NOTES

Characteristics of the Behavioral Approach to the field of Political Behavior in the discipline of Political Science:
• 1) Science, theory, predictions, explanation, patterns.
  Examples of studies:
  a) Theories of presidential voting behavior: sociological theory of voting, such as race and income affecting voter's vote choice; social-psychological University of Michigan model using party identification, issues, and candidate evaluations; simple satisfaction versus dissatisfaction predicting vote for presidential party's candidate.
  b) Southern state legislative groups: white Republicans are fairly conservative; African-American Democrats are fairly liberal; and white Democrats are essentially centrist or moderate, depending on the issues.
  c) Mass-elite study, which party organization is closer to the average voter on issues? In 1991 Alabama-Mississippi study, it was Democrats, but by 2001 it depended on the type of issue.
• 2) Data gathering and research are theory directed.
  Examples of studies:
  a) For presidential voting behavior, national survey of voters were conducted, asking their party identifications, their attitudes on public issues, and their likes and dislikes of the major party candidates; such a national study would also ask voters' their race and income, and whether they were financially satisfied or dissatisfied.
  b) For southern state legislative factions, we identified legislators' party from their websites (or from Secretary of State's website on last election returns), their race from their pictures, and their roll call votes from newspapers' reports.
  c) For mass-elite study, we conducted mail surveys of Democratic and Republican county executive committee members in Mississippi and Alabama, and statewide telephone polls of average adults in both states. We asked identically worded questions on about twenty different public policy issues, including ideological self-identification and party identification.
• 3) Value free
  Examples of studies:
  a) We simply seek to predict and explain how the political world operates, we do not let our own opinions about how it should operate influence our research. Hence, though conservatives may claim that Reagan won in 1980 because of his conservative philosophy, and liberals may claim that Clinton won in 1992 because of his moderate liberal philosophy, our research may indicate that each won merely because voters were dissatisfied with the economic recessions (and in 1980 the foreign policy crises). Similarly, the economic meltdown in 2008 helped Obama to be elected President.
  b) A researcher may be a disillusioned liberal who believes that African-American lawmakers are isolated from all other lawmakers, but the data may show that white Democrats often vote with them on education, race, and election administration issues, and that Republican lawmakers lose on more roll call votes than do black Democrats.
  c) A researcher may be a conservative Republican who has friends in the state Republican party headquarters, but the data may show that average voters are essentially moderate as were Democratic party organization members in the South (at least until the 1990s), while Republican party organization members are conservative.
• 4) Interdisciplinary- we draw on theories and methods from related fields, such as sociology, psychology, economics.
  Examples of studies:
  a) The earlier American presidential election studies of the 1940s relied heavily on sociology, proposing that group membership affected the party voted for outside of the South. Rurality, Protestantism, and higher income predicted more Republican votes, while urban residence, Catholicism, and lower income predicted more Democratic votes.
  b) My study of Balance Theory drew on psychology. People tend to acquire and retain psychologically consistent beliefs and attitudes. If a person likes a candidate, they tend to believe that the candidate agrees with their own positions on issues regardless of whether the candidate actually does; if a voter dislikes a candidate, they tend to believe that they are in disagreement with the candidate on the issue. (For example, I may be a conservative who likes Obama because he is bright and articulate; I would then tend to "perceive" that Obama was a conservative, maybe citing his being married to the same woman his entire life.)
  c) Shaffer worked with economics professor (Chressanthis) in studying whether U.S. Senate election margins showed public officials' accountability to the public, which they were in an indirect sense. Elections were affected by presidential coattails, campaign spending, divisive primaries, and preceding election margin. Economic conditions in the state and federal pork barrel dollars did not affect the elections.
• 5) Methodological sophistication-
  Examples of studies:
  a) We conduct national public opinion polls that are representative of the nation's diversity. We do not conduct shopping mall polls, or phone-in or internet polls that fail to reflect the views of lower socioeconomic classes. So we can test whether the sociological group, social-psychological, or economic models of presidential voting are upheld. In yet another published study, I used such national polls from 1960 thru 1976 to explain how voter turnout declined due to decreased political efficacy, decreased partisan intensity, and decreased newspaper readership.
  b) The southern state legislative factions research started with one southern state, Mississippi, in only a few years. We expanded to a twenty year time frame in Mississippi. Then, we added other southern states, like Georgia, Florida, Arkansas, and Texas.
  c) My mass-elite linkage study started with just Mississippi in one year, but then I contacted Pat Cotter at the University of Alabama and we had a second state for confirmation. We also did the study originally in 1991, and then repeated it in 2001.
  d) Shaffer's study of balance theory relied on the 1994-1996 American national panel study to examine cognition change over time; panel studies follow the same people over time.
  e) Shaffer and Chressanthis study of Senate accountability used pooled time-series, cross-sectional approach. All even-numbered years from 1976 thru 1986 were included, as were all 33 state contests in each election year. Regression and probit were used.
• 6) Individual and group units of analysis.
  Examples of studies:
  a) The presidential voting studies used the individual voter as the unit of analysis.
  b) The southern state legislative factions studies also looked at individuals (legislators in this case), but they combined them into three groups based on their race and party.
  c) Balance theory and voter turnout studies also looked at individuals.
  d) Mass-elite study looked at individuals of different types, the mass voter versus the elite party member.
  e) The Chressanthis Senate accountability study used the state-year as the unit of analysis.

Criticisms of Behavioralism:
• Are people and events predictable?
• Can researchers be value free?

Ethics Issue

• Stanley Milgram study was unethical- obedience to authority study lied to subjects, harmed them psychologically.
• One must never harm subjects.

Researchers Need Informed Consent of Subjects. Components of Informed Consent-

• 1) Competence- guardians' approval needed if subject lacks full competence.
• 2) Voluntarism- no deceit or over-reaching.
• 3) Full Information- inform research subject of benefits and risks of participating in study, inform them that they can refuse to answer any question and they can withdraw at any time.
• 4) Comprehension- "knowing" consent needed, don't use jargon.

Anonymity versus Confidentiality-

• Anonymity- no one can identify a person with their responses.
• Confidentiality- researcher knows who the respondent is, but promises not to tell anyone. Subpoena problem, so if data are merely confidential convert dataset into anonymous data as soon as possible.

For any research project conducted at MSU, you must get approval of the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research (IRB). A copy of the form is available on their website.

You will conduct your own research project and write up your research paper in a format that is similar to a dissertation proposal, only much shorter (about 20 pages). Your paper will have the following components (in order):

• A title page with the title of the paper, your name, the number and name of the course, what semester (Fall 2011 semester), Instructor Dr. Stephen D. Shaffer.
• An introduction, which in a page or so explains the importance of your topic and the purpose of your paper.
• Your model and hypotheses. You should have four variables drawn from the Mississippi Poll dataset. You will have one dependent variable and three independent variables. Those three independent variables could include either one or two intervening variables (with either two or one outside, "earliest" variables). You will have five hypotheses, one for each linkage between pairs of variables.
• A literature review of the professional refereed journal articles. You should have at least two articles for each hypothesis. Discuss both the methods and the findings of each article. Many of these articles can be found in my on-line list of journal articles.
• The methods section, where you discuss your datasets, how your variables were measured, and how you recoded your variables. Information on the methods used in each Mississippi Poll are on-line. The exact question wording of each variable is provided on-line. You will normally want to "pool" or combine more than one year of the Mississippi poll, in order to increase your sample size and reduce your sample error. A nice set of summary tables of which questions were asked in which years is also on-line. To determine the sample error of your pooled dataset, consult the sample error chart on-line.
• The findings section. First, create all five of your bivariate tables. Each table should have the independent variable at the top, and the dependent variable at the left side. Table entries should be column percentages. The last row should have the N size of each column. Under each table should be on separate rows: gamma value; chi squared significance level; a note that percentages total 100% down each column; a source indicating the years of the Mississippi Poll. Second, have one paragraph discussing each table and whether it confirmed your hypothesis. Third, create all of your multivariable tables. Fourth, now discuss your multivariate tables.
• Conclusions section. Redraw your model, dropping the non-significant linkages. Now discuss the results of your study, and suggest what directions future research on this subject should take.
• References section. Alphabetize by author's last name. Each entry should have author's last name, comma, first name. Year of study. Title of article, what volume and number, page numbers.

Here are three samples of past students' research papers:

• This is the latest and best sample of a research paper.
• This paper has two intervening variables, one outside variable.
• This paper has one intervening variable and two outside variables.

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 can interview more people;
• 4) Cluster Samples- produce about 20% higher error.

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 any telephones
• 2) No visual aids-- voice dependent
• 3) Excludes those with only cell phones

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?

