Membership. Two-Step Flow filters messages.
3) Medium's Characteristics: a) Nature of source: credible, similar attitudes to recipient's; b) Content of message: extremeness, believability; fear appeals; c) Medium type: interpersonal influence important; newspaper endorsements also important, have cumulative affect, especially on less knowledgeable readers.

Are the media ideologically biased?
1) Edith Efron found liberal network television news in 1968, but Hofstetter found neutral network television news in 1972.
2) Liberal axis, Boston-New York City-Washington D.C., Theodore White's 1972 Making of President, Washington press corps is liberal.
3) Newspapers outside of the liberal axis were more conservative, tended to endorse Republican presidential candidates. In the 1990s, newspapers had become more neutral, due to their monopolies. Democrats had an edge in newspaper endorsements in the 2004-2012 elections (textbook, page 228).
4) Journalists tend to be more liberal than most average Americans, however. Erikson-Tedin textbook, page 227 has an informative chart. It shows that compared to other Americans, journalists are more liberal on many issues, such as by being more pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-school prayer, anti-defense spending; on class self-interest issue, though, such as using government to reduce income inequality, journalists may be more conservative.
5) Adversary Role of press most important- see Nixon Watergate scandal, and Clinton Monicagate scandal.
6) Television negativism (Robinson article) in 1968 caused lower political efficacy, more cynicism, but surprisingly belief that civil rights movement was moving too fast, and more support for George Wallace. Example of 1992 recession hurting Bush 1, and Iraqi war hurting Bush 2.
7) Possible biases limited by rise of new media forms: Internet websites are very ideologically diverse, include conservative National Review and liberal New Republic; Fox News Channel is viewed as more conservative, and CNN as more neutral or liberal. Page 242 in Erikson-Tedin has a nice chart showing the great rise of the Internet for where people get most of their news about the presidential campaigns.

Agenda Setting Role of the Media. Discuss CNN and FOX coverage of allegations of police brutality and racism in the killing of suspects.

Television remains a very important medium today. Review of televised presidential debates:
1960- Kennedy's better visual appearance trumped Nixon's arguments
1976- Ford's blasting of Carter's high spending programs helped him. Ford blunder about Eastern Europe not being under Soviet domination hurt his comeback.
1980- Reagan's aw-shucks response to Carter's labeling him a conservative extremist helped him win the undecideds.
1984- media expectations of Reagan being a master debater hurt him, when he stumbled over words in first debate, appeared old. Reagan came back in next debate, joked that he wouldn't make age a campaign issue despite opponents "relative youth and inexperience."
1988- Dukakis ice-man rejection of death penalty, even if his wife Kitty were "raped and murdered" hurt him. Bush was human and personal in debate.
1992- Clinton in town meeting format showed empathy with audience member's concern over economic recession, while stiff Bush kept looking at his watch and was defensive over the recession.
1996- Dole has mean, old image; falls off of podium.
2000- Gore has arrogant persona in debates; he sighs during Bush's answers, and walks aggressive towards him during one debate.
2004- Bush is defensive, repetitive; Kerry has excessive hand gestures, Iraq war flipflop; perhaps most important was Bush getting his argument across that terrorism remained a big threat, and he would protect us.
2008- Obama looked calm, analytical, Presidential; McCain looked tired, old, erratic
2012- most damaging to Romney was his secretly videotaped speech to donors, where he said that they needed to support him because 47% of Americans paid no federal income taxes, so that group would never support him.
2016- Trump won the Republican nomination presidential debates by hanging negative labels on his opponents, such as "low energy" Jeb Bush, "lying" Ted Cruz, "little Marco" Rubio. He won the general election by hanging the negative label of "Crooked Hillary" on Clinton. Despite lacking political knowledge and facts in the debates with Clinton, Trump was aggressive in inviting Bill Clinton's accusers to the debate to counter his open mike comment about groping women, and in responding to the charge that his temperament should keep him from being President by responding to Clinton that if he were President, "You'd be in jail!"

MIDTERM EXAMINATION

WEEKS 6-7: SOCIALIZATION

BASIC ORIENTATIONS TOWARD GOVERNMENT AND LEADERS.
1) Attachment to the nation. Young children believe that ours is the "best" country in the world. They associate American flag and heroic historical figures with the nation. American children and adults have pride in system of government, not just characteristics of our people. High school teachers believe our governmental form is best in world. Subgroups of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans are slightly lower in national attachment, perhaps fuels separatist movements.
2) Cognitive development during childhood. Young child centers government around the President; can't separate President as person from the office and powers itself; has very positive attitude towards government, President, policeman. Older child is more sophisticated: associates Congress and voting also with government; separates office of presidency from the current officeholder; distinguishes difference between private and public sector.
3) Benevolent Leader perspective. Why did children in late 1950s and early 1960s have such a positive attitude toward the president: interpersonal transfer theory, viewing president like a family member; vulnerability theory, reduce anxiety by viewing leader positively; political context, Eisenhower and Kennedy were popular presidents. This Benevolent Leader perspective was limited by subgroups and time periods. Appalachian whites, Texas Chicanos, and African-Americans during Nixon presidency were less positive to presidency. Vietnam and Watergate were events that also caused less positivity. During Watergate, some children saw the president as a Malevolent Leader, but also saw distinction between the person and the office. Do these negative political developments have an affect on adults, and perhaps explain declining turnout and rising public cynicism towards politics?

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION ORIENTATIONS TOWARD:
What are the causes of adult political participation or lack of it?
1) Concept of Good Citizen. Obedience versus active involvement, do schools stress the latter only for higher socioeconomic status (SES) students? More complex knowledge of government comes in later childhood.
2) Political Knowledge. School learning of mere structure, process, and simplistic slogans like "the people rule" hinder students' knowledge. Some lower SES children think that public policy simply happens like the weather. Little ideological knowledge: only one-third of high school seniors in 1965 understood these terms and the positions of the parties.
3) Political Trust level, which is shaped by political events and personality traits of interpersonal trust, which is itself shaped by child-parent interactions. Child's interpersonal trust is enhanced by: autonomous childhood; child trusts parents; parents trust people in general; child is self-assertive; child desires achievement. Political events like Vietnam, Watergate can cause less political trust.
4) Political Efficacy level, which is shaped by various conditions and personal efficacy, with personal efficacy shaped by child-parent interactions. Child's personal efficacy is higher if: parent's level of personal efficacy was higher; parents granted child much autonomy, or consistently applied disciplinary rules. Some conditions causing higher political efficacy are: higher IQ; higher parents social class; politicians they support are holding office (black efficacy in South is enhanced with blacks in office).
5) Family factors. If parents have low interest in politics, child will tend to also. If child believes parents have little ability to influence people, child will be less politically involved.
6) School Politics. Classroom politics and elections exist.
7) Peer Groups. Being member of social organizations in school increases political interest, political discussions, and political activities.

