The bulk of the literature rejects the argument that Democratic failure in presidential elections between 1968 and 1988 had an ideological basis. Analysis of the interplay of respondents' own issue positions with their perceptions of the parties/candidates suggests a different and rather complex picture. Between 1968 and 1980, the partisan/ideological cores of the two parties-liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans- behave quite differently: only moderately different defection rates between the most liberal Democrats and most conservative Republicans increase considerably as one moves from the relevant ideological extreme to the center. Placement of parties/candidates in issue space explains this asymmetry during this initial period of Democratic decline: the Democratic party/candidate is perceived as far to the left, with Demo cratic identifiers positioned midway between the electoral alternatives; Republicans identifiers, in contrast, are to the right of both parties/candid ates, but very close to their own. Beginning in 1980, the Reagan candidacy/administration push popular images of the Republicans to the right, eliminating their ideological advantage and forcing us to look elsewhere for the basis of continued Democratic losses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W Rohde1982. Change and Continuity in the 1980 Elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
2.
—. 1990. Change and Continuity in the 1988 Elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
3.
Achen, Christopher H.1975. "Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response." American Political Science Review69: 1218-31.
4.
Aldrich, John N., Richard G. Niemi, George Rabinowitz , and David W. Rohde.1982. "The Measurement of Public Opinion about Public Policy: A Report on Some New Question Formats ." American Journal of Political Science26: 391-414.
5.
Bruzios, Christopher.1990. "Democratic and Republican Party Activists and Followers: Inter- and Intra-Party Differences." Polity22: 581-601.
6.
Conover, Pamela C., and Stanley Feldman.1981. "The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identification ." American Journal of Political Science25: 617-45.
7.
Converse, Philip E.1970. "Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue ." In Edward R. Tufte, ed., The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. New York : Addison-Wesley.
8.
Converse, Philip E., Aage R. Clausen, and Warren E. Miller .1965. "Electoral Myth and Reality: The 1964 Election." American Political Science Reveiw59: 321-36.
9.
DeNardo, James.1980. "Turnout and the Vote: The Joke's on the Democrats." American Political Science Review74: 406-20.
10.
Fiorina, Morris P.1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
11.
Frankovic, Kathleen A.1981. "Public Opinion Trends." In Gerald M. Pomper, ed., The Election of 1980: Reports and Interpretations, pp. 97-118. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
12.
Hibbs, Douglas A., Jr. 1982. "President Reagan's Mandate from the 1980 Elections: A Shift to the Right?" American Politics Quarterly10: 387-420.
13.
Hurley, Patricia A.1989. "Partisan Representation and the Failure of Realignment in the 1980s." American Journal of Political Science33: 240-61.
14.
—. 1991. "Partisan Representation, Realignment, and the Senate in the 1980s." Journal of Politics53: 3-33.
15.
Inglehart, Ronald.1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr , Mark C. Westlye, and Raymond E. Wolfinger.1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
Kelley, Stanley, Jr. 1983. Interpreting Elections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
Kelley, Stanley, Jr., and Thad W. Mirer .1974. "The Simple Act of Voting."American Political Science Review68: 572-91.
19.
Kirkpatrick, Jeane.1976. The New Presidential Elite: Men and Women in National Politics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation and The Twentieth Century Fund.
20.
Ladd, Everett Carll.1982. Where Have All the Voters Gone?: The Fracturing of America's Political Parties, 2nd ed. New York: Norton.
21.
—. 1989. "The 1988 Elections: Continuation of the Post-New Deal System." Political Science Quarterly104: 1-18.
22.
Lanoue, David J.1989. "The 'Teflon Factor': Ronald Reagan and Comparative Presidential Popularity." Polity21: 481-501.
23.
Lawrence, David G.1991. "The Collapse of the Democratic Majority: Economics and Vote Choice since 1952." Western Political Quarterly44: 797-820.
24.
Lawrence, David G., and Richard Fleisher.1987. "Puzzles of Confusions: Political Realignment in the 1980s ." Political Science Quarterly102: 79-92.
25.
Miller, Arthur H., Warren E. Miller, Alden S. Raine, and Thad A. Brown.1976. "A Majority Party in Disarray: Policy Polarization in the 1972 Election." American Political Science Review70: 753-78.
26.
Miller, Warren E., and Teresa E. Levitin .1976. Leadership and Change: Presidential Elections from 1952 to 1976. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
27.
Miller, Warren E., and J. Merrill Shanks .1982. "Policy Directions and Presidential Leadership: Alternative Interpretations of the 1980 Presidential Election ." British Journal of Political Science12: 299-356.
28.
Mishler, William, and Reginald S. Sheehan .1993. "The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions." American Political Science Review87: 87-101.
29.
Nie, Norman H., with Kristi Andersen .1974. "Mass Belief Systems Revisited: Political Change and Attitude Structure." Journal of Politics36: 541-91.
30.
Page, Benjamin I., and Calvin C. Jones .1979. "Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote." American Political Science Review73: 1071-89.
31.
Phillips, Kevin P.1970. The Emerging Republican Majority. New York: Anchor.
32.
Polsby, Nelson W.1983. Consequences of Party Reform. New York : Oxford University Press.
33.
Pomper, Gerald M.1972. "From Confusion to Clarity: Issues and American Voters 1956-1968." American Political Science Review66: 415-28.
34.
—. 1981. "The Presidential Election." In Gerald M. Pomper, ed., The Election of 1980: Reports and Interpretations, pp. 65-96.
35.
Popkin, Samuel, John W. Gorman, Charles Phillips , and Jeffrey A. Smith.1976. "Comment: What Have You Done for Me Lately? Toward an Investment Theory of Voting." American Political Science Review70: 779-805.
36.
Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Elaine Macdonald .1989. "A Directional Theory of Issue Voting." American Political Science Review83: 93-121.
37.
RePass, David.1971. "Issue Salience and Party Choice."American Political Science Review65: 389-400.
38.
Robinson, John P., and John A. Fleishman .1988. "Report: Ideological Identification: Trends and Interpretations of the Liberal-Conservative Balance." Public Opinion Quarterly52: 134-45.
39.
Shanks, J. Merrill, and Warren E. Miller .1991. "Partisanship, Policy and Performance." British Journal of Political Science21: 129-97.
40.
Smith, Tom W.1990. "Liberal and Conservative Trends in the United States ." Political Opinion Quarterly54: 479-507.
41.
Stokes, Donald E.1966. "Some Dynamic Elements of Contests for the Presidency ." American Political Science Review60: 19-28.
42.
Sullivan, John L., James E. Piereson, and George E. Marcus. 1978. "Ideological Constraint in the Mass Public: A Methodological Critique and Some New Findings." American Journal of Political Science22: 233-49.
43.
Sundquist, James L.1983. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings.
44.
Wattenberg, Martin P.1991. The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics: Presidential Elections of the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
Weisberg, Herbert F., and Jerrold G. Rusk .1970. "Dimensions of Candidate Evaluation." American Political Science Review64: 1167-85.