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 adults under 30 (big problem with cell phone rise)
• 6) Old

Weighting 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 young, high school dropouts and men; compare sample and census
• 5) Repeat step 4 until obtain representative weighted sample

Latest example of weighting is provided here.

Validity Problems and Other Issues with Question Wording Format

• Multiple Stimuli- textbook example, p. 41, mentioning that an authoritative group supports a law often increases public support for that law.
• Question Order Effects- one example is putting general vote preference question after asking about unpopular aspects of a candidate reduces support for that candidate (Stennis 1982 example).
• Balanced Arguments or Balanced Response Categories- textbook example on page 42, give both points of view. 1981 Mississippi Poll question asking whether blacks were treated better than or worse than whites.
• Middle Position- offering a middle position causes many people to select it. Examples of for or against death penalty, and including life without parole. Also, example of Mississippi financial crisis; raise taxes, cut programs, or do some of both.
• Response Acquiescence- perhaps Mississippi Poll state spending items, as many people say spend more.
• Filter Question- asking people whether they have heard or read anything about an issue eliminates many who don't have real opinions. Example of Governor Winter's Education Reform Act.
• Social Desirability Effect- race and sex of interviewers may bias the responses to sensitive items, such as race issues or sexual practices.
• Open Ended Items- give much information, but hard to code.

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, along with social issues such as crime and morality. A September 7, 2001 Gallup Poll(The Gallup Poll Monthly, September 2001 p.20) found the following percentages of Americans responding what the most important problem facing the country was:
Economy in general = 22%
Education = 11%
Unemployment, jobs = 10%
Moral issues, ethics, family decline = 9%
Crime and violence = 7%
Cynicism, dissatisfaction with politicians = 6%
Poverty and homelessness = 5%
Illegal immigration = 5%
Health Care = 5%
Medicare and Social Security = 5%
Drugs = 4%

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%

The economy continued to be bleak at the end of 2009. A December 2009 CBS News Poll asking people what the most important problem facing the country was found that: 47% responded the economy or jobs; 12% said health care; 8% said war, the Iraq war, or the Afghanistan war; 28% made other comments (5% said don't know).

The economy continued to be relatively break in mid-2012. An April 2012 CBS News/New York Times Poll found that when asked the open ended item of "what do you think is the most important problem facing this country today," Americans responded as follows:

• Economy/Jobs = 48%
• Health Care = 5%
• Budget deficit/National debt = 5%
• Education = 3%
• Partisan Politics = 3%
• Moral values/Family values = 3%
• Fuel costs = 3%
• Big government/bureaucracy = 2%
• Other = 24%
• Unsure = 4%

More normal times after 9-11 show that both domestic and foreign issues are important. When asked the most important problem facing America in an August 2004 Time Poll, the public responded:

• Economy- 27%
• Iraq- 19%
• Terrorism- 18%
• Moral values- 18%
• Health care- 11%

Most Americans also wish for government to spend more on solving domestic problems. General Social Survey polls found the following percents desiring increased spending (2008 and 2006 results are cited in Erikson and Tedin book, American Public Opinion, updated 8th edition, p. 96)(note the 2006 and 2008 results asked alternative wording: too little, about right, too much being spent, compared to current):
Improving and protecting health- 74% in early 1990s and 76% in 2004; in 2008, 76% said too little spent
Aid to homeless- 73% in early 90's; not asked after 2000
Improving the public school system- 69% in early 90's; 74% in 2004; in 2008, 71% said too little spent on improving the nation's education system
Aid to college students- 61% in early 90's, 55% in 2004
Protecting the environment- 59% in early 90s; 51% in 2004; in 2008, 68% said too little being spent
Social Security- 46% in early 90's; 64% in 2004; in 2006, 63% said too little being spent
Halting Rising Crime- 74% in early 90's; 61% in 2000; in 2008, 53% said too little being spent on police and law enforcement
Dealing with Drug Addiction- 63% in early 90's; 62% in 2000; in 2006, 62% said too little being spent.

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 2012 (2006 figures in parens):
Public elementary-secondary education- 74% (79%)
Health care and hospitals- 64% (74%)
Police forces- 56% (62%)
Programs for the poor- 53% (61%)
Colleges and universities- 63% (60%)
Streets and Highways- 66% (60%)
Industrial growth and development- 59% (57%)
Child Day Care facilities- 56% (54%)
Environmental programs- 35% (48%)
Encouraging tourism- 38% (41%)

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).

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 (Gallup Poll Monthly, January 1998 p.34):
Only reform supported (by 66%) is allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security savings in the stock market.
62% oppose raising employer and employee social security taxes.
59% oppose allowing government to invest part of social security trust fund in the stock market.
70% oppose raising the social security retirement age to 70.
85% oppose reducing social security benefits.

Similar results were found 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.

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 most recently (48% for, 45% against in September 2009). In November 2000 Gallup Poll, 82% back raising the minimum wage; in a December 2006 Associated Press-AOL News Poll, 80% favored increasing the minimum wage, and only 18% opposed it.

Environmental and Energy Issues-
The environment is not a top priority of Americans. Furthermore, concern over environmental issues has decreased about 10% over the past ten years, though concern may have increased after 2006. (Gallup Poll. March 6-9, 2008)
Most important environmental concerns are drinking water pollution, rivers and lakes pollution, and soil and water contamination by toxic wastes, where over 50% claim to worry "a great deal" about them.
Less important issues are global warming, damage to the ozone layer, loss of wildlife habitat, and species extinction. Hence, Bush's killing of the Kyoto treaty has not hurt him. Similar results were found in a March 2009 Gallup Poll, where less than 40% worried a great deal over the greenhouse effect or global warming, and less than 40% were worried a great deal over species extinction.
People favor conservation as well as energy production to deal with the energy crisis. (Gallup, May 2001) Over 80% favor mandating more energy efficient appliances, new buildings, and cars, as well as investing in new sources of energy and in new power generating plants.
Not favored by the public is oil exploration in the Alaskan Arctic Wildlife Refuge or increasing Nuclear Power (only 38% backed Alaska drilling).

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 2012 Mississippi Poll shows a 42-42% split on death penalty versus life without parole, with 6% supporting a shorter jail term and 10% 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. A Gallup Poll in the late 1990s showed majorities backing the following policies:
Conservative policies: 1) Harder to get bail for those accused of murder and rape; 2) More severe sentences for all crimes; 3) Tax increase or federal money for more police on the streets; 4) Making parole more difficult for violent crimes like murder and rape; 5) Three strikes and you're out for serious felonies; 6) Community notification when sex offenders are released; 7) Death penalty for some serious crimes other than murder; 8) Death penalty despite statistical discrimination against minorities; 9) Limit death penalty appeals.
Liberal policies: 1) Tougher gun control laws; 2) Barring under 18 from buying guns; 3) Barring criminals from buying handguns; 4) Brady Bill, 5 day waiting period to check on felony records; 5) Ban semi-automatic assault rifles; 6) Ban cheap handguns; 7) For social programs for low income children, such as midnight basketball; 8) A January 2000 Gallup Poll indicated that 73% favor registration of all handguns; 9) 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 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.

Americans are also 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.

Americans are conservative on bilingual education. Over 60% in a June 1998 Gallup Poll (Gallup Poll Monthly June 1998 p.17-18) backed immersion, which is teaching non-English speaking students all of their subjects in English, while giving them intensive training in how to read and speak English. Only one-third backed bilingual education, which is teaching them their core subjects in their native language, while providing them gradual training in English.

Americans tend to be conservative on Gay Rights, though some liberalization is occurring.
A majority of Americans historically have believed that gays should not be permitted to marry. (ABC News Poll. May 31-June 4, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. "Do you think it should be legal or illegal for homosexual couples to get married?") 36% say it should be Legal, and 58% say Illegal, with 5% Unsure. A July 2008 Quinnipiac University Poll also found 55% opposing and 36% supporting "same-sex marriage." However, opposition by October 2009 (NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll) fell to 49% with 41% favoring same sex marriage, and 10% unsure (but strongly opposed was 40% and strongly favored was only 26%). A June 2012 Roper poll found 42% opposed and 40% in favor of "a law allowing same-sex couples to be legally married in your state."
However, Americans are more opposed on whether a federal constitutional amendment is needed. (Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. "Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?") 50% favor it and 47% oppose it with 3% unsure. A July 2008 Quinnipiac University Poll found 56% opposed and 38% in favor of "amending the United States Constitution to ban same-sex marriage."

Some Americans are willing to grant civil unions. The latest 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). A CBS News/New York Times Poll, June 2009 found 33% favoring legal marriage for gays, 30% favoring civil unions, and 32% saying there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship (5% were unsure). Similar results were found in earlier polls. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 13-14, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. "Do you believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships?") 27% say Legally Married, 25% say Legal Partnership, and 39% say No Legal Recognition, with 8% being Unsure. Similar results were found in a June 2008 Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, where 30% favored "FULL marriage rights for same-sex couples," 27% supported "civil unions or partnerships for same-sex couples," 37% opposed "ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples," and 6% were unsure.
Mississippi is also split three ways on this issue, but is more opposed to gay relationship recognition than is the nation. In the 2012 Mississippi Poll, 25% backed legal marriage, 24% favored civil unions, and 46% opposed any legal recognition of gay relationships (5% were undecided).

The Boy Scouts should not be required to allow openly gay adults to serve as Boy Scout leaders according to 64% of Americans (31% disagree).
Americans oppose job discrimination against gays in most occupations, except those where they have contact with children.
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.

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. 88% back sex education in schools. 61% oppose a ban on pornography for adults, though most back ban for minors (Erikson and Tedin, page 108).

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% back concepts of school integration, integrated neighborhoods, and voting for an African-American for President.

Affirmative Action for minorities and women- Mend, Don't End. (USA Today Poll, March 1995)
Over 70% of whites back: 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 oppose: 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.
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. Two-thirds of blacks believe that they do not have as good a chance as whites in their community to get a job that they are qualified for, and the same margin backs new civil rights laws to reduce racial discrimination. O.J. Simpson trial showed that a majority of blacks believe that the American justice system is biased against blacks, and two-thirds see a problem of racism among police officers.
A 1999 Gallup Poll asked whether blacks are treated less fairly than whites in six situations. About 90% of whites said no, but African-Americans disagreed. Fifty percent or more of blacks expressed concern of unequal treatment by police (as did 30% of whites), at work, and in downtown stores and malls. Nearly 40% perceived unfair treatment in restaurants/bars/theaters and in neighborhood shops. Only 19% saw problems with public transportation.

Similar big racial differences occurred over the incident of black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, who was arrested by police officer James Crowley, as Gates returning home from a trip had to break into his own house. A July-August 2009 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll found that 56% of blacks but only 6% of whites claimed to have "personally ever felt treated unfairly by the police or by a police officer specifically because of your race." When asked who had "acted stupidly," 59% of blacks and only 29% of whites said the police officer; 58% of whites and 44% of blacks said the professor "acted stupidly." When asked who they sympathized with more, 45% of whites said the policeman and only 29% the professor, while 61% of blacks said the professor and only 19% the policeman. When asked, "Do you think a white homeowner would have been arrested if he had acted the same way in the same circumstances," 66% of whites said yes and 64% of blacks said no.

Racial Profiling. Results from 2012 Mississippi Poll, question included in poll by PhD student LaShonda Stewart:
Have you ever been a victim of racial profiling? Of blacks, 31% say yes, 69% say no (for whites, it is 6-94 split).
Do you believe that racial profiling is a widespread practice in Mississippi? Of blacks, 84% say yes, 16% say no (for whites, 43-57 split)
Do you believe that law enforcement officers should be allowed to use racial profiling to fight crime? Of blacks, 7% say yes, 93 say no (for whites, 22-78 split).

Confederate Flag issue. Americans in a May 2000 Gallup Poll were equally divided over whether it was all right for southern states to fly "some form of the Confederate flag on top of their state capital buildings." A reason for this mild reaction against this practice was that by a two-to-one margin, Americans viewed the practice as reflecting Southern pride rather than racism. When asked about groups boycotting South Carolina over the flag issue, 65% of Americans opposed this boycott while only 27% favored it.

Before Obama, who was the most important national leader in the African-American community? A June 2003 Gallup Poll found about one-sixth of blacks each saying Colin Powell or Jesse Jackson. But an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in March 2000 had found 43% of blacks responding that Jesse Jackson was the leader who "best represents the interests of the black community today," while only 17% said Colin Powell.

Has America given up on integration?
In a 1989 Gallup Poll, most Americans felt enough attention had been provided to the civil rights of African Americans. Most Americans were most concerned over the elderly, disabled and handicapped people, and to some degree Asian-Americans, women, Hispanics, AIDS victims, and Jews.
48% of all Americans (and 60% of blacks) prefer increased funding and resources for minorities' schools, while only 32% endorse stepping up efforts to integrate the two races in the public schools. Example- Ayers case. Generation gap among blacks: plurality over age 50 back more integration, while 73% of blacks under 50 back more minority funding.

POLITICAL REFORM

Americans often claim to desire political reforms, but these issues are not major priorities to most citizens.

Limiting soft money campaign contributions. An October 2000 Gallup Poll asked about soft money, defined as the money that individuals, businesses, and labor unions are legally allowed to contribute to national political parties. Over two-thirds of Americans favored a new federal law to limit the amount of soft money that any individual or group could contribute to the national parties.

Indeed, an April 2007 USA Today/Gallup Poll found that when asked, ""Which of the following do you think would be the best way to finance presidential campaigns: a system of public financing funded by the federal government, a system of private financing funded by donations from individuals and political groups as well as the candidate's own money, or a combination of the two," 46% favored private financing, 22% favored public financing, and 28% favored a combination of the two (4% had other opinions or were unsure).

Electoral College Reform. In November-December 2000 Gallup Polls, about 60% of Americans favored amending the constitution so that the candidate winning the most total votes nationally won the election, while 36% favored the current system where whoever wins the most votes in the Electoral College wins the election. Yet 2001 polls showed that most Americans regarded George W. Bush as a legitimate President, even though he lost the popular vote to Al Gore.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Foreign affairs tend to be less visible issues that people care less about, and people tend to be pragmatic on such issues.

Americans are basically internationalist, with 65% saying our country should "take an active part in world affairs." Only about 30% say we should "stay out of world affairs." In Mississippi the isolationist sentiment is higher.

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 has declined, as America has gotten stronger and communism has died. 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.

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.

Immigration.
July 1993 Gallup Poll found 65% of Americans felt number of immigrants should be decreased. Concerns over diversity threatening American culture, and cost of government education and medical benefits for immigrants. Americans especially thought that there was too much immigration from Arab countries, Latin America, and Asian countries; most backed European immigration, and were divided towards Africa. A more recent June 2002 Gallup Poll found that a more modest 49% of Americans wanted immigration levels decreased, while 36% agreed with the current level and 12% wanted increased immigration. (Similar in June 2008 Gallup poll, where 39% said decrease immigration, 39% said keep same level, 18% wanted it increased.) A bare majority of 52% felt that immigration was a good thing for the country, but 42% felt that it was a bad thing (The 2008 Gallup Poll found a 64-30% split saying immigration was a good thing).
Americans are more negative toward "illegal" immigration, where an October 2009 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll found that 73% wanted the number of illegal immigrants currently living in the country decreased, only 3% wanted the number increased, and 22% wanted to keep the same numbers. A bare majority of Americans (52%) oppose "a program in which illegal immigrants from Mexico would be allowed to live and work legally in the United States," while 41% favor it. (ABC News Poll, January 2004) This suggests a lack of support for the Bush proposed guest worker plan.
A majority of Americans oppose illegal immigration, because they say it costs taxpayers too much money in government services, plus they take jobs from Americans (2008 Gallup Poll).
Solutions to cut immigration: majorities backed better border patrols, a national identification card, imposing more fines on businesses hiring illegal immigrants, and refusing to issue drivers licenses to illegals. Most respondents opposed cutting off schools and hospitals services for illegal immigrants. Americans are evenly divided over building a fence along the border with Mexico.
July 1995, USA Today poll of adult immigrants. Most prefer USA to their homeland in terms of better job opportunities, more political freedom, and fair laws. Yet most immigrants rated their homelands higher in terms of safety from crime, and moral values.

Review the subject of sex, race, and age differences in quality of life in the modern Mississippi. It was discussed at a research conference held by the College of Arts and Sciences at MSU in 2009. Especially study the nice causal figure at the end, which examines the variables that intervene between age/race and quality of life. These variables explain why blacks and young tend to rate the state's quality of life as lower than do whites and older people.

(Most of this info is from Erikson and Tedin American Public Opinion, Eighth Edition, Longman Publisher, chapter 7)

Socioeconomic status--education, income, social class
Working class backs more spending for economic social welfare type programs, like the poor, social security, unemployment assistance, and child care, compared to the upper class.
Higher income are less supportive of domestic spending and social services, and less supportive of government guaranteeing jobs and a good living standard, compared to the lower income.
College educated and upper class are more liberal on race and civil liberty issues, compared to high school dropouts. College back abortions, gay rights, and aid to minorities more than the high school dropouts.
College educated are more internationalist in foreign affairs than the less educated. They also back the President more during international crises, than do the less educated.
Higher income are much more Republican in party identification and voting, compared to the lower income.

