Gov Exam 3/Final Exam Review- Public Opiniono Collected attitudes of citizens (what the people think)o Confounding opinions “Multiple Publics” Unstable and shifting opinion Political ignorance by constituentso Measuring public opinion polls and scientific polling “Scientific” polling came about in the 1930’a Individuals are selected by chance from any population (supposed to be representative of population)o Sampling theory – sample of individuals that are selected by chance from any population that is “representative” (with a margin of error)o Sample Accuracy Pure random sample is best Sample size – larger the sample, greater the accuracyo Sampling error or margin of error Inversely related to sample size Bigger the sample, less of an erroro Random sample – sample were every person ahs an equal chance of being choseno Non-random sample – When people are chosen specifically because ofhow they would answer the specific pollo SLOP surveys (Self-selected listener poll) – an unscientific poll that is conducted by broadcast media to engage their audience by providing them an opportunity to register their opinion o Shapes of public opinion: (pictures on blackboard) Normal, bell shaped Skewed Bi Modal o Problems and limitations with polls “Non-attitudes”/”doorstep opinions” – when people are expected to complete a survey, they find a question that they don’t completely understand and just answer it with a random response or opinion Illusion of saliency – the impression conveyed by polls that something is important to the public when actually it is not. Leading questions – attempt to guide the respondent’s answer Push polling – when polls are conducted to sway public opinion rather than to collect and analyze response data, by spreading rumors, etc., through the pollo Ginsberg’s concerns with polling Polling has transformed public opinion: 1) No longer a product of the efforts of concerned individuals 2) Presentation through attitudes rather than behaviors 3) Constrained responses rather than spontaneous assertiono Fiorina’s culture war arguments Most Americans are not utterly and deeply divided. There is no raging culture war Culture war issues have not displaced economic issues Americans are closely divided, but not deeply. Many of us are ambivalent and uncertain about potentially dismissive issues Most of us are moderate in views and tolerant in manner Political/party leaders are more polarized that is why there is the perception of deep division.- Electoral Participationo Voter turnout So low compared to other nations because we do not force our citizens to vote.o Influences on turnout Socio-demographics Education, income, age, gender, marriage, race/ethnicity, mobility, homeowner status Psychological attitudes Political interest, concern over election outcome, political efficacy (external – “I don’t have any say in what the government does”), internal efficacy (“Do I have the capacity to learn about politics), civic duty, party identification, legal environment (registration laws), and campaign environment.o Rational choice perspective If benefits exceed costs than you will vote Free-rider problem can reap benefits without bearing the costso “Rationality” of turning out to vote “Rational” actor discount benefits by the probability that their one vote will make the difference. Probability ~= .00000001 ~=0 If the probability (P) multiplied by the benefits (B) is greater than the costs (C) then they will vote.o Why has U.S. voter turnout declined – if it hasPuzzle of participation (1960-1996)Education levels have gone upRegistration requirements have become easier (but not totally easy yet)Declines in “political connectedness”Loss of social capital Rise in candidate centered campaignsMore voting ineligibles than before (non-citizens/(ex) felons)o Why turnout is low relative to other countriesLegal environment – registration differencesDifference sin political party environmentWe have more elections and they are on weekdays as opposed to weekends- Campaigns and Elections (emphasis on Presidential)o Nomination stage Pre-primary phase or “invisible primary” Goal is to raise money and see how much support you haveo Delegate selection phase or primary phase Intra (within party) party competition Goal is to gain major party presidential nomination, must win amajority of party’s convention delegates Candidates compete in state-by-state presidential primary elections and caucuses Primaries and Caucuses Who can participate? Closed: only vote for your party Semi-closed: You can show up if you are registered as independent and ask for a specific party’s ballot Open: completely open How are delegates allocated? Proportional or winner-take-all Democrats require proportional allocation with 15% threshold Republicans allow winner-take-all “Front-loaded” Traditionally Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are held first.. More recently, other states have been pushing up their primaries to be first to get the news coverage. General candidate strategies in primary stage: “Start early” (establish an organization, assess chances and campsign in early states) Lower expectations for yourself/raise them for your opponent Project a positive candidate imageo Status-based strategies in the nomination stage: 1) Front-runner strategy: have name recognition, money, andorganization in place… survive early surprises 2) Non-front runner/dark horse strategy (for those who hope to become a nominee) – focus on Iowa and NH, exceed expectations money, media, momentum 3) Campaign as pulpit strategyo Fundraising approaches in nomination stage 1) “Conventional” path (from 1976-2000): focus on small, direct individual contributions and accept “matching funds” How you qualify for matching funds: need to raise at least 100,000 dollars in small contributions Drawbacks: you can only spend a certain amount in general and in each state which is based on population 2) Decline “matching funds” and rely on many small individual contributors Bush was first candidate effectively to use this path in 2000 No overall limit on spending and no state limit Drawback are if you don’t have a big enough
View Full Document