Upcoming SlideShare
×

Day 8 - Congressional Elections

255 views

Published on

Published in: Education, News & Politics
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• Be the first to comment

• Be the first to like this

Views
Total views
255
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
2
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Day 8 - Congressional Elections

1. 1. Day 8 –The Electoral Game July 9, 2013
2. 2. PA National Congressional Districts Source: http://www.redistricting.state.pa.us/Maps/House.cfm
3. 3. Pennsylvania State House Map Source: http://aws.redistricting.state.pa.us/Redistricting/Resou rces/GISData/Districts/Legislative/House/2011- Revised-Final/PDF/2011-Revised-Final-Plan-Map- House.pdf
4. 4. Pennsylvania State Senate Map Source: http://aws.redistricting.state.pa.us/Redistricting/Resources/GI SData/Districts/Legislative/Senate/2011-Revised- Final/PDF/2011-Revised-Final-Plan-Map-Senate.pdf
5. 5. Running for Higher Office – Previous Assumptions  Expected utility of winning a higher office - E(Uh)  E(Uh) = phBh – Ch  Expected utility of retaining the current, lower office - E(Ul)  E(Ul) = plBl – Cl  Under this assumption, an ambitious politician will attempt to move to higher office when:  E(Uh) = phBh – Ch >E(Ul) = plBl – Cl  What is problematic about this assumption?
6. 6. Running for Higher Office – A Two-Stage Decision Process  Maestas and colleagues argue that there is a stable disposition, or function, that each legislator holds.  Stage 1  Progressive Ambition = f(E(UA)  = pgenBmarg – Cmarg + M)  Where pgenis the long-run probability of winning office  Bmargis the expected gain from the target office  Cmargis the expected costs from running for the target office  M = personal motivations outside of the cost-benefit analysis  Those who enter Stage 2 have already crossed a threshold level of ambition.  Stage 2 Pr(Run | Progressive Ambition > 0 = f(Pt, pgen,Ct,)
7. 7.  f(E(UA)  = pgenBmarg – Cmarg + M) pgen Bmarg Cmarg M Estimation of winning the party nomination. Assessment of prestige and effectiveness in U.S. House career. Family-cost index Desire to make social or business contacts Estimation of chances of winning the general election. Assessmentrelative to current position in state government. Campaign-cost index Perception of district partisan balance. Signals from party.
8. 8. Results What is this model predicting?
9. 9. Moving to the Second Stage  f(E(UA) = pgenBmarg – Cmarg + M)  If f(E(UA)) > 0, then they are scored as „1‟ (i.e. ambitious)  If f(E(UA)) ≤ 0, then then they are scored as „0‟ (i.e. not ambitious) Interviews N = 597 F(E(UA)) 1 0 N = 263 N = 334
10. 10. Discussion  How do the authors connect their findings to political responsiveness?  What are the implications for their findings?  What can they not determine from this study?  How might this study be extended?
11. 11. Making It: The Electoral Game  Asking the right questions  What constituency to win over  How to become familiar to voters  Which leaders or groups to garner support  How to reach voters most effectively  Choosing the message  Effective, simple, repeatable brand
12. 12. Messaging in Campaign Ads  Sen. Ron Johnson (R – WI)  “We‟re just a Wisconsin family worried about our country.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8MSP8yFSsY  Washington outsider - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzsIsBLJCCg  Had enough of these phony political commercials? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMExLKHUyg0  Sen. Jim Webb (D – VA)  Appealing to the other side. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEmjJIk8ga0  Rep. Morgan Griffith (R – VA)  Association - Obama Loves Rick Boucher - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7t8b42ZiTo  Policy - Cap and Trade - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxj_ko_Uz3g
13. 13. Choosing the Wrong Message  Daniel Freilich (D – VT) for Senate  “I‟m on a Cow” http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedde d&v=4I9h2d8hw6g#at=24  Rep. Alan Grayson (D – FL)  Taliban Dan - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWdyf9eSkqQ  Paul R. Nelson (R – WI) for House  Ron Kind, The Wrong Kind - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx5LNXi5hwg  CarlyFiorina (R – CA) candidate for Senate  Demon Sheep - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlgU23QGksI  Way too far. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night- live/video/mitt-romney-ad-1/n27669/
14. 14. Fundraising  “I‟d rather wrestle a gorilla than ask anybody for fifty cents.” Senator John Glenn (D - Ohio)  Sources of Congressional candidate funds:  1) Individual contributors  \$2,400 per candidate  \$45,600 per election  2) PACS  3) Party Committees  4) Personal Funds  Incumbents always do better. Why?  House incumbents outspent challengers six times over in 2010.  Senate incumbents outspent 11 times over in 2010.  2012 Spending in PA Races  http://www.opensecrets.org/states/cands.php?state=PA&cycle= 2012
15. 15. Can you buy votes?  Not exactly.  Challengers  Spending is positively correlated with electoral success.  Incumbents  Spending negatively correlated with electoral success.  Why?  Spending matters less later in campaign races.
16. 16. Campaign Techniques  Air Wars  Positive vs. Negative ads – what are the tradeoffs?  Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002  Requires candidates personally appear with their advertisements.  Evolving mass media  “Word of mouth on steroids.”  The Ground War  “Pressing the flesh.”  Get out the vote (GOTV) drives  Parallel Campaigns  Outside players – Freedom Watch – “Dina Titus must be from TaxUs” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5O7rwAj6G4  Citizens United v. FEC - Corporate spending  http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205  Super PACs