Race
African-Americans are more liberal on a diverse range of issues, compared to whites. Blacks back more spending on economic issues, such as jobs, welfare, and education, compared to whites. African-Americans back liberal racial issues, such as affirmative action, more than whites. Blacks are more opposed to the death penalty, and more supportive of laws protecting gays, than whites are. Blacks generally are more isolationist when it comes to the use of military force, such as Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the current Iraq war
African-Americans are much more Democratic in party identification and in voting behavior, compared to whites.

Age
Young adults under 30 are more liberal than those over 55 on race and civil liberty issues. Young white southerners (as well as northerners) are more supportive of racial integration and more opposed to racial discrimination, than are the elderly. Young are more supportive than the old of women's rights, abortion, gay rights, and marijuana legalization.
Young are somewhat more liberal on domestic economic welfare programs than the old, such as student loans, jobs, and government services.

Gender
Women are less supportive of the use of force, compared to men. Women are more supportive of gun control, more opposed to the death penalty, and more opposed to using military force, than are men.
Women are slightly more compassionate than men, backing such social welfare programs as anti-poverty, health insurance, jobs, pro-Social Security, income equalization, child care spending, and government social programs spending more generally.
There are no gender differences on women's issues, such as abortion and equal rights legislation.

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. White Southerners used to be very Democratic, but today they are evenly split between the parties, as are whites in the north.

Religion (Source: Erikson and Tedin American Public Opinion Seventh Edition, Pearson/Longman Publishers, p. 211, 215)
Jews and atheists-agnostics are more likely to call themselves "liberals," compared to Protestants and Catholics. Both groups are more liberal than other religious groups on civil liberty and race issues, such as abortion, marijuana, school prayer, equal rights for women, and government aid to blacks.
Jewish religion is the most Democratic in terms of party identification and voting behavior of any religious group.
Few differences exist today between Protestant and Catholics, though Protestants are slightly more likely to label themselves conservative, and lean slightly more towards the Republican party.(p. 211, Erikson and Tedin, 7th edition)
Among white protestants, the Religious (based on amount of prayer) are more conservative on domestic economic, civil liberty, and military issues, than are the Secular Protestants. (p. 215, Erikson and Tedin, American Public Opinion, Seventh Edition, Pearson/Longman Publishers) Fundamentalists are also more Republican in party identification and federal voting behavior.

Click here for information on demographic group differences on diverse public policy issues in Mississippi. This information uses the Mississippi poll data from 2006-2010.

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 effect on adults, and perhaps explain declining turnout between 1960 and 1996 and rising public cynicism towards politics after 1960?

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? A national civics curriculum may stress conformity- a common American culture and values (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 136). 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 liberal-conservative terms and the positions of the parties. High school seniors have limited interest in current events, little appreciation for importance of having a two-party system (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 136).
• 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. Taking a greater number of civics courses in high school does increase trust in government (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 137).
• 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 (including student council, journalism clubs, music groups, doing community service) increases political interest, political discussions, and political activities (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 138).

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 were 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 have been 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 recent decades, as women have entered the work force. Kristi Andersen 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. Recent turnout gap between sexes has been eliminated, 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 parents' attitudes. Attitudes most likely to be transmitted from parents to children are religious-related views, racial attitudes, and party identification. Indeed, parental-obtained partisan identifications often remain the same thirty years later, and continued to affect the presidential vote (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 134, 155). Also, not only were anti-war protesters of the 1960s more liberal decades later than non-protesters, but so were their offspring (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 153).
• 2) Demographic factors: white, higher SES background related to Republicanism.
• 3) Peer Group has an effect, but less than parents. Peer group shapes attitudes toward smoking and in 1972 views towards the 18-year-old vote.
• 4) College experience causes reexamination of views, often become more liberal on race and civil liberty issues, more Independent in party identification. Is it classroom teachers, or non-class experiences? Social science teachers tend to be liberal, but business professors tend to be more conservative (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 142). Since 1982, college freshmen have become increasingly polarized with a decline in the percentage of moderates, but an increase in both liberals and conservatives; political interest also rose over time (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 139-140).
• 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. Generally, wives are more influenced politically than are husbands, the change occurs early in the marriage, and there is no gender gap in politics among the married (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 157).
• 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. The Great Depression caused young adults in the 1930s to become more Democratic in party identification than people were in other decades; also, the Reagan years of the 1980s also generated such generational effects, as young adults in that decade became more Republican (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 150).
• 8) Life-cycle effects (aging). People become slightly more conservative as they age (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 147). They also become more politically interested (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 154).

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.

Was the 2003 Iraqi war of President Bush's an example of Groupthink?

Balance Theory article (APQ, July 1981, by Steve Shaffer)

Cognitive consistency theory; triad involves attitude to issue, attitude to candidate, perception of candidate's issue position. Define balance and imbalance: balance is perceiving agreement with the candidate and liking them, or perceiving disagreement with the candidate and disliking them; imbalance is liking the candidate when perceiving disagreement, or disliking them when perceiving agreement. Mere dichotomy.

Theory tested with NES 1974-1976 panel data on five issues. Among those imbalanced in 1974, 52-72% became balanced in 1976. Among those balanced in 1974, only 10-26% became imbalanced in 1976. Issue salience affected link most likely to change. Less important issues, such as jobs, minority aid saw perception of candidate's position change. More important issues, such as busing and ideology, saw attitude toward candidate change. Among those liking Ford, balanced triads saw more votes for him than did imbalanced triads.

Refining theory to more than three links, and to interval data. Six links examined by including attitude toward Republican Party along with attitude toward President Ford. At each time point, over three times the number of people expected by chance alone were found in the totally balanced grouping. Over time, those initially imbalanced were more likely to become balanced than chance alone predicted. Interval data showed that strong attitudes toward candidates caused a higher relationship between issue position and perception of the candidate's position; those strongly liking a candidate were likely to see a match between their own and the candidate's issue position, while those strongly disliking a candidate were likely to see a great distance between their own and the candidate's position.

Personality and Political Attitudes of Voters .

"Liberals tend to be more open to new experiences while conservatives tend to be conforming ... conservatives tend to be conscientious and organized while liberals tend to be impulsive" (Erikson-Tedin, 2011, 8th edition, p. 144).

"Residents of red (Republican) states tend to be conforming and favoring order to their lives, while residents of blue (Democratic) states tend to be open to new ideas and impulsive" (Erikson-Tedin, 2011, 8th edition, p. 144).

Democratic Stability: Tolerance for Democratic Values.

There is strong public support for abstract democratic values, such as free speech for all, and rule by majority vote (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 163). But the American public is divided when applying those democratic values to unpopular groups or in controversial situations. Unpopular groups include terrorists and criminals; controversial situations include demonstrations, advocating revolution, library book bans, denouncing the President, and racially offensive broadcasts (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 164).

Public tolerance for unpopular ideas has grown since 1954, because of: more educated population; more cultural diversity in America; decreased salience and fear of communists and atheists (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 165-166). Public remains mixed in tolerance towards "newer" unpopular groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, radical Muslims, and Nazis (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 166, 173).

Willingness of the public to give up some civil liberties is related to their perception of a threat, such as the 9-11 terrorist attack (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 169).

Intolerance can be promoted by: intolerant state government elites, as evident in the 1950s anti-communist era; the recent promotion of political correctness and opposition to "hate speech" (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 172).

Political trust (trust in government) is affected by political events. It declined during the Watergate scandal of 1973, but rose during the Reagan reelection of 1984, and hit a high after the 9-11 terrorist attack (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 178).

Social trust has periodically been measured in the Mississippi Poll. Studies have found that social trust increases people's beliefs in the benign intentions of other countries, thereby promoting an internationalist attitude towards foreign affairs. Social trust also helps maintain a civic culture by promoting voluntary associational activities (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 182).

History of the American mass media (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 226-230).

• Era of the Partisan Press, 1787-1832
• Era of the Commercial Media, 1833-1899
• Era of the Objective Media, 1900-1979 (CBS Walter Cronkite example)
• Interpretive Journalism, 1980-; shorter sound bites of candidates, longer coverage of journalists
• Era of Fragmented Media, 1991-; since 1980, there has been a decline in newspaper circulation and TV network news audience. Since 1993, there has been a decline in the audience of the traditional media (local and nightly network news, and newspapers), and a rise in the New Media (Fox cable news, MSNBC, on-line news). The rise of the Internet has especially hurt newspapers.

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; television- visually-appealing settings are important.

Is the media ideologically biased?

