Party Politics, Ahead of Print.
Politicians’ perceptions of public opinion matter for substantive representation, but previous work has concluded that they do not have very accurate perceptions of voters’ policy preferences. We add to the debate on the drivers of perceptual accuracy by exploring whether politicians have a more accurate understanding of public opinion when it matters either to voters or themselves, or when politicians think it matters more to voters. Drawing on survey data collected among elected representatives and citizens in Belgium, Canada, Switzerland, and Germany, we show that politicians have a better understanding of public opinion when they think the issue matters to voters. Further, when an issue is personally important to politicians they more accurately estimate their party supporters’ opinions. The results confirm that politicians hold more accurate perceptions of voters’ preferences when they think it is important to do so, but not necessarily when the issues actually are important to voters.
Category Archives: Party Politics:
Book review: The case for the centre right
Party Politics, Ahead of Print.
Donate to help us fight back: Political fundraising and toxic rhetoric online
Party Politics, Ahead of Print.
Political candidates utilize social media to mobilize supporters, persuade voters, and raise money. However, little is known about the structure of mass electoral appeals when donors are the primary target instead of voters. Because candidates’ donors and voters can differ significantly, with donors more partisan and ideologically extreme on average, we theorize that candidates use strategic rhetoric tailored to specific audiences. To analyze how campaigns perceive and target their “financial electorate,” we leverage data from the Facebook Ad Library for 2020 U.S. congressional candidates and distinguish political ads by their persuasion targets. Using text analysis, we test the hypotheses that donor-targeting messages are more toxic, negative, and likely to reference a polarizing president than voter-targeting messages. The results support our hypotheses, and Republican candidates, on average, used more toxic language than their Democratic counterparts. As campaigns’ scramble for donations intensifies, these characteristics of fundraising appeals may further polarize the electorate.
Political candidates utilize social media to mobilize supporters, persuade voters, and raise money. However, little is known about the structure of mass electoral appeals when donors are the primary target instead of voters. Because candidates’ donors and voters can differ significantly, with donors more partisan and ideologically extreme on average, we theorize that candidates use strategic rhetoric tailored to specific audiences. To analyze how campaigns perceive and target their “financial electorate,” we leverage data from the Facebook Ad Library for 2020 U.S. congressional candidates and distinguish political ads by their persuasion targets. Using text analysis, we test the hypotheses that donor-targeting messages are more toxic, negative, and likely to reference a polarizing president than voter-targeting messages. The results support our hypotheses, and Republican candidates, on average, used more toxic language than their Democratic counterparts. As campaigns’ scramble for donations intensifies, these characteristics of fundraising appeals may further polarize the electorate.
The radical left and its political communication. An examination of the campaign activities of radical left candidates in sixteen Europe countries
Party Politics, Ahead of Print.
In this paper we focus on the political communication activities of the candidates of the radical left parties (RLPs), emphasizing their campaign activities during electioneering. We aim to address three key questions. First, we seek to understand what type of political communication activities RLP candidates use. Second, we undertake a comparative analysis, contrasting these activities with those employed by candidates and MPs from other party families in order to identify any notable distinctions. Third, we explore the thematic emphasis of their campaign activities and whether it aligns with the commonly held perception of RLPs as less individualistic, particularly in light of the prevailing trend towards increased personalization in politics. Our data come from the Comparative Candidates Survey (CCS) and cover 16 European countries over the years spanning from 2005 to 2017. In sum, the findings present a nuanced perspective and do not conclusively demonstrate a distinctly unique type of candidate of the radical left.
In this paper we focus on the political communication activities of the candidates of the radical left parties (RLPs), emphasizing their campaign activities during electioneering. We aim to address three key questions. First, we seek to understand what type of political communication activities RLP candidates use. Second, we undertake a comparative analysis, contrasting these activities with those employed by candidates and MPs from other party families in order to identify any notable distinctions. Third, we explore the thematic emphasis of their campaign activities and whether it aligns with the commonly held perception of RLPs as less individualistic, particularly in light of the prevailing trend towards increased personalization in politics. Our data come from the Comparative Candidates Survey (CCS) and cover 16 European countries over the years spanning from 2005 to 2017. In sum, the findings present a nuanced perspective and do not conclusively demonstrate a distinctly unique type of candidate of the radical left.
