Lecture #16
How Political Scientists (and Economists) Think About Elections Differently From Journalists, and Why the Political Scientists are Usually Right; Or, Why Political Consultants are Perpetually Overrated
I. Introduction: Journalists Versus Political Scientists
A. Journalists: emphasis on campaign strategy
B. Political Scientists: emphasis on historical patterns
C. Journalists: tendency to emphasize issue voting
D. Political Scientists: tendency to emphasize cognitive barriers to issue voting, voter use of heuristics (mental short-cuts)
II. Presidential Primaries
A. Historical evolution
1. Party selection (1800s-1920s)
2. The mixed system (1920s-1960s)
(McGovern-Fraser Commission, 1968-1972)
3. Primary system (1972)
B. The News Media View: The "Best Campaign" Wins
C. The Political Science View: Hard to Model Such a Chaotic Process!
III. Presidential General Elections
A. The News Media View
1. Emphasis on strategy, personalities
B. A Political Science Model
1. Party voting
2. Retrospective voting
a. "It's the economy, stupid!"
3. Prospective voting
IV. Congressional Elections
A. The News Media Model: Elections as a National Referendum
B. A Political Science Model: A “Two-Step” Election
1. First step: Candidate recruitment
a. Most House incumbents (officeholders) and some Senate incumbents run unopposed or against total losers
b. Maisel: most incumbents have potential high quality challengers living in their districts
c. Party tries to recruit high quality challengers
d. But challengers wait for a good opportunity
2. First step: Contributors
a. Contributors usually give to incumbents
b. Contributors who want to support a challenger wait until a high quality candidate arrives
c. Like potential challengers, potential contributors don’t want to waste their time and money
d. Contributors and candidates (including incumbents) must assess the political environment well in advance of the election
3. Second Step: The Election!
a. Usually >95% of House incumbents who run win re-election; most win easily over weak, underfinanced challengers
b. Senate re-election rates are more variable and Senate elections more competitive
c. Mostly, congressional elections turn on incumbency, candidate quality, local factors
i. Most voters vote based on party, incumbency
d. But in some years (1936, 1964, 1974, 1994 for example, maybe 2006?) the election is nationalized
e. During nationalized elections, even weak challengers can sweep into office
V. Conclusion: Why Elections Aren't Necessarily Plebiscitary
A. Elections don't usually turn on issue positions
B. Issue stands aren't directly communicated through elections
C. But what about party voting?