• 1) Edith Efron found liberal television in 1968, but Hofstetter found neutral television in 1972. More recent studies find that the network news in 2004 and 2008 tends to be biased towards the Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Barack Obama (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, p. 237).
• 2) Liberal axis, Boston-New York City-Washington D.C., Theodore White's 1972 Making of President, Washington press corps is liberal. Journalists nationally tend to be more liberal than the average citizen (Erikson and Tedin book, American Public Opinion, 8th edition, p. 234).
• 3) Newspapers outside of the liberal axis are more conservative, tend to endorse Republican presidential candidates. Jackson Clarion-Ledger is objective in presidential endorsements, usually endorsing Republicans, but leans Democratic in state elections; it stresses elementary and secondary public education, and diversity and racial justice issues; it was anti-Fordice, an outspoken conservative Republican governor. Studies find that newspaper endorsements may slightly affect the tone of their campaign coverage, and may affect the geographic area's vote slightly (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, page 249).
• 4) Adversary Role of press most important; see Nixon and Clinton.
• 5) Early television negativism. In 1968 it caused lower political efficacy, more cynicism, but surprisingly belief that civil rights movement was moving too fast, and more support for George Wallace. (Source: Michael Robinson article, June 1976, American Political Science Review, "Public Affairs Television and the Growth of Political Malaise: The Case of Selling of the Pentagon")
• 6) Modern television negativism. From 1988 through 2000, a majority of television networks stories about both parties' presidential candidates was negative. Republicans received even more negative coverage than Democrats, particularly in the two Clinton elections (See Erikson and Tedin, American Public Opinion, 7th edition, page 240). News coverage of the presidential campaigns in national magazines like Time and Newsweek also became more negative, beginning in 1980
• 7) The New Media can carve out their own ideologically-biased viewpoints. Fox cable news appeared to benefit Republican presidential candidate George Bush in 2000 by one-half of one percentage point (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, page 247). Rush Limbaugh's radio program appeared to help Bush and hurt McCain in the 2000 Republican presidential nomination battle, as Rush viewed McCain as "not a real Republican" (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, page 247).

Television is the most 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 shows his arrogance; he sighs in first debate when Bush is talking, he walks towards Bush in the town hall debate.
• 2004- Bush's defensiveness and whining about how hard his job was hurt him, but so too did Kerry's flipflop on Iraq. Bush did effectively portray himself as a fighter against terrorism.
• 2008- Obama during campaign and debates appeared cool, calm, poised, articulate; McCain appeared old and befuddled.
• 2012- Obama lost the first debate, as he just kept looking down while Romney attacked his failed economic policies. Obama did better in next two debates, and Romney even kept agreeing with Obama's foreign policy. Key media event was a waiter videotaping Romney's remark to private donors that accused 47% of Americans of being freeloaders.

Effects of television advertising (Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, page 256-257):

• Negative ads tend to have no real impact on voters, either in terms of turnout or preferences for candidates.
• Over 90% of television campaign ads contain issue content.
• The greater the number of political ads shown on TV, the more the public focused on policy issues.
• The more the ads focused on policy differences between candidates, the more the voters evaluated candidates based on their policy preferences.

Effects of massive advertising in "battleground" states in the presidential campaign ((Erikson-Tedin, 8th edition, page 257-258):

• Voters become more interested in the campaign.
• Candidate preferences are more volatile in battleground states.
• Voters focus more on issues in such states.
• In some cases, the greater the number of ads for a candidate compared to his opponent, the greater the vote for that candidate.

POLITICAL PARTY ERAS

First- 1796-1828	Second- 1828-1860	Third- 1860-1896	Fourth- 1896-1932	Fifth- 1932-1968	Sixth- 1968-
Federalists	Whigs	Republicans	Republicans	Republicans	Republicans
National Power	Anti-Jackson coalition	Anti-slavery	Pro-business	Conservative	Conservative
Pro-business	Pro-business	Pro-business	North base	Pro-business	dealignment
Elitist	Nativist	North base	Majority pty.	High income	South base for pres.
Pro-Britain	New England base	Wins pres. elections
New England
Republicans	Democrats	Democrats	Democrats	Democrats	Democrats
States Rights	Agriculture	Agriculture	Agriculture	Liberal economics	Liberal
Agriculture	Catholics welcome	Anti-Radical Reconstruction	South base	New Deal coalition	dealignment
Less Elitist	Territorial expansion	South base		Workers and low income
Pro-France	South base	Sometimes Controls Congress		Majority pty.
South base	Majority pty.
Majority Pty.

(Source of lecture notes on the history of the American party system: American Political Parties: Social Change and Political Response,, Everett C. Ladd Jr., 1970, W.W. Norton and Co; Transformations of the American Party System, 2nd edition, Everett C. Ladd and Charles D. Hadley, 1978. W.W. Norton and Co; Dynamics of the Party System, James L. Sundquist, 1973, Brookings Institution)

Party Renewal Thesis Rebuts Sorauf's The Party's Over Thesis

The Marjorie Hershey book, Party Politics in America, 14th edition, makes some very good observations:

• The traditional political science literature argued that the strength of American party organizations was hurt by 20th century reforms, such as the progressive movement and national Democratic party rules changes governing the selection of delegates beginning in 1972. Revisionist political science literature now argue that the party organizations have become stronger in recent decades.
• Local party organizations (county level) have become stronger since 1980, as there are more with year-round office space and a full set of officers, and more are heavily engaged in campaign activities (canvassing, lawn signs, fund raising, funding candidates). (Hershey, p. 55)
• State party organizations have become stronger since 1980, with larger budgets and more campaign activity (fund raising, funding candidates, polling, and voter ID programs). (Hershey, p. 59)
• Party fundraising at all levels has increased since 1975, and while Republicans continue to outraise Democrats, the gap narrowed after the turn of the century. (Hershey, p. 73)
• The national parties after the turn of the century have greatly increased their independent expenditures on behalf of congressional candidates (Hershey, p. 78)(see anti-Harold Ford ad in Tennessee in 2006, "Call Me").

Behavioral Evidence of Recent Party Renewal

• The parties have become more ideologically cohesive over the past two decades, as white southerners and religious conservatives have moved more into the Republican Party (p. 306 of Hershey text).
• The numbers of pure Independents have slightly declined. The numbers of independent leaners have continued to rise at the expense of strong and weak partisans, but independent leaners vote in as partisan a manner as the partisans do. (p. 106 of Hershey text)
• Party identification affects the presidential vote as strongly today as it did in the 1950s. Indeed, only isolated elections have produced party disloyalty. Democrats were more disloyal to their party's presidential candidates in 1968, 1972, and 1980. Republicans were more disloyal to their party's candidates in 1964 and 1992. (p. 109-110 of Hershey text)
• Split-ticket voting (voting for different parties for president and U.S. House) hit a 50-year low in 2004.
• The parties have become more cohesive and united in Congress in recent years. Since 1980 congress members have increasingly voted more frequently with a majority of their party colleagues. Also since 1980, congressional Democrats and Republicans have increasingly become more ideologically polarized. (see Hershey text, p. 262-263)
• The national parties in recent years have become more heavily involved in financing their candidates' election campaigns.
• Ways to make the parties even stronger: perform constituent services, such as by using mobile units in districts represented by the other party's congressman; provide low-cost health insurance or other benefits to party members; air campaign ads that promote the party as a whole instead of just individual candidates (Republicans actually did this in 1980 and 1994). (ideas provided by Sabato and Larson, cited by Hershey text, p. 312)

Mississippi Party Organizations Today (NSF Grassroots Activists study)

1) Democratic party organization members are ideologically split, and a more moderate party that leans toward a somewhat liberal orientation. White Democrats are moderate in ideological self-identification, while black Democrats are somewhat liberal (2001 NSF study). Democrats have shifted slightly to the left since a 1991 NSF survey, when 34% called themselves liberals, 35% moderates, and 31% conservatives. Democrats today are to the left-of-center on spending on health, education, the environment, and social security. Democrats are also to the left of center on favoring handgun control, federal aid for women and blacks, and opposing vouchers for private schools. Democrats are to the right-of-center in favoring school prayer and more spending on dealing with crime. White Democrats tend to oppose affirmative action and gay rights in employment, and favor the death penalty for first degree murder.

2) Republican organization members are more ideologically cohesive, and an essentially conservative party. Today, their average ideological self-identification score ranges between somewhat and very conservative. Republicans have become slightly more conservative since 1991, when 85% called themselves conservative, and only 12% were moderate and 3% liberal (of those conservatives, 48% were somewhat conservative and 37% very conservative). Republicans are most conservative in opposing affirmative action and welfare spending, and favoring school prayer. They are also to the right of center on being pro-life and for the death penalty, and against gay rights and handgun control. They are more moderate on health and education spending. (See Spring 2003, American Review of Politics article, page 83)

3) Today, both parties are ideologically divorced from average voters in Mississippi and the South more generally, as Democratic activists are more liberal than voters and Republican activists are more conservative. For instance, the average Republican activist is a whole point (on a five point scale) more conservative than Mississippi voters, while the average Democratic activist is a half point more liberal than voters. Mississippi Republican activists are too conservative on affirmative action, black aid, and women's rights and aid to women. Democratic activists are too liberal on abortion and school prayer. In the South as a whole, Republican activists are too conservative on opposing spending for public schools, social security, the environment, and even welfare programs. Democratic activists regionally are too liberal in opposing the death penalty. (See Southern Political party Activists' book, pages 119, 124). The 1991 NSF study found Republican activists even more out-of-touch with average Mississippians than today, threatening to make the party too conservative for voters.

