scholarly journals Did exposure to COVID-19 affect vote choice in the 2020 presidential election?

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 205316802110415
Author(s):  
Marco Mendoza Aviña ◽  
Semra Sevi
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Election Study ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Past Performance ◽  
Force Majeure ◽  
Global Force ◽  
Simple Question ◽  
Using Data

An important body of literature shows that citizens evaluate elected officials based on their past performance. In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, the conventional wisdom in both media and academic discourse was that Donald Trump would have been a two-term president absent an unprecedented, global force majeure. In this research note, we address a simple question: did exposure to COVID-19 impact vote choice in the 2020 presidential election? Using data from the Cooperative Election Study, we find that Trump’s vote share decreased because of COVID-19. However, there is no evidence suggesting that Joe Biden loses the election when no voter reports exposure to coronavirus cases and deaths. These negligible effects are found at both the national and state levels, and are robust to an exhaustive set of confounders across model specifications.

scholarly journals We Have It Totally Under Control? Exploring the Effects of Ideology and Knowing Someone Diagnosed With COVID-19 on Evaluations of President Trump’s Leadership on the Pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. 1532673X2110413
Author(s):  
Jason S. Byers ◽  
Laine P. Shay
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
The Public ◽  
Mixed Response ◽  
Using Data

President Donald Trump has made various decisions, many controversial, to manage the coronavirus pandemic. The reaction to President Trump’s leadership has been met with a mixed response from the public. This raises an important question; what factors influence a citizen’s evaluation of President Trump’s response to the pandemic? We develop a theory that links a citizen knowing someone diagnosed with COVID-19 with their evaluation of President Trump’s management of the pandemic, with the expectation that this relationship is conditioned by a citizen’s ideology. Using data from two surveys, we find that knowing someone diagnosed with COVID-19 diminishes the effect ideology has on a citizen’s evaluation. Additionally, we find that a citizen’s evaluation of President Trump’s leadership on COVID-19 is associated with their vote choice in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Overall, this article contributes to our understanding of public opinion on COVID-19 and its political ramifications.

Moral Foundations, System Justification, and Support for Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election

The Forum ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron C. Weinschenk ◽  
Christopher T. Dawes
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Political System ◽  
System Justification ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
The Political ◽  
Moral Foundations ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Voter Decision Making

Abstract We examine the role of moral foundations and system justification in explaining support for Donald Trump in the 2016 general election using data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. A number of important findings emerge. First, we find that there are important partisan and ideological differences when it comes to moral foundations and system justification. Second, we find that moral foundations predict support for Trump above and beyond traditional determinants of vote choice such as ideology, partisanship, religiosity, and demographic characteristics. Third, we find that a measure of political system justification is not related to vote choice in our sample. This casts doubt on the idea that support for Trump was mostly about protesting the political system. This paper adds to the growing body of research showing that psychological concepts and theories are important in understanding voter decision-making in the 2016 presidential election and in elections more generally.

Religion and Grassroots Social Conservatism in Canada

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 865-881
Author(s):  
Sarah Wilkins-Laflamme ◽  
Sam Reimer
Keyword(s):  
Adult Population ◽  
Value Orientation ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Election Study ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Liberal Party ◽  
Political Landscape ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Social Conservatism

AbstractWith a decisive Liberal party electoral victory in 2015, observers are now wondering if religious conservatism's role in the Canadian political landscape is waning. Using data from the Canadian Election Study (CES) from the years 2004 to 2015, we find that respondents’ attitudes toward same-sex marriage and women working outside the home have moved left on the spectrum among both the general population and more religious voters. However, this does not go hand in hand with a decline in the effect strength of religiosity on the Conservative vote, which remains significant across the five federal elections examined in this study. Conservative religious voters now make up a smaller share of the adult population, but their issue positions on sexual morals and gender roles, along with the wider conservative value orientation these issues represent, remain important in their vote choice.

Behavior notwithstanding: Person perception and news photographs of the two leading candidates in the 2016 presidential election

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-159
Author(s):  
Nicole Smith Dahmen
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Person Perception ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Election Study ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Quantitative Content Analysis ◽  
Quantitative Content ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Perception Theory

Applying person perception theory, this research uses quantitative content analysis to analyze 1,183 newspaper photographs of the two leading candidates from the 2016 presidential election. Study findings show that there were statistically significant differences in the photographic presentations of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the 2016 election, with Clinton pictured more favorably than Trump.