GROUP DIFFERENCES IN PARTICIPATORY ATTITUDES:
African-Americans tend to be less participatory. Yet blacks are a distinctly liberal group, so participation is important in shaping public policy. Weissberg study showed black children compared to whites were less politically knowledgeable, more likely to personalize government, stressed non-political activities, and less knowledgeable about ideological terms. Problem of lower IQs may lower personal efficacy. Why do African-American children have lower political efficacy and trust than whites: Social Deprivation Explanation, lowers self-esteem and personal efficacy; Political Reality Explanation, white officials are indeed less responsive to blacks.
Women historically were less participatory than men. Gender differences exist on issues of force, compassion, party identification. Historically, childhood socialization: gals and dolls, boys and trucks; girls major in humanities, boys in social studies, science, engineering. Sex role differences caused girls compared to boys to be less aggressive, assertive, competitive, and independent. By high school, girls had lower sense of political efficacy than boys. Change in last decades of the 20th century, as women entered the work force. Kristi Anderson found that employed women have a higher political efficacy than homemakers, and are more active in campaigns, probably because of more interpersonal interactions in workforce and higher sense of personal efficacy. Turnout gap between sexes has been eliminated in recent years, but gender gap persists in officeholding.

ISSUES AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION ACQUISITION:
Causes of an adult's policy and partisan attitudes:
1) Parents' attitudes: if issue is salient to parents, they are more likely to discuss it in family setting, and child is more likely to accurately perceive parent's attitudes.
2) Demographic factors: white, higher SES background related to Republicanism.
3) Peer Group has an effect, but less than parents.
4) College experience causes reexamination of views, often become more liberal on race and social issues, more Independent in party identification. Is it classroom teachers, or non-class experiences?
5) Upward Class Mobility? But 1950s growing middle class Republicanism did not materialize. Upper class African-Americans in Mississippi are heavily Democratic.
6) Marriage, spouse's attitudes. Historically, men affected wives' party identification more than vice versa. Usually, influence is greater for the spouse who is more politically interested and involved.
7) Political Events. Especially nomination of unambiguous ideological presidential candidate. GOP conservative Goldwater in 1964 and civil rights leader President Johnson caused African-Americans to become heavily Democratic. Southern white conservatives have become more Republican since 1960 due to the changed ideological nature of the two national parties.

SOME IMPORTANT POINTS MADE BY ERIKSON-TEDIN BOOK:

• Parent-student agreement on issues is usually highest on party identification; was also highest on abortion and school prayer issues in 1997.
• Peer influence is issue specific. Peers affected students on 18-year-old vote issue, while parents had more effects on their kids' party identification.
• Schools having class discussions, political simulations, and required community service can increase political interest and activity.
• College effects (page 136)- students after 4 years of college became more liberal on abortion, same-sex marriage, and marijuana legalization issues.
• Marriage: self-selection often occurs, as people tend to marry those having similar views; there is no gender gap among the married.
• Generational effects (page 144)- those growing up during the Republican-dominated 1920s remained a more Republican group in party identification decades later; those growing up during the Great Depression remain more Democratic today; those growing up during the Reagan 1980s remain more Republican today.
• Life-Cycle effects (pages 143, 149): as Americans grow older, tendency to become more partisan and less Independent; also, tendency to become slightly more conservative ideologically.
• Polarization (the link between ideology and party identification) has become greater over the last 40 years, due to the newer generations.
• Vietnam War protesters: in the 1960s they were more liberal than non-protesters, but they lost some of this distinctiveness by 1982; however, their offspring were more liberal than those of non-protesters.
• Persistence of political views over time for many people, both in party identification and issue attitudes (pages 150-151).

WEEKS 8-9: POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Political scientists prior to the 1960s assumed that participation was a unidimensional concept, and that people who voted also tended to engage in other political acts such as campaigning and contacting public officials. Verba and Nie in Participation in America argued that participation was a multidimensional concept, and that different people could engage in different forms of activity. They found that there were at least four major types of political activity, and theorized that each activity required different kinds of skills and temperaments, so different kinds of people focused on different acts.

FOUR TYPES OF POLITICAL ACTIVITIES (VERBA-NIE BOOK)

Chart of four activity types, and their correlates:

	CONFLICT DIMENSION	SCOPE OF OUTCOME	INITIATIVE REQUIRED	INTERPERSONAL (Shaffer addition)
Voting	Conflictual	Collective	Little	Least interpersonal
Campaigning	Conflictual	Collective	Some	Very interpersonal
Communal	Usually Not	Collective	Some or a lot	Very interpersonal
Contacting	Not Conflictual	Particular often	A lot	Some interpersonal

These four activity levels resulted in six groups of Americans: one group for each of these four activities but including no other activity (except for voting); those completely inactive; and those active in all (except maybe contacting). Inactives and Voting Specialists comprised about one-fifth of the sample each, as did Communalists and Campaigners. Complete Activists comprised about 10%, Parochial Participants (contacters) about 5%, and 5% of the sample couldn't be classified. Hence, Verba and Nie argue that rather than be inactive, the American population engaged in different types of activities. Yet 40% still participated in no more demanding activity than voting at best.

SIX GROUPS OF AMERICANS BASED ON PARTICIPATION STYLES (VERBA-NIE)

Verba and Nie empirically tested the Initiative (competence and psychological involvement) and Conflict correlates of their theory, and included a Civic Mindedness correlate. They found that their six participation groupings were related to these correlates in plausible ways.