4) Demographics of party organization members in 2001. Both parties' organization members have a higher socioeconomic status than average Mississippians. Republican party activists have especially higher SES levels. 20% of Democratic activists had annual family incomes over $75,000, as did 45% of Republican activists. Blacks and women tended to be underrepresented by the party organizations. Only 30% of Republicans were women, and while 48% of Democratic committee members were women, only 22% of Democratic county chairs were women. About half of Democratic organization members were black, but only 1% of Republican activists were black and none was a county chairman. These race-sex problems for Republicans have increased since 1991, as the party is 8% more male and 5% more white since then. (See ARP article)

5) The role of age in the party organization across the South. Young are more ideologically extreme with Democrats more liberal and Republicans more conservative than other partisans. Young have more purposive motivations, while older activists are more professional. Young impact is limited by their concentration into campaign role, while party elders dominate organization maintenance and strategic concerns. Young are also less politically experienced, though have more education and higher expectations than older activists. Religion has become somewhat less important to the young of both parties, but particularly the Democrats (Newman et al., 2002 SPSA convention paper).

6) Campaign activities in Mississippi. Hierarchy of commitment- county chairs were nearly always more active than county committee members. A majority of committee members of both parties had been active in recent campaigns in distributing campaign literature and contributing money to campaigns. Majorities of Republicans and Democratic committee members also distributed posters or yard signs. County chairs were especially active in these activities, and unlike committee members also organized campaign events. (ARP article)

7) Other party activities in Mississippi. Majorities of both parties listed the following activities performed even between campaigns: party meetings; recruiting workers; candidate recruitment; voter contact and registration; public relations.

8) Top-down strategy of Mississippi Republicans. GOP indicated greater activity in national elections, while Democrats were more active in local elections.

9) Motivations for activism: purposive (influence policy), solidary (friendship, family, partisanship), and material (money, job). Purposive and solidary incentives were mentioned most frequently, and material incentives were seldom noted. Purposive incentives were most frequent among Republicans, especially very conservative Republicans. Solidary incentives were somewhat more important to Democrats and to county chairs of both parties. Being motivated by each of these three incentives had a behavioral impact on party organization members, as it made them more active in campaigning, in their party organizational position, and in communicating with other party members. Similar results found throughout the South. (See Southern Political Party Activists' book, Chapter 10)

10) Amateur-professional orientation in Mississippi. Is being right more important than winning, or is winning everything? Republicans were more likely to be amateurs (also known as purists), while Democrats were more professional. GOP purism may help explain Fordice nomination, while Democratic professionalism may explain continued dominance of many state-local offices.

THE AMERICAN VOTER, classic book. Its chapters suggest and test models of the presidential vote choice and of voter turnout. Make sure you print out these models. They test and uphold the following hypotheses regarding predicting how people vote in general elections, and predicting whether they turnout to vote or not.

Predicting Partisan Direction of the Vote:

• Union members who psychologically strongly identify with the union are more likely to vote Democratic for president, compared to union members who do not strongly identify with the union.
• Democratic party identifiers are more likely to vote Democratic for president, compared to Republican party identifiers.
• Democratic party identifiers are more likely to view their Democratic presidential candidate Stevenson favorably, Republican presidential candidate Eisenhower unfavorably, and view the Democratic party favorably in terms of domestic issues, foreign issues, linkages with key social groups, and performance in managing government, compared to Republican party identifiers.
• Voters who view the Democratic party favorably on these six attitude components are more likely to vote Democratic for president, compared to those who view the Democratic party unfavorably.
• Blacks (African Americans) are more likely to vote Democratic for president, compared to whties.
• Jews and Catholics who psychologically strongly identify with their religion are more likely to vote Democratic for president, compared to Jews and Catholics who do not strongly identify with their religion.

Predicting Turnout:

• Voter who intensely prefer a candidate for president and more likely to vote, compared to those who do not intensely prefer a particular candidate.
• Strong Democrats and strong Republicans are more likely to be very interested in the election campaign, compared to weak partisans and Independents.
• Strong Democrats and strong Republicans are more likely to be very concerned over the outcome of the election, compared to weak partisans and Independents.
• Those with consistent views on the 6 attitude components discussed earlier are more likely to be very concerned over the outcome of the election, compared to those with inconsistent views on the 6 attitude components.
• Those with high campaign interest are more likely to vote, compared to those with low campaign interest.
• Those who are high in concern over the election outcome are more likely to vote, compared to those who are low in concern over the election outcome.
• Those with a high sense of civic (citizen) duty are more likely to vote, compared to those with a low sense of civic duty.
• Those who engage in many campaign activities (yard sign, bumper sticker, give money) are more likely to vote, compared to those engaging in few or no campaign activities.
• College educated are more likekly to vote, compared to high school dropouts.
• College educated are more likely to be high in political efficacy, compared to high school dropouts.
• Those high in political efficacy are more likely to vote, compared to those low in political efficacy.
• Northerners are more likely to vote, compared to Southerners.
• Men are more likely to vote, compared to women.
• The middle aged are more likely to vote, compared to young adults and the elderly.

THE CHANGING AMERICAN VOTER. Its data and discussion suggest a model of rising issue voting and declining partisanship in presidential elections, at least between the 1950s and 1972.

Belief Systems research in 1956 by Philip Converse of the University of Michigan: less than one-fifth of voters were sophisticated, being ideologues or near-ideologues; group interest was dominant category, then nature of the times and no issue content. But ideologues have increased over time, as group benefits has decreased.

Changes over time in belief systems (Erikson and Tedin textbook, 8th edition, page 77)):
.............................................YEAR
CATEGORY................1956......1968......1988......2000
Ideologues.....................12%......26%......18%......20%
Group Benefits...............42%......24%......36%......28%
Nature of the Times........24%......29%......25%......28%
No Issue Content............22%......21%......21%......24%
..................................(100%)...(100%)...(100%)...(100%)

Issue voting is a measure of sophistication:

• 1950s era of little issue voting- people lacked opinions on key public issues such as public power; their issue opinions changed greatly over time; they didn't know where the candidates or government policy stood on those issues; they didn't vote for the candidate closer to their own position. Party identification shaped their vote, or candidate personal characteristics.
• 1968-1972 era of greater issue voting- over 60% had opinions on issues; about 50% were able to place candidates on issue scales; issues affected the vote more, while party became less important.
• Why change occurred: 1) divisive social and race issues became more salient to public; 2) presidential candidates were more ideological, offered voters a clear choice on issues; 3) methodological artifact of changes in issue question wording and response categories.
• The 1990s- unsophisticated public is affected by general economic satisfaction and dissatisfaction issue, evident since 1980. Satisfaction in 1984, 1988, and 1996, and dissatisfaction in 1980, 1992. Issue knowledge is limited: about one-third of public doesn't know party position on issues, and only about one-half of public can correctly identify the Democrats as the more liberal party (Erikson and Tedin American Public Opinion Seventh Updated Edition, Pearson/Longman Publishers, p. 85).

Shaffer has a dissertation and an article on voting in U.S. House, Senate, and Gubernatorial elections, as well as Presidential. His comprehensive model is available here. His major findings in an American Politics Quarterly publication in January 1982 that used NES data from 1952 thru 1978, and that examined effects of party id, incumbency, and presidential vote on the nonpresidential vote were:

• Party identification remains the most important factor in voting for all offices, though it has declined in importance over time.
• Presidential coattails are most important to the least informed voters, having lower education, unable to name the house candidates, offering no comments about the senate candidates.
• Presidential coattails are more important in federal than state elections.
• Presidential coattails effects have declined over time, but not to zero.
• Incumbency is more important to the moderately aware voter (name recall and number of comments indicators).
• Incumbency has become more important over time.

Shaffer and Chressanthis (an economist) have several publications studying U.S. senate election outcomes from 1976-1986. Aggregate data. Theory was Hanna Pitkin's Concept of Representation book, and study asks whether voters hold officials accountable for their actions. Basically, voters were not influenced by an incumbent senator's ideology, seniority, or the performance of a senator (federal aid change, unemployment and income change in the state). They were more influenced by election-specific variables, national factors, and partisanship. A model is provided here.

