| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
146578
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Conventional wisdom pervades presidential politics, and there is no doubt that this will again be true in 2016. First among “old politicians’ tales” is that a political party’s placement of a national convention in a specific state can affect presidential voting there, swinging or flipping it to its presidential candidate. Second, the selection of a vice-presidential candidate as a favorite son (or daughter) will deliver a state’s electoral votes to a presidential ticket. Is either of these pearls of wisdom true? This article tests the truth of both the convention location and favorite-son claims and finds little evidence of their efficacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
146612
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
146577
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although much of what we know about political advertising comes from the study of television advertising alone, online advertising is an increasingly prominent part of political campaigning. Research on other online political communication—especially candidate websites, blogs, and social media—tends to conclude that these communications are aimed primarily at turning existing supporters into campaign donors, activists, and volunteers. Is a similar communication strategy found in online display ads—those ads placed adjacent to website content? In one of the first systematic analyses of the nature, content, and targets of online display advertising, we examined 840 unique online display ads from the 2012 presidential campaign. We show that the policy content, ad location, and interactive elements of the ads varied based on the audience, with persuasive appeals aimed at undecided or persuadable voters and engagement appeals aimed at existing supporters. Comparing ad content across candidates also found that each side focused on those issues for which the candidate had a strategic advantage. As a consequence, and in contrast to the conclusions of previous research that examines television advertising, we found minimal issue engagement in online advertising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
146593
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
146592
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
146588
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
146609
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
146605
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
146584
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
146608
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
146617
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
146575
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In a time of unprecedented racial polarization in partisan voting, and in a staunchly Republican Deep South state, one black Republican managed to reach the pinnacle of public office. This article examines Tim Scott’s rise by analyzing precinct-level data to better understand his 2010 election to the US House and data from the Winthrop Poll to explore his more recent US Senate victory. To better understand support for Scott, we also report results from an embedded-survey experiment to assess respondents’ favorability toward Scott when he is characterized by two different frames: (1) “Tea Party favorite,” and (2) “first African American Senator from South Carolina since Reconstruction.” We found that conservatives, evangelicals, and less-educated individuals respond more positively to Scott when he is described as a “Tea Party favorite.” More than an intriguing case study, Scott’s rise tells a broader story of the complicated relationships among race, ideology, and partisanship in the contemporary American South.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
146600
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
146604
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
146597
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
146616
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
146614
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
146583
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
146580
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
146603
|
|
|