	COMPETENCE (Efficacy, information)	PSYCHOLOGICAL INVOLVEMENT	CONFLICT ORIENTATION (Partisanship, issue extreme, perceive city conflict)	CIVIC MINDEDNESS
INACTIVES
VOTING SPECIALISTS			High on partisanship
PAROCHIAL PARTICIPANT	High on information
COMMUNALISTS	High	High		High
CAMPAIGNER	High	High	High
COMPLETE ACTIVISTS	High	High	High	High

VOTER TURNOUT

History. Historically high turnout of the 19th century among eligible voters. Turnout dipped around 1900 because of the party system of 1896-1932 that created one-party states and less general election competition, as well as rise of voter registration systems. Causes of registration system rise were: progressive anti-corruption mood; anti-immigrant sentiment; rural areas sought to maintain their power. Turnout was also reduced by discriminatory voting devices in the South: poll taxes; literacy and constitutional interpretation tests; long residency requirements and early closing dates. Turnout in 20th century has hovered around 50% in presidential elections. Two other causes of reduced turnout are: non-competitive elections, due to the rising incumbency advantage after 1965; disfranchisement of convicted felons, as a growing number of Americans were imprisoned at the start of the 21st century.

A good chart on voter turnout over history is on-line.

Historical Events. Efforts to increase voter turnout and those eligible to vote:
1. Jacksonian democracy- property holding requirements to vote are abolished in all states by 1860; all states provided for popular election of presidential electors.
2. 1913 popular election of U.S. Senators amendment
3. 1920 women vote amendment
4. 1965 Voting Rights Act and Supreme Court rulings protect African-American right to vote by abolishing literacy and poll tests. Section 5 of Voting Rights Act required southern jurisdictions to pre-clear with federal government any change in voting procedures, until a 2015 Supreme Court decision ended this requirement.
5. 1972, 18-year old vote amendment
6. Early 1970s, federal limit of 30-50 day state residency requirements

Liberalized Voter Registration Systems.
Rosenstone and Wolfinger classic 1978 APSR article argued that state registration requirements were reducing presidential election turnout by about 9%. Six barriers to high turnout:
1. Extreme 30-50 day closing dates
2. Registration offices open less than 40 hours a week
3. Registration offices closed on evenings and Saturdays
4. No absentee registration permitted
5. Polls open less than 14 hours
6. Absence of a gubernatorial election
Effects of Liberalized Registration: Authors found that presence of lower income and education groups, and African-Americans and young adults in the electorate would rise by 1%. Democrats would increase by only 0.4%, conservatives would drop by only 0.3%, and no change in 1972 presidential vote.
Mississippi in 2015: 3 problems remaining are a 30 day closing deadline for voter registration, polls open only 12 hours from 7 AM to 7 PM, and gubernatorial election in non-presidential year (most states have off-year gubernatorial election). Liberal Mississippi change is mail registration.

Historically recent registration innovations:
1. National postcard registration died in the early 1970s because of conservative coalition.
2. National election day registration proposed by President Carter died in 1977 because of conservative coalition.
3. National Motor Voter registration proposed by President Clinton became law in 1994, and Mississippi was ordered by a federal court to implement it. One can register to vote at motor vehicle offices and welfare offices.
4. Some northern states have election day registration.
Effects of innovations are unclear. Turnout remains unchanged, and neither party seemed to benefit significantly. Republicans also worked hard to register new voters, GOP gained control of Congress in 1994, and many non-voters refuse to register or don't vote if convinced to register.

Decline of turnout since the high of 1960. Shaffer AJPS article found five important factors:
1. Rising educational levels moderated the decline in turnout, since college educated are most likely to vote.
2. Increasing Independents and fewer strong partisans hurt turnout.
3. Decreasing political efficacy reduces turnout.
4. Decreasing newspaper reliance reduces turnout.
5. Age polarization of electorate with more young and old adults reduces turnout.
6. Increasing political distrust has an unclear effect.
7. Note disillusioning political events: Vietnam, Watergate, 1970s stagflation. Clinton zippergate?

Disfranchisement of felons is a controversy, as it reduces turnout and presumably has a racial and social class bias.
Mississippi bars adults who have ever been convicted of the following crimes from voting, unless they have had their rights restored by law: murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, bigamy, armed robbery, extortion, felony bad check, felony shoplifting, larceny, receiving stolen property, robbery, timber larceny, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, statutory rape, carjacking, or larceny under lease or rental agreement.
In Mississippi, it requires a state law to restore a felon's voting rights; in 2014 three felons had their voting rights restored, as their local state legislators supported their requests, the suffrage bills passed the legislature, and the governor signed them. See this article.
Attorney General Holder was the first federal attorney general to urge states to lift their ban on felons voting after they had served their time. See this article.
It is estimated that more than one-third of former felons are African American.
One study found that if felons were eligible to vote, the results of the 2000 presidential election would have been reversed.

Midterm elections: turnout is lower than presidential years, and president's party nearly always loses seats in House of Representatives. An example was 2006, when not only did Republicans lose seats, but they also lost control of Congress (also, Democrats lost control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014). Why this midterm loss of seats for the President's party?
1. Surge and Decline--presidential elections bring less interested voters to polls, who vote for presidential winner and his congressional party. Those peripheral voters don't vote in the midterm election, so congressmen of president's party lose seats.
2. Negative Voters (Samuel Kernell's thesis). President's popularity tends to be lower two years after he won presidential election. Economy is often in a slump. People are more likely to vote for negative reasons, than for positive ones. Hence, those disapproving of president's job performance are more likely to vote than approvers, and they are more likely to vote for the non-presidential party's congressional candidates.
3. Recent midterm volatility: the 1994 GOP landslide was historic, and was at least 4 years too early (2nd midterm is especially bad for a president); in 1998 president's party actually gained a few seats in House, perhaps due to voter disgust with GOP impeachment effort.
4. Recent midterm exceptions: in 1998 and 2002, president's party gained a few seats in U.S. House. In 1998 a good economy and public reaction against partisan impeachment helped President Clinton's Party, while in 2002 a rally behind President Bush because of the September 11 terrorist attack helped Republicans.

Any Ideological or Policy Biases of Activists?
1. Verba and Nie argue there is a conservative bias of political activists, as they have a higher income and educational level than non-activists, and hence fewer basic social welfare problems.
2. Shaffer studied both voters and campaign activists from 1956 thru 1980, and argued that few ideological biases existed because:
2a. More educated tend to be more liberal than less educated on civil rights and civil liberty types of issues, hence activists are more liberal than non-activists on these non-economic issues.
2b. Verba and Nie study was time-bound, based on the mid-1960s when Goldwater supporters were making GOP activists more conservative than they had historically been. With McGovern movement of 1972, the Democratic party activists were becoming more liberal than they had historically been. Hence, both parties had more ideologically oriented activists, but in opposite ideological directions, so they cancelled each other out.
2c. Recent southern studies by Shaffer and Breaux illustrate the ideological polarization of each party's activists. Alabama and Mississippi Democratic party officials are more liberal than state voters, while each state's Republican party officials are more conservative than state voters.