Shaffer and Chressanthis mined their dataset for five separate referee publications:

• The comprehensive model outlined above was published in a major regional journal, Western Political Quarterly.
• Conducting two subgroup analyses that compared the model for presidential and midterm election years was published in Southeastern Political Review. It found support for the theory of surge and decline- presidential coattails were more important in presidential election years, while party identification was more important in midterm years. This explained the 1980 gains and 1986 losses for Reagan's Republican party.
• A replication and attack on a previous publication of Public Choice journal. The previous pub had used national indicators of economic performance and had omitted the South; it had found that voters punished incumbents for bad economic news, but didn't reward them for good news.
• We examined PAC effects as a % of campaign spending, and found no effects. We cited public choice literature on importance of rise of PACs. It was published in Quarterly Review of Economics and Business.
• We examined third party presidential voting as a function of major party failure, published in Social Science Quarterly. Included interdisciplinary measures of discontent such as state income change, crime rate change, alienation (measured by turnout) change, and percent of Independents. Model was generally upheld for 1976-1988 study.

Historical Evolution of Presidential Elections:

Solid Democratic South: 1880-1944. Due to Civil War, Reconstruction, agriculture and Populist movement, New Deal economics. All eleven states voted consistently Democratic with only two exceptions. In 1920 the nation after Woodrow Wilson and World War 1 returned to the normalcy of a GOP national majority, and Rim South Tennessee voted Republican. In 1928 when Democrats nominated a "wet", Catholic from big city, Al Smith, all Rim South states except Arkansas voted Republican for Hoover. South was so Democratic that in 1944 Mississippi was voting 94% for FDR, Alabama 81% for FDR.

Crumbling of Solid Democratic South: 1948-1968. FDR made Democrats a national party with northern Democratic congressmen having some black constituents. Also, New Deal Democratic coalition was ideologically a liberal one, which would pose a problem for the more conservative South. GOP made some gains in Rim South, Deep South remained Democratic or cast racial protest votes.
1948: Democratic civil rights platform, Dixiecrats protest, all Deep South states except Georgia back Dixiecrats, other southern states remain Democratic
1952: war hero, moderate conservative Republican Eisenhower carries all Rim South states except Arkansas and North Carolina. Deep South returns to Democrats after Democrats choose Alabama Senator John Sparkman as VP, downplay race issues.
1956: repeat candidates, same vote pattern but Eisenhower also carries Louisiana, a Deep South state more racially moderate with a Catholic population.
1960: in close Kennedy-Nixon race, Rim South split evenly. Deep South voted Democratic, except for all of Mississippi electors and half of Alabama's who voted for conservative Democratic Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia (Miss had voted for an unpledged slate of electors).
1964: conservative GOP Goldwater had voted against 1964 Civil Rights Act, first time since Reconstruction that GOP carried all Deep South states. But Goldwater was so conservative that he lost all Rim South states to Democrat Lyndon Johnson. The all-white electorates of Mississippi and Alabama were voting 87% and 70% for a Republican. GOP made congressional gains also.
1968: in the Humphrey-Nixon-Wallace race, conservative former segregationist Alabama governor Independent George Wallace carried Arkansas and all Deep South states except South Carolina. Moderate conservative Republican Nixon, with his "southern strategy," carried all Rim South states except Texas. Texas, home of Democratic president Lyndon Johnson, was only southern state to remain Democratic (41% for Humphrey, 40% for Nixon). Clearly, Democrats were in trouble in the South.

The New South: competitive but leaning Republican. 1972-present. United South affected by national forces, with no obvious difference between Deep and Rim South.
1972- moderate conservative Nixon carries entire South with 70% of vote against liberal Democrat McGovern. Nixon got 78% in Mississippi and 72% in Alabama, and helped elect Thad Cochran and Trent Lott as GOP Congressmen in 4th and 5th districts. First time a Republican wins the entire South.
1976- born-again southern Baptist moderate liberal Jimmy Carter carries entire South except Virginia for Democrats. But Carter won only about 40% of white vote, African-American vote won him each state he carried.
1980- conservative Republican Reagan wins every southern state except Democrat Carter's Georgia home during economic recession. Mississippi was close in each Carter election, victor won by 1%.
1984- popular Reagan wins every southern state. Gets 62% in Mississippi, 3% more than nationally.
1988- GOP Bush beats Dukakis in every southern state. Bush gets 60% in Mississippi, 7% above his national level.
1992 and 1996- with Clinton and Gore both being from South, Democrats are able to carry 4 southern states each time, but Republicans win 7. Both carry their home states of Arkansas and Tennessee in both elections. Louisiana went Democratic in both elections; Georgia in 1992, Florida in 1996. Bush got 50% of Mississippi's vote in 1992, highest in nation (only 38% nationally). Republican Dole still won Mississippi in 1996 with 50%, but Clinton rose from 41% to 44%.
2000 and 2004- George W. Bush carries every southern state. Is this the start of a Solid Republican South? No.
2008- McCain carries all except three southern states, as Obama wins Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.

Shaffer's research on Southern Politics. Much has used Mississippi as a case study:

• "Changing Party Politics in Mississippi," chapter in Swansborough and Brodsky's The South's New Politics: Realignment and Dealignment book, pages 189-203, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, 1988. Used Mississippi poll, 1981-1986. Some slight Republican party identification gains, due partly to President Reagan's popularity. Republicans tended to have higher incomes, education, be conservative. Democrats tended to be older, long-time residents, females, and blacks. So party identification in South was becoming more like the rest of the nation, instead of all whites being Democrats. Book editors contacted me due to networking at the Citadel conference on Southern Politics, and because of my Mississippi poll.
• "Southern State Party Convention Delegates: The Role of Age," for Baker and Hadley book Political Parties in the Southern States: Party Activists in Partisan Coalitions, pages 103-119, Praeger Publishers, 1990. Younger delegates in 1984 study were more amateuristic, while older ones were more professional. Start-up and opportunity theses of activity level in party. Data- 1984 state party conventions in 6 southern states; networked at Citadel conference.
• Presidential Election in the South series of books, beginning in 1988; authored Mississippi chapter. Newspaper articles on campaign, Mississippi poll data on perceived ideologies of candidates, demographics of presidential vote. Networked at Citadel conference, Mississippi poll director; 1984 Mississippi author left state.
• Mississippi Government and Politics: Traditionalists Versus Modernizers, co-edited with Dale Krane, authored with MSU professors. Past traditionalists challenged by progressive forces. Public opinion/interest groups and parties/elections chapters used some Mississippi Poll data; history chapter relied on literature search. Networked- MSU colleague Krane knew publisher's interest in political culture.
• 2 articles about party realignment in Mississippi. 1) "Return of the Solid South? Exploring Partisan Realignment in Mississippi," with Monica Johnson, Southeastern Political Review, vol. 24, no. 4, December 1996: 757-776. Found white conservatives moving to Republican party, as well as conservative Republican governor Fordice effect. 2) "A New Solid South? The Drama of Partisan Realignment in the Deep South State of Mississippi," with Monica Johnson, The American Review of Politics, vol. 17, Summer 1996: 171-191. Similar focus, also included legislative roll call votes by party and race of legislators. Problem of one article accepted by two journals, contacted both editors, rewrote second article to be original contribution.
• Grassroots Party Activists, 1st NSF grant. Citadel network, track record. Resulted in four chapters in three books. 1) "Grassroots Politics in Mississippi: The "True Believers" Challenge the Party of Everyone," (with David Breaux) in Southern State Party Organizations and Activists, edited by Charles Hadley and Lewis Bowman, Praeger, 1995. Examined only Mississippi. 2) "Mass-Elite Linkages in the Contemporary South" with David Breaux and Patrick Cotter, in Party Organization and Activism in the American South, edited by Robert Steed, John Clark, Lewis Bowman, and Charles Hadley, 1998, University of Alabama Press. Examined survey data in Mississippi and Alabama, worked with Alabama professor. 3) "Activists Incentives" with David A. Breaux, in Party Organization and Activism in the American South, edited by Robert Steed, John Clark, Lewis Bowman, and Charles Hadley, 1998, University of Alabama Press. Examined entire South region. 4) "Clashing Generations: Youthful Purists Challenge Pragmatic Professionals," with David A. Breaux, in Party Activists in Southern Politics: Mirrors and Makers of Change, edited by Charles D. Hadley and Lewis Bowman, 1998, University of Tennessee Press. Examined entire South region.
• "The End of Regionalism? Revisiting V.O. Key's Delta Versus Hills Sectionalism in Mississippi Politics," with Latarsha Horne, American Review of Politics, vol. 19, summer 1998: 97-114. Pooled Mississippi polls over time to ascertain the Democratic party identification orientation of the Delta, plus the conservative race and social views in the Delta. Innovative technology, V.O. Key classic theme.
• "Racism or Conservatism: Explaining Rising Republicanism in the Deep South," with Patrick R. Cotter and Ronnie Tucker, Southeastern Political Review, vol. 28, March 2000: 133-148. Innovative party image data, state polls in Mississippi and Alabama, Cotter collaboration, major question tested. Two races influenced by different issues: whites care about crime and traditional values, blacks about the poor and minority issues.
• "Party Realignment in the South: A Multi-Level Analysis" with Stacie Berry Pierce and Steven A. Kohnke, American Review of Politics, vol. 21, Summer 2000: 129-153. Innovative technology, uses state polls in all southern states over time; also examines sub-gubernatorial offices. Republican gains in party identification in each state affected office gains.
• Networked, Mississippi, poll expertise lead to three chapters in two books: 1) "Mississippi: From Pariah to Pacesetter," with David E. Sturrock, David A. Breaux, and Bill Minor, in Southern Politics in the 1990s, edited by Alexander P. Lamis, 1999, Louisiana State University Press. 2) "Political Parties in Modern Mississippi," in Politics in Mississippi, 2nd edition, edited by Joseph B. Parker, 2001, Sheffield Publishing Company. 3) "Electoral Politics in a Two-Party Era," with Byron Price, in Politics in Mississippi, 2nd edition, edited by Joseph B. Parker, 2001, Sheffield Publishing Company. All used some Mississippi poll data, newspaper articles on campaigns.
• 2nd NSF grassroots party activists project. Replicates 1st study. 1 article, 2 chapters in 1 book. 1) "Mississippi: Conservative Ideologues Battle the Party of Inclusion," with James Newman and David A. Breaux, in American Review of Politics, vol. 24, Spring 2003: 69-89. Examined only Mississippi. 2) "Mass-Elite Linkages and Partisan Change in the South," with Barbara A. Patrick, Patrick R. Cotter, and Samuel H. Fisher III, in Southern Political Party Activists: Patterns of Conflict and Change, 1991-2001, edited by John A. Clark and Charles L. Prysby, 2004, the University Press of Kentucky. Examined Alabama and Mississippi state polls, plus a regionwide public survey. 3) "Motives for Involvement among Grassroots Party Activists in the Modern South," with James Newman and David A. Breaux, in Southern Political Party Activists: Patterns of Conflict and Change, 1991-2001, edited by John A. Clark and Charles L. Prysby, 2004, the University Press of Kentucky. Examined entire region.
• Politics in the New South: Representation of African Americans in Southern State Legislatures, co-edited with Charles E. Menifield, State University of New York Press, 2005. Collaboration with MSU professor Menifield, his expertise and network in black politics, my Mississippi legislative research as a model chapter.
• "Race, Party, and Representation: Health Care Attitudes in a Modern Southern State," with David A. Breaux, Doug Goodman, and Barbara Patrick. In The American Review of Politics, vol. 27, Fall 2006, pp. 231-253. Worked with two PA faculty interested in health care issue, Goodman did a mail survey of Mississippi state legislators asking about the importance of various health care issues; Shaffer included the same issue items in his Mississippi poll. Health care issue was multidimensional and complex with Democrats most enthusiastic about prevention, Republicans enthusiastic about providers, and big party differences on services.