An “Authoritarian Spring?” Authoritarianism and the 2018 Midterm Elections

The Forum ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-545
Author(s):  
Anne M. Cizmar ◽  
John McTague
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Party Identification ◽  
Congressional Elections ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Midterm Elections ◽  
Campaign Messages ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Election Studies

Abstract This paper examines the role of authoritarianism in the 2018 US congressional elections. In particular, we assess whether the issues that have historically been central to the authoritarian divide in the American electorate were salient in the campaigns of several important Senate races. We demonstrate that authoritarian attitudes played a consistent, significant role on presidential vote choice, party identification, and numerous policy areas in the 2016 presidential election using data from the American National Election Studies. Using case studies of six Senate races in the 2018 midterm elections, we find that authoritarianism was more muted than in 2016, and that the role of authoritarianism varied considerably depending upon the race. States with stronger Trump support in 2016 featured authoritarianism more heavily than states with less Trump support in 2016, but authoritarianism overall was not as prominent in 2018 as in 2016. Overall, Senate candidates relied on traditional campaign messages related to candidate qualifications, personal attacks, the economy, and other messages less central to authoritarianism.

The Rise of Third Parties in the 1993 Canadian Federal Election: Pinard Revisited

2004 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 581-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Éric Bélanger
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Election Study ◽  
Major Party ◽  
Federal Election ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Party Dominance

Abstract. This study proposes a new test of Maurice Pinard's theory on the rise of third parties applied to the case of the 1993 Canadian federal election. We assess the effect at the individual level of Pinard's factors (one-party dominance and grievances) on support for the Reform party and the Bloc Québécois using data from the Canadian Election Study. Logistic regression analyses of vote choice indicate that the extent to which the second major party was perceived to be electorally weak at the constituency level was a significant factor in leading some Western voters to support Reform. In Quebec, however, perceptions of predominance did not matter to a vote for the Bloc because the latter is a “radical” third party attracting support mostly on the basis of communal values and interests. The results further show that political grievances, but not economic ones, were a significant predictor of support for both third parties in that election.Résumé. Cette étude propose un nouveau test empirique de la théorie de Maurice Pinard concernant la percée électorale des tiers partis. L'impact des facteurs de Pinard (prédominance d'un parti et présence de griefs) sur l'appui au Parti réformiste et au Bloc québécois à l'élection fédérale canadienne de 1993 est vérifié au niveau micro-sociologique à l'aide des données de l'Étude sur l'élection canadienne. Les analyses de régression logistique du vote indiquent que la perception que certains électeurs de l'Ouest avaient de la faible compétitivité du second parti traditionnel dans leur circonscription les a encouragés à appuyer le Parti réformiste. Au Québec, les perceptions de prédominance n'ont cependant pas eu d'effet significatif sur le vote en faveur du Bloc en raison du fait que ce dernier est un tiers parti “ radical ” dont l'appui repose principalement sur des valeurs et des intérêts de groupe. Les résultats indiquent enfin que, contrairement aux griefs de nature économique, les griefs politiques régionaux ont significativement contribué au succès électoral des deux partis.

scholarly journals Candidate Ideology and Vote Choice in the 2020 US Presidential Election

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Broockman ◽  
Joshua Kalla
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
General Election ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Primary ◽  
General Elections ◽  
Voter Information ◽  
Us Presidential Election

Canonical theories predict that moderate candidates perform better in general elections, but research emphasizing voters’ partisan loyalties challenges these predictions. The 2020 Democratic Presidential primary represented a unique opportunity to speak to these debates due to relatively high voter information about multiple moderate and extreme candidates running in the same election. We conducted a national survey (n = 40,153) that asked how respondents would choose in a general election between one of the Democratic candidates and Republican Donald Trump. Our evidence is consistent with canonical predictions: respondents are more likely to select Trump when he is against an extreme Democrat than against a moderate Democrat. Republican partisans contribute to moderate candidates’ advantage: ≈2% select Trump against a more extreme Democrat but would not against a more moderate Democrat. One of the extreme candidates, Bernie Sanders, ostensibly challenges canonical predictions by receiving as much support as moderate candidates – but only when assuming (1) young people vote at abnormally high rates and (2) young Democrats who claim they will only vote if Sanders is nominated are answering accurately. These patterns are robust to showing attacks against the candidates and in competitive states. Our findings lend further support to canonical predictions about moderate candidates’ electoral advantages.

The Comeback Kid: Donald Trump on Election Day in 2016

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seth C. McKee ◽  
Daniel A. Smith ◽  
M. V. (Trey) Hood
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Congressional Election ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Election Study ◽  
Donald Trump

ABSTRACTThe surprise outcome of the 2016 presidential election continues to raise more questions as experts grapple with the evidence for why most prognosticators considered a Hillary Clinton victory almost certain. This article uses the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study data to show that a primary explanation for why the election of Donald Trump was difficult to predict is that the bulk of his support did not materialize until Election Day, in the battleground states that he had to carry to win the Electoral College.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document