Identification with an anti-system party undermines diffuse political support: The case of Alternative for Germany and trust in the Federal Constitutional Court
Party Politics, Ahead of Print.
The rise of the far right is increasingly raising the question of whether partisanship can have negative consequences for democracy. While issues such as partisan bias and affective polarization have been extensively researched, little is known about the relationship between identification with anti-system parties and diffuse system support. I address this gap by introducing a novel indicator and utilising the GESIS panel dataset, which tracks the rise of a new party, ”Alternative for Germany” (AfD) from 2013, when the party was founded, to 2017, when the AfD, now transformed into a right-wing populist and anti-system party, entered the federal parliament for the first time. Employing a panel fixed effects design, I demonstrate that identification with ”Alternative for Germany” reduces trust in the Federal Constitutional Court by a considerable margin. These findings are robust across various alternative specifications, suggesting that the effects of anti-system party identification should not be dismissed.
The rise of the far right is increasingly raising the question of whether partisanship can have negative consequences for democracy. While issues such as partisan bias and affective polarization have been extensively researched, little is known about the relationship between identification with anti-system parties and diffuse system support. I address this gap by introducing a novel indicator and utilising the GESIS panel dataset, which tracks the rise of a new party, ”Alternative for Germany” (AfD) from 2013, when the party was founded, to 2017, when the AfD, now transformed into a right-wing populist and anti-system party, entered the federal parliament for the first time. Employing a panel fixed effects design, I demonstrate that identification with ”Alternative for Germany” reduces trust in the Federal Constitutional Court by a considerable margin. These findings are robust across various alternative specifications, suggesting that the effects of anti-system party identification should not be dismissed.
Do immigrants support environmentalism? – Immigrants’ environmental socialization in the United States
Party Politics, Ahead of Print.
As globalisation continues, heated debates over immigrants’ environmental behaviours in the U.S. have been prominent in recent years. While research has generally focused on the association between political affiliation and pro-environmental values, only a few studies have specifically explored immigrants’ pro-environmental values in the U.S. Utilizing a pooled dataset spanning 3 years (2017, 2020, and 2022) from the Cooperative Election Study and employing a multilevel model, we empirically tested three hypotheses regarding immigrants’ pro-environmental attitudes: the globalization hypothesis, the prosperity hypothesis, and the political socialization hypothesis. Our results supported all three hypotheses. On average, immigrants exhibited higher environmental scores than the native-born population. In addition, we identified generational differences, with the 1st generation immigrants showing the highest environmental scores, while the 2nd generation immigrants fell between the 1st generation and the native-born. Compared to the native-born population, party affiliation played a smaller role in immigrants’ formation of pro-environmental values. Democratic immigrants tended to be less pro-environment than democratic locals, while Republican immigrants were more pro-environment than Republican locals.
As globalisation continues, heated debates over immigrants’ environmental behaviours in the U.S. have been prominent in recent years. While research has generally focused on the association between political affiliation and pro-environmental values, only a few studies have specifically explored immigrants’ pro-environmental values in the U.S. Utilizing a pooled dataset spanning 3 years (2017, 2020, and 2022) from the Cooperative Election Study and employing a multilevel model, we empirically tested three hypotheses regarding immigrants’ pro-environmental attitudes: the globalization hypothesis, the prosperity hypothesis, and the political socialization hypothesis. Our results supported all three hypotheses. On average, immigrants exhibited higher environmental scores than the native-born population. In addition, we identified generational differences, with the 1st generation immigrants showing the highest environmental scores, while the 2nd generation immigrants fell between the 1st generation and the native-born. Compared to the native-born population, party affiliation played a smaller role in immigrants’ formation of pro-environmental values. Democratic immigrants tended to be less pro-environment than democratic locals, while Republican immigrants were more pro-environment than Republican locals.