Shaffer's unpublished book on Southern Politics is available on his southern politics syllabus.

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

A MODEL FOR VERBA AND NIE'S PARTICIPATION IN AMERICA BOOK.

The book examines numerous important factors that affect the level of political participation of Americans. View a model of those factors here.

VOTER TURNOUT DECLINE

Voter turnout in American presidential elections declined from 1960 through 1976. Shaffer first examined this issue in: "A Multivariate Explanation of Declining Turnout in Presidential Elections, 1960-1976," American Journal of Political Science, February 1981, pp. 68-95. He found that among factors that affected turnout in any one year, the frequency distribution of five factors had changed from 1960 through 1976. 1) Political efficacy declined; 2) More independents, fewer strong partisans; 3) Fewer regular readers of newspapers; 4) Age changes, more under 29 and over 60, low turnout groups; 5) More college educated. Political trust declined, but it wasn't related to turnout in any one year. The first four factors helped explain why turnout decreased over time, while rising education helped mitigate some of the turnout decline.

POLICY BIASES OF ACTIVISTS

Is political participation biased towards more conservative people? So, do conservatives "win" in terms of public policy, simply because they participate more than do liberals? Verba and Nie said yes. Shaffer says not necessarily.

Shaffer's publications are: "The Policy Biases of Political Activists," American Politics Quarterly, January, 1980, pp. 15-33. And, "The Policy Differences Between Voters and Non-Voters in American Elections," Western Political Quarterly, December 1982, pp. 496-510.

While education and income are related to high political participation, Shaffer points out that education and income can operate differently on one's policy views. While higher income people are more conservative than the lower income on economic issues, the more educated people are more liberal on race, civil liberty, and some internationalism issues than are the less educated. Therefore, the more politically active people tend to be more liberal on these issues than the less active. Such policy biases among political activists are more evident among campaign activists than among voters.

Scholarly studies suggest that American public officials do a pretty good job of representing the views of average Americans:

• When national public opinion about specific public policies changes, federal law generally tends to change in that direction also (Erikson-Tedin book, 8th edition, page 325).
• When national public opinion changes in a liberal or conservative direction (measured by an index of various issues), Congress passes a greater number of liberal or conservative laws. Thus, when the public became more liberal in 2006 and 2008, Obama was elected and Congress passed his health care law (Erikson-Tedin book, 8th edition, page 326).
• As a state's population is more conservative (measured by self-identification), its state laws are more conservative. More liberal state populations are associated with more liberal state laws (Erikson-Tedin book, 8th edition, page 327).
• As southern Democratic members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate voted more and more liberal over the last forty years, more and more Republican congressmen and senators were elected from this more conservative region (see Shaffer's unpublished book, tables 15-1 and 15-2.

BOOK REVIEW OF RICHARD FENNO'S CLASSIC BOOK Home Style: House Members in Their Districts

Richard Fenno's book Homestyle (1978: Little, Brown; Boston) talks about how Congress members engage in non-stop campaigning.

Congressmen's perceptions of their constituency: 1) Geographic; 2) Re-Election- redistricting, fight of my life memory, worry over possible opponents, uncertain what tactics work during campaign; 3) Primary constituency, strongest supporters, provide money and workers; 4) Intimates- most relaxed with.

Presentation of Self is important. Building Trust is key, thru Personal Contact. Demonstrate Qualifications for job, Identification (I am One of You), Empathy (I understand and care). Former Senator David Pryor of Arkansas was a good example, as shown from this brief section of Shaffer's unpublished book:
Pryor truly appeared to like people and to show a “genuine interest in whatever is on the minds of his constituents” so that voters regarded him as “one of us” and trusted him (Fenno 1996: quotes on 283; 62, 286). State reporters described him as “personable,” “folksy,” “unassuming,” and a “real nice guy,” who was decent, never made enemies, and who knew many constituents on a first name basis (Fenno 1996: quotes on 284; 286-287). Indeed, Senator Pryor was so humble and accessible that he could sometimes be found early in the morning serving as receptionist and catching the early phone calls (Fenno 1996: 288). [Citation: Fenno, Richard F., Jr. 1996. Senators on the Campaign Trail: The Politics of Representation. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.]

Different presentation styles (Examples are Shaffer's additions from his Mississippi experiences): 1) Person to Person- Wayne Dowdy ("country" persona, shakes every hand); 2) Popular Local Boy- Amy Tuck (country gal; "me and my truck are for Amy Tuck" campaign ad); 3) Issue Articulation- open meetings, spend time at home- David Bowen (knowledgeable, Harvard educated); 4) Servicing the District- many trips home, public appearances- Jamie Whitten (old-style New Dealer, House Appropriations Committee chair); 5) Political Leader- African-American churches important- Bennie Thompson (African American, civil rights fighter).

Other important points. Appear before unfriendly groups to reduce intensity of opposition. Republicans should appear before NAACP.

People want Access to congressperson, so important to speak before community groups. Two-step Flow of influence expands impact. If a congress member speaks to the Rotary club, those club members will tell their friends about his speech.

Explaining Washington Activity. I have power, key committee assignments, to be effective for you.

Building Trust: have overall policy record consistent with district; be able to explain one's vote when inconsistent with district; if have trust, then people give you voting leeway.

Deal with public cynicism by running against Congress, "I'm not like the rest" argument.

Congressional Careers: Expansionism; Protectionism. Freshmen are expansionist, visit district often. Senior members have seniority on committees, Washington power, so make fewer trips home.

These two Fenno books are a great example of a case study approach to the study of political science.