WEEK 10: PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION POLITICS

OLD ERA OF PARTY BOSSES: party bosses dominating a closed system, 1968 and previously:

National Democratic Party Rules Changes.

Since 1968, national Democrats have tried to reform their party and make it more open and "democratic," and have imposed more rules on the state parties. The national Republicans are more supportive of states' rights, so they generally do not require as many rules. However, state laws enacted by Democrats can bind Republicans as well.

1) Affirmative action in representing minorities, especially African-Americans; quota system for women. Racial discrimination was outlawed in the 1960s, and a 1972 quota for women, blacks, and young adults created dissension. Beginning in 1976 Democrats used a more flexible affirmative action system for African-Americans, but used a strict quota for women. Today they require each state party to submit information on the representation of numerous "disadvantaged" groups.

2) Open delegate selection system, open to the public rather than a closed-door process dominated by party bosses. State parties must publicize how, when, and where delegates will be selected, and permit all Democrats to participate in the process.

3) PR, Proportional Representation, replaces winner-take-all systems in 1972. States must allocate delegates across candidates based on the candidates' vote totals.

4) Primaries are used by most states by 1970s instead of caucus-convention system; demonstrates an open process.

5) Closed party system-- only Democrats can select Democratic delegates, started in 1970s. Some exemptions.

6) A 3 month window, whereby delegates must be selected from early March to early June. Shortens the lengthy campaign season. Traditional early states like Iowa and New Hampshire got exemptions. This system had granted many exceptions by 2004, when 9 primaries and 6 caucuses were held in February after the first two traditional early states. By 2008 it had become a 4 month window, from early February to early June, with South Carolina and Nevada joining Iowa and New Hampshire getting exemptions for early contests. In 2008 both Florida and Michigan got in trouble by violating this rule and holding early delegate selection contests.

7) Superdelegates-- 14% of Democratic delegate seats are reserved for public and party leaders, starting in 1984. Many officials weren't willing to run against average citizens for delegate positions, and conventions dominated by amateurs nominated losers like McGovern in 1972 or "outsiders" like Carter in 1976.

8) Super Tuesday, Southern Primary. Southern Democrats got tired of liberal presidential candidates, and most southern states held primaries on the same Tuesday in early March, starting in 1988. This system had broken down by the 21st century; in 2004, only 4 states still conducted Super Tuesday on 2nd week of March, while 4 states came earlier and 3 later; in 2008, 4 southern states held primaries on Super Tuesday, 2 went earlier and 5 voted later (all on different days).

9) Front Loading-- Front Loading-- most delegates are now selected by the end of March, as states seek to increase their power by holding early contests. In 1996, after Iowa and New Hampshire in February came the New England primaries the first week of March, the Southern primaries the second week, Midwestern primaries the third week, and California and two western primaries the last week. This process benefits well-known frontrunners, like Dole. In 2000 the process was even more front loaded, with New York, Ohio, and California joining the New England primaries in the first week (Illinois was the sole midwest primary in the third week and the fourth week no longer existed). In 2004 it was even more front loaded: Iowa caucus was in 3rd week of January, New Hampshire primary was in 4th week; in February were 9 primaries and 6 caucuses; the first week of March had 4 New England states plus 3 large states of California, New York, and Ohio, plus 4 other state contests; the 2nd week of March had 4 southern states, including Mississippi, Florida, and Texas; the rest of March had 4 more contests; April had 2 contests; May had 8 contests; June had 4 contests. The 2008 contest was the most front-loaded yet, with 7 states voting in January, 21 voting on the first Tuesday of February, 9 voting later in February, with the remainder voting in later months; no regional patterns existed, though South Carolina now joined the earliest states, right after Iowa and New Hampshire. (In the 2012 GOP nomination battle, 4 states voted in January and 7 voted in February, with most states voting in March, and 21 voting in April, May, or June, as the party sought to cut back a little on the front-loading process.)

RECENT PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION BATTLES:

1968 Democratic- President Johnson withdraws; liberal "amateurs" McCarthy and Kennedy win primaries; "professionals" support Vice President Humphrey; anti-war platform defeated, party split; ticket- Humphrey/Muskie.

1968 Republican- party loyalist and centrist Nixon defeats liberal Rockefeller and conservative Reagan; ticket- Nixon/Agnew.

1972 Democratic- leader, centrist Muskie, weak 1st in New Hampshire after crying; anti-war liberal "amateur" McGovern strong 2nd in N.H., wins Wisconsin; McGovern narrowly wins California despite Humphrey extremist attack; centrist Humphrey, conservative Wallace lose to McGovern "amateurs"; ticket- McGovern/Eagleton (resigns- shock treatment)/Shriver.

1972 Republican- incumbent Nixon/Agnew renominated.

1976 Democratic- field of little known candidates; centrist Carter wins Iowa and New Hampshire after liberals split up leftist vote; bandwagon-media coverage of Carter; Udall, Brown stay in race; Carter wins Ohio, "professionals" unify behind him to win in November; ticket-Carter/Mondale.

1976 Republican- centrist President Ford challenged by conservative Reagan; seesaw primary battle, as momentum shifts back and forth; liberal Northeast and Midwest support Ford, conservative South and West like Reagan; Reagan seeks Northeast support by announcing Pa. liberal Senator Schweiker as V.P.; uncommitted professionals back Ford as winning candidate; ticket- Ford/Dole.

1980 Democratic- centrist President Carter challenged by liberal Kennedy; international crises boost Carter popularity, but Kennedy stages a comeback as Carter's popularity declines; Kennedy loses bid to free delegates from 1st ballot pledge; ticket- Carter/Mondale.

1980 Republican- frontrunner Reagan refuses to debate in Iowa, loses to Bush; Reagan outmaneuvers Bush in New Hampshire debate, Reagan wins N.H.; N.H. victory reverses Bush bandwagon, starts Reagan bandwagon, Reagan wins; ticket-Reagan/Bush.

1984 Democratic- frontrunner Mondale loses to "new ideas" Hart in N.H. after a weak 1st place win in Iowa; Mondale comeback in southern states (Ala., Ga.) due to "regulars", organization, conservatism, and "where's the beef" attack; Jackson wins black support; Mondale bandwagon starts; ticket- Mondale/Ferraro.