From dissent to cohesion: Immigration policy shift and intra-party dynamics in the Danish Social Democratic Party
Party Politics, Ahead of Print.
The high saliency of immigration presented social democratic parties with a strategic quandary on reconciling different values and expectations. Danish Social Democratic Party (S) stood out as it shifted to restrictive policies while achieving intra-party cohesion and avoiding major internal strifes. This article investigates the factors behind S’ immigration shift and intra-party cohesion, focusing on a timeframe between 2005 and 2019 by combining an analysis of S’ immigration policies with insights from 12 interviews with party elites. Comparing varying strategies, ideological inclinations, and support, I explore the intra-party actors’ perceptions, constraining and permissive influences of intra-party dynamics, development and reconstruction of new ideological frameworks and factional alignment. Findings highlight the importance of intra-party dynamics on shifting policies in immigration for social democratic parties, providing further insights on how the S party elite navigated the policy shift while ensuring intra-party cohesion from electoral, ideological and organisational perspectives.
The high saliency of immigration presented social democratic parties with a strategic quandary on reconciling different values and expectations. Danish Social Democratic Party (S) stood out as it shifted to restrictive policies while achieving intra-party cohesion and avoiding major internal strifes. This article investigates the factors behind S’ immigration shift and intra-party cohesion, focusing on a timeframe between 2005 and 2019 by combining an analysis of S’ immigration policies with insights from 12 interviews with party elites. Comparing varying strategies, ideological inclinations, and support, I explore the intra-party actors’ perceptions, constraining and permissive influences of intra-party dynamics, development and reconstruction of new ideological frameworks and factional alignment. Findings highlight the importance of intra-party dynamics on shifting policies in immigration for social democratic parties, providing further insights on how the S party elite navigated the policy shift while ensuring intra-party cohesion from electoral, ideological and organisational perspectives.
Corrigendum to “Common sense, populism, and reactionary politics on Twitter: An analysis of populist far-right common sense narratives between 2008 and 2022”
Party Politics, Ahead of Print.
Unpacking candidate selection in authoritarian regimes: Evidence from Cameroon
Party Politics, Ahead of Print.
Why do autocratic ruling parties adopt certain candidate selection processes, and what effects do they have on political outcomes? This article argues that many contemporary autocracies democratize candidate selection to address the demands of multiparty elections, but that this creates unforeseen hazards. Autocrats centralize candidate selection to reassert control over the composition of legislatures, but not necessarily to recruit more effective representatives. These ideas are explored in Cameroon, a longstanding authoritarian regime that has altered its candidate selection twice. Using an original biographical dataset and elite survey that measures legislative role orientations, the article shows how changes to candidate selection allowed the Cameroonian regime to retain more partisan legislators and to recruit new candidates who were more oriented to the party than the constituency. The article expands the comparative study of candidate selection to new settings and provides insights into how candidate selection helps shape and sustain authoritarian regimes.
Why do autocratic ruling parties adopt certain candidate selection processes, and what effects do they have on political outcomes? This article argues that many contemporary autocracies democratize candidate selection to address the demands of multiparty elections, but that this creates unforeseen hazards. Autocrats centralize candidate selection to reassert control over the composition of legislatures, but not necessarily to recruit more effective representatives. These ideas are explored in Cameroon, a longstanding authoritarian regime that has altered its candidate selection twice. Using an original biographical dataset and elite survey that measures legislative role orientations, the article shows how changes to candidate selection allowed the Cameroonian regime to retain more partisan legislators and to recruit new candidates who were more oriented to the party than the constituency. The article expands the comparative study of candidate selection to new settings and provides insights into how candidate selection helps shape and sustain authoritarian regimes.
Book review: The Inter- and Transnational Politics of Populism: Foreign Policy, Identity and Popular Sovereignty
Party Politics, Ahead of Print.