Monday, January 03, 2005

What do Researchers Think Happened Nov 2?

The following are explanations by researchers of the 2004 Presidential election. The journal is The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics.The following are the abstracts of particular articles. I have underlined findings I consider especially useful.

1. The Presidential Election of 2004: The Fundamentals and the Campaign. This is by James E. Campbell of University of Buffalo, SUNY.

ABSTRACT:
This article examines the 2004 presidential campaign by examining the trinity of fundamentals that have historically affected presidential elections and how they 'played out' in this year's campaign. The three fundamentals are public opinion about the in-party and candidates before the campaign gets underway, the state of the pre-campaign economy, and incumbency (both personal and party-term incumbency). They are assessed for elections since 1948 and in one case since 1868. The first two of these fundamentals slightly favored President Bush and the third (an incumbent seeking a second party-term) strongly favored him. The analysis considers how the fundamentals interplayed with voter assessments of candidate qualities, issues, and ideology to lead to the closely fought Bush re-election. After all is said and done, after considering the impact of the war on terror and in Iraq, the election turned out much as one would have expected based on candidates’ ideological positions. The 2004 election added another case to the string of presidential losses by liberal northern Democrats since 1968.

2. An Alternative Account of the 2004 Presidential Election . This is by Barry C. Burden of Harvard University.

ABSTRACT: The consensus immediately following the 2004 presidential election was that Bush won because of support for "moral values." I challenge this interpretation by showing that Bush won because of widespread increase in his support among white and married women. I hypothesize that this is a response to concerns about domestic security rather than support for Bush's position against gay marriage. In addition, Bush was generally helped by higher turnout, though Kerry's efforts brought down his the Republican vote share in battleground states.


3. Terrorism, Gay Marriage, and Incumbency: Explaining the Republican Victory in the 2004 Presidential Election . This is by Alan Abramowitz of Emory University

ABSTRACT: An analysis of the 2004 presidential election results indicates that President Bush's relatively narrow victory reflected the normal advantage of incumbency and preexisting divisions within the American electorate rather than a fundamental shift in the partisan or ideological loyalties of the electorate. There was little change in the public's attitudes toward Mr. Bush or the political parties during the campaign and gay marriage referenda had no discernible impact on either voter turnout or support for the President. However, Mr. Bush did somewhat better than expected in the states most directly affected by the September 11th terrorist attacks.


4. Up, Up and Away! Voter Participation in the 2004 Presidential Election . This is by Michael P. McDonald of George Mason University.

ABSTRACT: A record 122.3 million people, or 60.0% of those eligible, cast a vote for president in 2004. In this essay, I examine variation in voter participation among the states. I find that electoral competition in the battleground states was associated with higher turnout rates, and that where competition at the presidential level was not present, an amendment banning gay marriage or an interesting Senate election is related to higher voter turnout.


[There are also two other articles I personally found less interesting.]

My conclusions:

Article 1. suggests that Bush was strongly favored going into the election on three key elements. Those were A. precampaign public opinion on the in party, B. the state of the precampaign economy, and C. the incumbency both in office and the party.

Article 2. suggests that Bush won particularly because he increased his share of the woman's vote, probably because of their concern with domestic security.

Article 3. suggests that Bush won based on his incumbency rather than any fundamental shift in the loyalties of the electorate.

Article 4. explained the overall increase in election turnout - close Presidential states or gay marriage amendments, or a close Senatorial election.

Based on this, I have to conclude that Bush won largely because of his incumbency, and that no fundamental shift occurred in the electorate to give this result. Had the margin of the win been greater then it would have been an indication of a shift in voter allegiance, but the margin was the narrowist for an incumbent in a century. The high turnout together with the narrow margin of victory emphasizes the lack any fundamental voter shift. The high voter turnout has explanations other than a long-term shift in voting preferences.

No comments: