UPDATED: Who Will Endorse in the Future?

11:15 am update: It has come to my attention that COSMOPOLITAN magazine has endorsed 10 congressional candidates this year. Does this change everything? Yes. (It's only a blog that was published less than 30 minutes ago, but still). So for the 2nd edition of this blog, I'll insert this point:

4a: Non-news media: There's politics in everything. Media outlets that deal with ostensibly non-political content could take advantage of the decline in traditional print publications to advocate their perspective. Therefore, while I'm surprised to see Cosmo jumping into congressional races to support pro-choice candidates (market forces would suggest they could alienate some readers), it seems like a logical extension of my argument.

---
On Monday, the Boston Globe endorsed Republican Charlie Baker for Governor. This has some Mass Dems up in arms. The first question to ask is, do endorsements matter?

Political science research has shown that yes, under the right circumstances newspapers endorsements can impact elections. This is particularly the case if it is an unexpected endorsement (like the liberal Globe endorsing a Republican -- a good sign for the Baker campaign). That being said, the effect is of a small magnitude (see Vox for an overview, but usually low-single digits) 

Endorsements matter because they are, well, news. In the waning weeks of a campaign this is a quantity that is sorely lacking. 

The question I'd like to ask though, is what will happen in the future? Newspapers are on the decline (several have already reduced circulation or stopped their presses in major US cities like Denver, Seattle and New Orleans). So where will endorsements come from?

The options, from least to most likely:

1) Blogs: Doubt it. Political blogs are usually written to espouse a political perspective year round, so their audience knows their ideology. Audiences usually flock to like-minded content. Therefore their endorsements carry little weight. 

2) Political Scientists: Ha. Just kidding. Political scientists go out of their way to not take positions on active races. (For whatever reason, it seems that Humanities professors, especially English profs, are far more politically outspoken... Why? Beats me.)

This is the least crazy picture of Zell Miller I could find.
3) Local Television News: Now that I think about it, I don't know why local television news programs don't endorse candidates. It's not like they take themselves more seriously than print publications. 

4) Newspapers. Even if their print circulation goes down, they'll survive online, albeit in diminished form. And they'll keep pumping out those editorials.

5) You. (Like when Time named "You" person of the year, congratulations on that by the way.) Everyone has a platform now, and your Facebook likes, or retweets that are actually endorsements may carry enough weight to influence your fellow voters. This could especially be the case if you are an "opinion leader".*

6) Other politicians. In our polarized partisan environment, endorsements from politicians only matter if they are unexpected. However, the media loves them. If a Democrat endorses a Republican ala Zell Miller in 2004, or if an eminent non-partisan figure jumps into the fray (like Colin Powell endorsing Obama in 2012), it is a newsworthy event that can cause a media storm.

So that is where to look for endorsements in the future.  Enjoy the last week of the campaigns!


*There's a classic theory in political communication called the two-step process of influence (Step 1: From the media to opinion-leaders, step 2: opinion leaders to the masses),  although it's never really been proven. Glory will befall on the academic that use social media data to successfully test it empirically.

Popular posts from this blog

Turnout for What?: An altogether different concern with field experiments

Image
To the degree that Political Science Twitter can blow up, it blew up this week with the controversy over a field experiment run by professors at Stanford and Dartmouth in Montana (For the latest in the debate, see John Patty ; for overview, Derek Willis in NYT ). I don’t have anything to add to the ethics in field experiments discussion, although I am sympathetic to the accused profs. (If you would like a totally ethical look at how information increases participation in races like these, see my MPSA paper from last year!) My concern with this episode is that it illustrates a problem with the literature on turnout studies. They’ve gotten too good. One only needs to look around at the mail parties send to voters to see that voter shaming ( like in Alaska ), and possibly intimidation, is alive and well. These are techniques that were first tested by field experiments. (Look, it even happened to me in 2012) The combination of these techniques and the robust field offi
Read more

2022 Midterm Projection: Fundamentally Republican

Image
I think this is going to be an ugly election cycle for the Democrats. We can expect losses for the president's party in Congress in their first midterm election, and Joe Biden has not done anything to change my expectation. This is compounded by the fact that the economy seems to be the most pressing concern for voters, and inflation is a very difficult issue for policymakers to make go away or minimize. Since inflation is effectively making money less valuable, people that have a lot of money hate it , and even though unemployment is at a record low right, and many people in lower tax brackets have money in their pockets, it doesn't seem to go as far when you have to pay large bills for gas, heating your home or buying groceries.  So I believe we'll see the US House of Representatives swing to Republicans, probably with about 15-20 Democratic seat losses. Oddly, this is not actually that high of a number (Trump's party lost 41 in his only midterm, Obama lost 63 in his
Read more

10 Tips for Going on the Political Science Job Market

Image
It’s August, and academics are procrastinating so I’ve seen lots of advice on the job market. A lot of this advice seems good, but it usually comes from tenured professors who last went on the market before the advent of Twitter. So here are ten quick thoughts on my two recent trips to the academic job market: My qualifications for dispensing advice include spending many hours in the belly of the beast. Long term planning. One of the most sobering pieces of advice I got on the market came from Mike Horowitz at Penn, who emphasized to a group of us: “The market is a multi-year process.” This turned out to be the case for me, and the majority of people I have seen go through the market. At Penn we had 5 years of guaranteed funding, so planning for the market should begin in earnest in the second half of the fourth year. Once you lose that guaranteed funding, you’ll need to spend time on finding contingent employment, and anytime that is spent not on research you will not get
Read more