1984 Republican- incumbent Reagan/Bush renominated.

1988 Democratic- field of little known candidates; Massachusetts governor centrist Dukakis wins home state area of New Hampshire, northern industrial states; South split between Gore (TN), Jackson, and Dukakis; Dukakis defeats liberal Jackson; ticket-Dukakis/Bentsen (TX).

1988 Republican- two, strong candidates, Bush and Dole; frontrunner Bush loses in Iowa, stages comeback victory in New Hampshire ("mean" Dole issue); Reagan-associated Bush carries South, causing bandwagon in other states; ticket-Bush/Quayle.

1992 Democratic- Harkin carries Iowa home state; Tsongas (Mass.) carries nearby New Hampshire; centrist Clinton sweeps native South; Clinton beats liberal Jerry Brown in rest of country; ticket-Clinton/Gore.

1992 Republican- Incumbent Bush/Quayle renominated after Buchanan gets 37% in New Hampshire and Duke loses the South.

1996 Republican- Front-loaded process helps party loyalist, front-runner Dole win 39 primaries, despite losing New Hampshire to Buchanan, and Delaware and Arizona to Forbes. On next two weeks, Dole wins New England and Southern primaries. Ticket- Dole/Kemp.

1996 Democratic- Incumbent Clinton/Gore renominated without opposition.

2000 Republican- 2-term Texas governor Bush was viewed as more of a party loyalist than McCain, as he was backed by GOP governors, his father had been President, and McCain criticized the intolerant, religious Right. McCain won only seven states, including four liberal Northeastern states, plus New Hampshire, his home state of Arizona, and Michigan. The front-loading process is reflected in the last state he won being won on March 7.

2000 Democratic- Gore as Vice President is a party loyalist, wins every state contest though New Hampshire is close race with Bradley.

2004 Democratic- Kerry is a party loyalist, a war hero, a 20-year Senate veteran, backed by prominent liberal/party leader Ted Kennedy; he sweeps all except three states. Early front-runner Howard Dean, an angry, anti-war, liberal governor wins only Vermont, after losing Iowa after he publicly screams (Dean's image makes Kerry look moderate to voters). Clark wins only Oklahoma, and Edwards wins only South Carolina.

2004 Republican- Incumbent Bush/Cheney are renominated without opposition.

2008 Democratic- frontrunner Hillary Clinton stumbles in early state of Iowa, losing to Obama, but she comes back in New Hampshire. Obama wins in early southern state of South Carolina with strong black support, Clinton comes back in non-binding Florida race. Obama's consequent backwagon ties him with Clinton in polls, upsetting her expectation to wrapup nomination on Super Tuesday, which they end up splitting. Obama then wins 9 straight contests, which he had more fully contested than she had, thereby taking a delegate lead. They split the remainder of the contests, the superdelegates move towards Obama, and he wraps up the nomination. Obama's charisma, inspirational speaking ability, and focus on change are an unexpected campaign event for the frontrunner, as was Clinton's overconfidence and failure to fully contest states immediately after Super Tuesday.

2008 Republican- John McCain was a senator for 22 years, runner up for GOP presidential nomination eight year earlier, and was a perceived party loyalist by strongly backing Bush's Iraqi war surge strategy. McCain won prominent early primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida. Huckabee wins Iowa, and Romney wins four of the lesser-known early contests. Guiliani withdraws after losing Florida, which he had concentrated on. On Super Tuesday, McCain wins 9 of the primaries, Huckabee 4, and Romney only 2 (he does win 5 caucuses), so McCain wraps up nomination.

2012 Democratic- President Barack Obama, the incumbent, is renominated without opposition.

2012 Republican- Former Massachusetts Governor and former social issues moderate Mitt Romney is the frontrunner with money and organization, and is the more centrist candidate. Conservatives Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have less money and fail to contest all of the delegate slots. Gingrich wins only his home state and a neighborning southern state, while Santorum is initially boosted by winning Iowa (while Romney wins New Hampshire and Florida) and 3 of the 7 states voting in February. Santorum wins only 3 states on Super Tuesday versus 7 for Romney, but Santorum then wins 3 Deep South states. Romney wins all three states in early April (including Wisconsin and Maryland), and Santorum withdraws.

2016 Democratic- Hillary Clinton started as the front-runner, being a party leader as former First Lady, former U.S. Senator from New York, the former Secretary of State under Obama (who had defeated her for the nomination 8 years earlier). Clinton won Iowa, but Sanders upset her in New Hampshire, forcing Clinton to come back and win in Nevada and South Carolina. On Super Tuesday March 1, Clinton won all 6 of the southern states, plus Massachusetts; Sanders won only 4 states. These early victories plus a 90% edge among Super Delegates made the difference for Clinton, since Sanders won half of the remaining states that came after March 1.

2016 Republican- Donald Trump was an unexpected event himself, as he skillfully played the role of an angry outsider and labelled his opponents as lying Ted, little Marco, and low-energy Jeb Bush. Cruz won Iowa, but Trump won the other three early states. Trump won 7 states on Super Tuesday, Cruz won 4 and Rubio only 1. Cruz won 6 later states, but none were large states, and Kasich won only one state (Ohio, his home). Trump swept the rest, including Rubio's home state of Florida.

WHO WINS THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION:

1) Incumbent Presidents- Usually Presidents are easily renominated, such as Clinton in 1996 and Reagan in 1984. But even when facing economic and international problems such as Carter in 1980, or a strong challenger such as Ford in 1976, they still get renominated. So did Hoover during the Great Depression in 1932.

2) Vice-Presidents- Vice-Presidents have built up political IOU's by speaking to party groups across the nation and backing political candidates. Vice Presidents nominated included both parties in 1968 (Nixon had been Eisenhower's VP), Mondale in 1984 (Carter's VP), Bush in 1988, Dole in 1996 (Ford's VP choice in 1976), and Gore in 2000.

3) It pays to be moderate- Pat Buchanan was too extreme compared to Bob Dole in 1996; Carter in 1976 was a southern moderate compared to his liberal opponents, as was "New Democrat" Clinton; Ford won the uncommitted delegates in 1976 who feared Reagan was too conservative; Humphrey beat the liberal reformers in 1968. Gore was more moderate than Bradley in 2000. Exceptions to this rule were McGovern in 1972 and Reagan in 1980.

4) Being a party loyalist helps. Johnson's loyal Vice President and Vietnam policy supporter Humphrey won in 1968, as did Republican campaigner in 1964 and 1966 Nixon. Vice President Mondale in 1984 had history of backing of labor and civil rights, while Senate Republican Leader Dole in 1996 won. Both nominees in 2000 were more in the mainstream of their parties than their chief opponents. Exceptions to rule are liberal McGovern in 1972 and outsider Carter in 1976. McCain in 2008 was loyal to Republican President Bush's Iraqi war, had come in second in 2000 presidential nomination battle, and had been a senator for 22 years.

5) Being the front-runner helps, particularly in the age of front-loading. In 2000, Gore won every primary, and Bush dominated Titanic Tuesday after McCain split the early states with him. In 1996 Dole's national organization swept his opponents' scattered victories. Frontrunners Bush in 1988, Mondale in 1984, and Reagan in 1980 came back from early defeats. Exceptions include unknown Carter nominated in 1976 and McGovern in 1972.

6) Winning early states can create a bandwagon, increasing fundraising and name identification. Anti-war McGovern in 1972 won a strong second place in New Hampshire; Carter's victories in Iowa and New Hampshire caused a massive bandwagon; Dukakis won his home state area of New Hampshire in 1988. Exceptions are numerous, with Dole in 1996, Bush in 1988, Mondale in 1984, and Reagan in 1980 losing early states but reversing the bandwagon effect by winning later states. Obama won early states of Iowa and South Carolina in 2008, slashing frontrunner's poll lead nationally, and upsetting her strategy to wrap up nomination with a sweep on Super Tuesday. McCain in 2008 won three early primaries of New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.

7) Unexpected events can be a killer. Kennedy led Carter in 1979, but international crises caused voters to rally behind the President, and Carter was renominated. Bush lost New Hampshire after his Iowa victory in 1980, because he refused to debate all of the candidates, and after that it was all downhill. In 2004, Dean's "yell" after losing Iowa torpedoed his campaign. In 2008, Obama's charisma, inspirational speaking ability, and adroit focus on change successfully unseated frontrunner Hillary Clinton, while Clinton's overconfidence in failing to fully contest the states immediately after Super Tuesday was disastrous.

8) The South was important in two decades, due to Super Tuesday. Mondale in 1984 stopped Hart bandwagon in the South; Bush, being Reagan's VP, won the South in 1988; Clinton swept his native South in 1992. But the earlier start of a New England primary in 1996 and the frontloading generally in 1996 reduces the South's importance.

A valuable chart summarizing how often and when each of these eight factors were in causing people to win their party's nomination for President is available here.

WEEKS 11-12: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

2 Models of explaining the outcomes of Presidential elections: 1) Long term (party identification) versus short term factors (issues and candidates); the University of Michigan social-psychological model of voting behavior; majority party usually wins unless short term factors significantly benefit minority party candidate. 2) Satisfaction versus dissatisfaction; satisfaction helps incumbent party's candidate, while dissatisfaction helps the challenger.

Review of recent presidential elections, the candidates of the parties, and key factors resulting in victory.

1948- Truman (D) - 50% - New Deal domestic issues (I), Democratic majority (P).
Dewey (R) - 45%- popular governor (C), dissatisfaction (I).
2 Independents: Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace- 2% each- divided Dems

1952 - Eisenhower (R) - 55% - war hero (C). (Checker's Speech-Nixon)
Stevenson (D) - 45% - Korea, Communism, corruption hurt (I). Dissatisfaction hurts Dem.

1956 - Eisenhower (R) - 57% - personal popularity (C); peace and prosperity (I). Satisfaction helps.
Stevenson (D) - 43% - Democrat (P).

1960 - Kennedy - (D) - 50% - young, charismatic (C); time to move ahead (I); Democrat (P).
Nixon - (R) - 50% - popular VP (C); knowledgeable (C). (Debates hurt him)

1964 - Johnson (D) - 61% - Democrat (P); centrist (I); incumbent (C).
Goldwater (R) - 39% - too conservative (I); extreme, impulsive (C). (Convention divided)

1968 - Nixon (R) - 44% - Vietnam, unrest, crime, inflation (I). Dissatisfaction helps Rep.
Humphrey (D) - 43% - Democrat (P). (Divided Chicago convention)
Wallace (I) - 13% -

1972 - Nixon (R) - 61% - world leader, prosperity (I); popular (C). Satisfaction.
McGovern (D) - 39% - extreme liberal (I). (V.P. resigns-shock treatment)

1976 - Carter (D) - 51% - Democrat (P); stagnant economy, pardon (I). Dissatisfaction
Ford (R) - 49% - Conservatism helps (I). (Ford debate blunder-E. Europe)

1980 - Reagan (R) - 51% - Iran, Afghanistan, inflation, recession (I). Dissatisfaction hurts Dems
Carter (D) - 41% - poor leadership hurts Dems (C). (Reagan debate win-"there you go again")
Anderson, John (Indep)- 7%-

1984 - Reagan (R) - 59% - peace and prosperity (I), likeable person (C). Satisfaction, "It's Morning in America"
Mondale (D) - 41% - Democrat (P). (1st woman VP-Ferraro)

1988 - Bush (R) - 54% - peace and prosperity (I). Negative campaigning.
Dukakis (D) - 46% - too liberal (I); uninspiring (C). (Debate-anti-death penalty, iceman)

1992 - Clinton (D) - 43% - moderate "New Democrat" (I). Dissatisfaction helps Dems
Bush (R) - 38% - recession hurts (I). ("It's the economy, stupid"; Bush aloof at debate)
Perot (Indep) - 19% -

1996 - Clinton (D) - 50% - Good economy, (I) Satisfaction
Dole (R) - 41% - Old, uncaring (C). (Reps. Keep Congress)
Perot (I) - 9% -

2000 - Bush (R) - 50% - personable (C), compassionate conservative (I)
Gore (D) - 50% - arrogant (C), Clinton scandal (I), too liberal (I).

2004- Bush (R) - 51% - Decisive terrorist fighter helps Bush (I)
Kerry (D) - 48% - Flip-flopping liberal charge hurts Kerry (I)

2008- Obama (D) - 53% - Charismatic, articulate speaker (C)
McCain (R) - 46% - Financial Crisis, recession hurts (I)

2012- Obama (D)- 51%- middle class theme, people like me empathy (I); 38-32 Democratic exit poll advantage (P).
Romney (R)- 48%- rich man, takers 47% comment lacks empathy (C).

2016- Trump (R)- 46%- outsider, dissatisfaction (I); trade protectionism (I)
Clinton, Hillary (D)- 48%- basket of deplorables (racists, sexists, Islamaphobic) comment shows elitism (C).

Note: R denotes Republican candidate, and D denotes Democrat.
I denotes issues, C is candidate, and P is party factor.
Numbers denote percentage of popular vote received.

WEEKS 13-14: CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

Factors affecting voters' decisions:
1. Party identification, resulting in normally Democratic and Republican districts
2. Incumbency. Incumbents win re-election over 90% of the time. They stress non-divisive constituency service themes, use frank and pork barrel.
3. Name Recognition is important. Incumbents are better recognized than challengers, especially in the House.
4. Campaign Spending amount is important. Incumbents have more campaign money than challengers. PACs favor incumbents, who are more likely to win, and who serve on important committees. Challenger name visibility is so low that money means even more to them than to incumbents, who already have name visibility. Heavy challenger spending stimulates more spending by the incumbent.
5. Presidential Coattails. Popularity of presidential candidates in district or state helps congressional candidate, as presidential coattails affect less visible offices.
6. Issues. Scandals and advanced age hurt incumbents; bad economy and low presidential popularity hurts candidates of president's party.

Congressional Elections in Mississippi:
1. Democrat U.S. Senator John Stennis won re-election over Republican Haley Barbour in 1982 because of his greater name visibility, and his Democratic label (during Reagan recession).
2. Republican Senator Thad Cochran won re-election over Democrat William Winter in 1984 because of his enormous popularity, based on non-ideological constituency service.
3. Republican Trent Lott won 1988 U.S. Senate election over Democrat Wayne Dowdy because of his non-ideological "feel good" television ads, fueled by his campaign warchest.
4. Republican Roger Wicker won 2008 special senate election over Democratic Ronnie Musgrove, partly because of party identification, 5% Republican edge over Democrats among exit poll voters.
5. African-American success in 2nd Delta House district. Mike Espy wins in 1986 during a Reagan recession, wins re-election stressing non-ideological constituency service. Liberal Bennie Thompson elected in 1993 as an African-American civil rights leader, wins re-election as a statesman in 1996; then focuses on needs of disadvantaged of his district.
6. Non-party Conservatism in the 4th Gulf Coast district. Republican Trent Lott was elected in 1972, due to Nixon coattails, Lott staff aide to retiring Democrat. Democrat Gene Taylor elected in 1989 as maverick independent, conservative Democrat, not a national Democrat; reelected constantly for same reasons, also his constituency support of defense industry.
7. Boll Weevil Southern Democratic districts become Republican. Moderate Democrat Jamie Whitten of the 1st district retired in 1994, as did moderate conservative Democrat Sonny Montgomery of the 3rd district in 1996. Both districts were expected to go Republican, because they had been voting heavily Republican in presidential elections. Party loyalty or ideological purity were issues in both Republican primaries. Longtime Republicans were elected in both instances, but neither were bomb-throwing conservative extremists. Roger Wicker (1st district) fought for programs helping his district such as Appalachian Regional Commission, and Pickering (3rd district) was Agriculture Committee member.
8. Non-divisive, local office service helps Democrats regain 1st congressional district in 2008 with Travis Childers.
9. Liberal label hurts Dems in presidential Republican districts. In 2010 in 1st and 4th districts, incumbent Democrats Childers and Taylor lost to Republicans Nunnelee and Palazzo. State Republicans blasted Obama stimulus which raised debt, Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama. Nunnelee was a long-time state legislator, and Palazzo was a Marine in Gulf War.
10. Tea Party conservative extremes threaten GOP nominations. In 2012 both Nunnelee and Palazzo had to fight off renomination battles by very conservative Tea Party opponents, and Nunnelee won renomination with only 57% of the vote. In 2014 Senator Cochran was forced into a primary runoff with Tea Party favorite Chris McDaniel; to win, Cochran stressed the federal money and projects he brought to Mississippi.

Some Important observations from Erikson and Tedin book:
1. Occupations overrepresented in Congress compared to public: lawyers; business managers; teachers; journalists; farmers.
2. Congress and state legislatures appear to fairly accurately reflect the general ideology of the public.
3. Trustee versus Delegate controversy over roles. Reflected in impeachment debate.
4. Officeholders are most responsive to public issue orientations when facing re-election. Kuklinski study of California showed 2-year term state representatives always high in representation, while 4-year term senators were high in representation only in the year that they faced re-election. Hence, U.S. House of Representatives is expected to be most representative of public desires, while the Senate is more insulated from public desires.

BOOK REPORTS DUE

GRADUATE STUDENT PAPERS DUE

WEEKS 14-15: SOUTHERN POLITICS

Deep South states are states historically most dependent on agriculture and large plantations, have people with lower incomes, and have larger presence of African Americans. They are: Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Georgia. Rim South states are more urbanized, people have higher incomes and more education, and population has fewer African Americans.

South historically was very Democratic in partisanship, because of Civil War where north's effort was led by Republican president Lincoln, because of populist and Democratic party being more pro-agriculture, and because of Democratic Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal program that helped poor people and states during the Great Depression.

South voted solidly Democratic for President from 1880 after Reconstruction ended until 1916. In 1920 one southern state voted Republican. In 1928 five Rim South states voted Republican in reaction to Democratic candidate Al Smith, a Catholic. In 1948 four Deep South states voted for States' Rights 3rd party candidate Strom Thurmond. From 1952-1960 (Eisenhower twice, Nixon), four or five states voted Republican, typically Rim South states. In 1964 all Deep South states voted Republican, for conservative Goldwater. In 1968 Deep South states generally voted for 3rd party conservative George Wallace, Rim South states generally voted for Republican Nixon, and only Texas voted Democratic. In 1972 entire south voted for Republican Nixon over liberal McGovern. In 1976, entire south except Virginia voted for southerner Jimmy Carter. In 1980, entire south except Georgia voted Republican. In 1984 and 1988, entire south voted for Reagan and then Bush Sr. In 1992 and 1996, only four states each time voted for southern Democrat Clinton. In 2000 and 2004, entire south voted Republican. Reasons for shift to GOP is due to white southern conservatism. Public dissatisfaction was so high that in 2008 three Rim South states voted for Democrat Obama, despite his liberal, northern orientation; two of them (Florida and Virginia) voted for Obama again in 2012, though the rest of the South voted Republican. In 2016, all voted Republican for president except Virginia.

Congressional gains for GOP came after presidential gains. In 1970 only about one-fourth of U.S. senators and U.S. house members from the south were Republican. The numbers of U.S. house members increased in the 1980s because of Reagan's popularity, but the U.S. senate increase was only temporary. In 1994 national GOP landslide, Republicans gained a majority of the South's U.S. senate and U.S. house seats for first time since Reconstruction, and have held their majorities afterwards. Obama's second midterm election in 2014 was so dismal for Democrats in the South that Republicans now held 19 of the region's 22 senate seats (Democrats held both seats in Virginia and one in Florida). For governor, in 1970 only 2 southern states had GOP governors; beginning in 1994 about 7 southern states had GOP governors. Beginning in 2010, 9 or 10 of the 11 southern states had GOP governors. In 2017, 8 states had GOP governors (Virginia, Louisiana, North Carolina had Democrats).

Republican gains in lower level state offices came even later. Democrats controlled all 22 state legislative chambers as late as 1993. After the 1994 elections, Republicans controlled 3 of the 22 state legislative chambers. The number rose to 5 after the 1996 elections. It rose to 7 after the 2000 elections, 9 after 2002 elections, and finally 11 (half) after the 2004 elections. After the 2004 elections, Republicans controlled both legislative chambers in the Rim South states of Florida, Texas, and Virginia, as well as both chambers in the Deep South states of Georgia and South Carolina. Republicans in Texas redistricted their U.S. House delegation mid-decade to increase GOP representation from nearly half to two-thirds. Republicans in Florida during disputed 2000 presidential election threatened to dictate a pro-Bush slate of state electors. Georgia and South Carolina are more modernizing Deep South states. Republicans made similar gains in sub-gubernatorial statewide executive offices and by 2005 controlled a majority in the states of Florida, Texas, and South Carolina, and half in Virginia and Alabama. Republicans won all statewide offices in Texas when George Bush Jr. was reelected governor in 1998, and they won all statewide offices in Florida when Jeb Bush was reelected governor in 2002.

Republicans made further gains during the Obama first midterm election in 2010. Republicans now controlled 16 of 22 state legislative chambers (Democrats controlled both chambers only in Arkansas, one chamber in Virginia, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and a tie in Mississippi; Democrats lost both chambers in Mississippi in the 2011 elections). Republicans also achieved a new high of 9 of the region's governors (only Arkansas and North Carolina kept Democratic governors). Republicans also controlled all subgubernatorial statewide offices in 6 states, over 80% in 2 states; Democrats had a tie in Arkansas and a majority only in North Carolina. The 2012 and 2014 elections saw further GOP gains in southern state legislatures, and Republicans in 2015 now control all 22 of the 11 southern states' bicameral legislatures.

Democrats had been the majority party in the South when they offered ideologically diverse and pragmatic candidates who could appeal to average white voters. Examples include: Senator Stennis of Mississippi, known for courtesy and integrity; Governor George Wallace of Alabama, a lower income boxer, segregationist, but economic progressive; Governor Edwin Edwards of Louisiana, witty, flamboyant, progressive, biracial coalition; Zell Miller of Georgia, a lieutenant governor, governor, and senator, who was an economic liberal and pro-education but tough on crime; Governor Strom Thurmond, senator until switched parties in 1964, a war hero, FDR backer, progressive governor, conservative senator.

Republican electoral breakthroughs. John Tower was elected senator from Texas in 1961, Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina switched parties in 1964, in 1966 Howard Baker was elected senator from Tennessee. Elected Republican governors in the 1960s were Winthrop Rockefeller of Arkansas, Claude Kirk of Florida, and Linwood Holton of Virginia. For senator, Mississippi fell in the middle of the southern states, elected Thad Cochran in 1978. For governor, Mississippi was one of the last states, electing Kirk Fordice in 1991. The last breakthroughs for the GOP was finally electing a Republican governor in Georgia, Sonny Perdue in 2002, and finally electing a GOP senator in Louisiana, David Vitter in 2004.

What helped GOP gains in top offices: 1) Liberal Democrats got angry at Democratic nomination of a conservative or a segregationist, and backed the less conservative Republican; examples are Tower in Texas, Rockefeller in Arkansas, and GOP senator Mattingly in Georgia (after Herman Talmadge was barely renominated by Dems). 2) More often, Democrats nominated a liberal, causing conservative Democrats to vote Republican. Examples are Kirk's election in Florida, Gurney's election as Florida senator in 1968, Jesse Helms' senate election in North Carolina in 1972 (where a liberal upset the Democratic incumbent in the primary), Clements' gubernatorial election in Texas in 1978 (Democratic governor lost his primary to a liberal), Dave Treen's election as governor in Louisiana in 1979 (all Democrats who lost in first election refused to back liberal Democrat in runoff election), and Mike Foster was twice elected governor of Louisiana in 1990s due to liberal black Democratic opponents.

Ideological Realignment of Southern Congressional Delegations. For U.S. House, in 1970 the seats were pretty evenly divided into four groups- moderate Democrats, moderate conservative Democrats, conservative Democrats, and Republicans. After 2004 elections, nearly two-thirds of the House members were Republicans, and the rest of the seats were divided between liberal Democrats and moderate liberal Democrats; about half of the 20 liberals were African American, and about one-fourth of the 20 moderate liberals were black. On the Senate side, in the 1970s Democrats were divided into three relatively equal groups- moderates, moderate conservatives, and conservatives. By the 2000s, of the 7 Democratic senators remaining, 2 were liberals, 3 were moderate liberal, only 1 was moderate and only 1 moderate conservative, and by 2005 both of the moderates and moderate conservatives had departed the senate. Meanwhile, the number of GOP senators tripled between 1970 and 2005.

Ideological realignment of state parties. In 1991, southern Democratic party activists were pretty evenly divided ideologically. 37% were liberal, 35% moderate, and 28% conservative. Over the next ten years, a majority of Democrats had become liberals. In 2001, 57% of Democratic activists were liberals, 28% were moderates, and only 15% were conservatives. Meanwhile, Republicans had gone off into right field. Their party activists were generally divided into two groups- somewhat conservative and very conservative groups; by 2001 a majority of 51% of GOP activists were now calling themselves very conservative.

A great summary of these regional partisan trends is found in the tables at the end of two chapters of Shaffer's non-published book on Southern Politics. Check out both of these chapters:
An introductory chapter
A concluding chapter

FINAL, NONCUMULATIVE ESSAY EXAM