Whose Party is It?: Lame Ducks,Presidential Candidates,and Evaluations of the Party

Abstract

Presidents and presidential candidates serve as an important source cue for the mass public’s attitudes toward and evaluations of the political parties. Our study evaluates these dynamics during the transition from a lame duck president, Barack Obama, to a new party standard-bearer, Hillary Clinton. Our analysis takes advantage of the fact that the 2014 and 2016 Cooperative Election Study (CES) and the 2012 and 2016 American National Election Study (ANES) surveys asked respondents to evaluate both Obama, Clinton, and the Democratic Party. These data allow us to examine whether the transition from Obama to Clinton changed the primary referent for public attitudes toward the Democratic Party. Our results provide mixed evidence about a change in the relative importance of attitudes toward Clinton and Obama when the former became the nominee, and the latter was a lame duck. While the public’s view of the connection between Obama and Democratic Party’s ideological profile remained constant across time, respondents did update their affective assessments of the party in the face of a new party leader once Clinton was the nominee.

Keywords

presidents presidential candidates political parties elections nationalization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Azari

Julia

(2019). Party foul: How obama made partisan, not party, politics in a polarized environment. In Rockman

Bert A.

Rudalevige

Andrew

(Eds), The Obama Legacy. University Press of Kansas.

Brasher

(2009). “The dynamic character of political party evaluations”. Party Politics, 15(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068808097891

Dancey

Tarpey

Woon

(2019). The macro-dynamics of partisan advantage. Political Research Quarterly, 72(2), 450–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918793231

Donovan

Kellstedt

P. M.

Key

E. M.

Lebo

M. J.

(2020). Motivated reasoning, public opinion, and presidential approval. Political Behavior, 42(4), 1201–1221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09539-8

Jacobson

G C

(2019). Presidents and parties in the public mind. University of Chicago Press.

McLaughlin

Holland

Thompson

B. A.

Koenig

(2020). Emotions and affective polarization: How enthusiasm and anxiety about presidential candidates affect intraparty Attitudes. American Politics Research, 48(2), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x19891423

McThomas

Tesler

(2016). The growing influence of gender attitudes on public support for hillary Clinton, 2008–2012. Politics & Gender, 12(1), 28–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x15000562

Nicholson

(2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00541.x

Rainey

(2014). Arguing for a negligible effect. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1083-1091. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12102.

10.

Sides

Tesler

Lynn

(2019). Identity crisis. Princeton University Press.

11.

Sievert

McKee

S. C.

(2019). Nationalization in U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections. American Politics Research, 47(5), 1055–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x18792694

12.

Sievert

Williamson

R D.

(2021). Elections, competition, and constituent evaluations of US senators. Electoral Studies, 75(1), 102424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102424

13.

Stout

C. T.

(2017). Traiting places: race and the evaluation of black and white presidential candidates. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 47(2), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12370

14.

Smidt

CD.

(2020). A uniter and a divider: American presidential campaigns and partisan perceptions of the national economy. American Politics Research, 48(2), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x19875712

15.

Tesler

Michael

(2016). Post-racial or most-racial? University of Chicago Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB