Lower Stakes

In this chapter, we revisit some of the themes from earlier chapters, but we turn our focus to signs for nonpresidential races, including House and Senate races, races for statewide offices, races for the state legislature and local office, and state and local ballot initiatives. First, we discuss how sign displaying might be different for down-ballot contests and describe similarities and differences between households that display down-ballot signs and those that display presidential signs. Second, we compare individual-level models of down-ballot displaying with the models presented in earlier chapters, exploring both household and individual-level traits. Finally, we utilize the clustering and joint clustering tests to examine whether down-ballot signs exhibit patterns of clustering that are similar to those we observed with respect to presidential contests. While we find differences in who displays down-ballot signs, the spatial patterns we observe are highly consistent with those in presidential races.

Navigating Social Space

In this chapter, we investigate how the prevalence of signs influences social spaces. We begin by exploring how signs impact perceptions of a neighborhood’s activism and partisan balance and, more specifically, whether signs make those perceptions more, or less, accurate. Second, using a hypothetical scenario in which respondents are asked to consider a neighbor who supports the opposing candidate, we consider how signs shape interactions among neighbors. Third, we analyze the relationship between sign prevalence and how individuals interact with their neighborhood discussion partners. We focus on two key metrics: whether individuals discuss politics with greater frequency during the campaign than they do otherwise, and whether they report heated discussions with their neighbors. Leveraging ego-centric network batteries—a tool commonly used to analyze interpersonal influence but rarely used to analyze neighborhood-specific networks—we find several patterns consistent with the notion that the mere presence of yard signs structures patterns of political discussion in neighborhoods.

Patterns Real and Imagined

In this chapter, we confront the stereotype of the “yard sign war” in which the politically engaged respond to their neighbors’ displays by displaying signs of their own. Another possibility, one that is more consistent with our understanding of social interaction, is that households feel empowered by the presence of same-party signs and deterred by the presence of other-party signs. Focusing on the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, we look for evidence of these patterns in our geo-coded observational data of sign display. To assess these competing characterizations, we introduce two measures: a clustering measure that describes the distribution of a single sign across a sample space and a joint clustering measure that captures the similarity of two signs’ spatial patterns. Overall, we find little evidence of yard sign wars and consistent evidence that Democratic and Republican signs inhabit distinct spaces in neighborhoods.

Means, Motive, and Opportunity

In this chapter, we focus on several aspects of the process by which people come to display signs. First, we present survey respondents with a hypothetical scenario regarding the decision to display a sign, examining which considerations predict a willingness to display. Second, we ask displayers to identity their motives for displaying, drawing on the distinction between expressive and instrumental motives for participation. Third, we examine how sign displayers obtain signs, distinguishing between those who seek out signs and those who receive them from campaigns. Finally, we consider timing as an informative aspect of sign displaying, exploring the dichotomy between early displayers, who act as de facto opinion leaders in their neighborhoods, and late displayers, who may be influenced by social pressure. Several of our findings challenge conventional wisdom about sign displaying, as we find evidence that displayers are proactive and think of signs in primarily expressive terms.

Who Puts Their Politics on Display?

In this chapter, we explore a variety of factors that influence an individual’s decision to display a campaign yard sign. First, we consider the displaying of signs from the perspective of traditional models of political participation. Using national data from the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, we explore demographic and attitudinal predictors of sign displaying, as well as measures of the political environment, such as residence in a swing state. Then, relying on our observational data from the 2008 and 2012 elections, we turn our attention to more localized factors that may encourage or inhibit the displaying of signs. In keeping with recent contextual work, we explore linkages between property traits, neighborhood traits, and the displaying of signs. Finally, we consider personality and whether individuals who display signs share traits such as the desire to make one’s views known and the propensity to initiate political conversations.

“Not in My Front Yard”

In this chapter, we explore the variety of ways that people react to yard signs. First, we examine how citizens perceive signs and the act of displaying a sign in general, testing common beliefs about signs, such as the idea that people find signs informative, aesthetically displeasing, and indicative of political division. Second, we examine how citizens perceive norms favoring or opposing campaign signs—or rules prohibiting them—to paint a picture of neighborhood environments across the country. Third, we examine emotional reactions to yard signs, noting that a sizable number of people react to signs with pride, anxiety, and anger. Finally, we address whether citizens share the skepticism of many pundits about the impact of signs, viewing signs through the lens of political efficacy. Throughout the chapter we find substantial differences in attitudes between sign displayers and non-displayers, but also differences across social contexts.

Introduction

In this introductory chapter, we highlight the distinctiveness of the campaign yard sign as a form of political participation that is public, communicative, and confrontational. In contrast with the received wisdom of campaign professionals who are altogether skeptical about signs and a political science literature that has focused somewhat narrowly on the effectiveness of signs, we believe that yard signs are much more than campaign tools. We make the case for a comprehensive examination of yard signs as a political phenomenon, pointing to three attributes of yard signs that are individually interesting, but particularly compelling in combination: the symbolic aspect of signs as markers of partisan identity, the social aspect of signs as messages to neighbors and other audiences, and the spatial aspect of signs as information in social contexts.

A New Perspective on Political Participation and Communication

In this concluding chapter, we discuss some of the major takeaways of the book. We find that signs are an act of both communication and participation, and that the conventional wisdom that signs are primarily campaign tools is misguided. At the same time, displayers and non-displayers ascribe different meanings to signs, and the distinction between in-party and out-party signs is important in determining how signs spread throughout neighborhoods. In turn, once present, those signs can influence perceptions of social space and social interactions, especially in the most intimate social contexts. In addition, we discuss lessons learned with respect to spatial analysis and network analysis and their power, both individually, but especially jointly, to reinvigorate the community studies paradigm. We conclude by reflecting on the yard sign as a political symbol and considering how such symbols are especially powerful in an age of intensely salient and polarized partisan identities.

The Research Design

In this chapter, we describe our overall research design and key methodological considerations. First, we discuss how classic community studies and subsequent works on social and contextual influence inspire our work. In thinking about how social spaces matter, we describe how we conceptualize neighborhoods, and how we operationalize distance to mirror people’s everyday experience of their residential space. Second, we introduce the three observational research sites: a sample of voting precincts from Franklin County, Ohio, and the cities of Upper Arlington, Ohio, and Broomfield, Colorado. Third, we describe the observational studies carried out between 2008 and 2014 across these sites and introduce key concepts from spatial analysis that maximize the usefulness of these data. Fourth, we describe the surveys fielded in these sites following the 2008 and 2012 elections and describe the techniques used to elicit information about individual survey respondents and their communities.