Dial-In Democracy: Talk Radio and the 1994 Election
Author(s): Louis Bolce, Gerald De Maio, Douglas Muzzio
Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 457-481
Published by: The Academy of Political Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2151971
Accessed: 02/02/2010 13:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aps.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Academy of Political Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Political Science Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
Dial-InDemocracy:
TalkRadioandthe 1994 Election
LOUIS BOLCE
GERALD DE MAIO
DOUGLAS MUZZIO
Detractorscall themrightwing nuts, apostlesof hate, fomentersof
violence. Fans hearthem as inspirational,voices of reason,enlightenersof the
public. Similarly, their audienceis portrayedas maladjusted,intolerant,and
dangerous-or as guardiansof the republic,sociallyconscious,andpublicspirited. Talkradio,its hostsandlisteners:Is it a "bedlamof conservativeyakkers?"
A forumfor seditionists?An electronicversionof New Englandtownmeetings?
Is it all of the above, some, or none?'
Whethercharacterizedas laboratoriesof demagogeuryor of democracy,talk
radiohas becomea stapleof Americanpoliticaldiscussion,especiallysince the
1994election- thepoliticaltsunamithatuprootedscoresof Democraticmembers
of Congress,senators,governors,and statelegislators.The electionendedforty
yearsof Democraticdominanceof the Houseof Representatives,over sixtyyears
of control of state houses and legislatures,and perhapslaid the groundwork
for the sixth realignmentof the Americanpartysystem (or signaledcontinuing
dealignment).2Republicanswon 230 seats in the House of Representatives,
picking off 52 formerlyheld by Democrats, with 52 percentof the national
Housevote. The Republicansalso gainedcontrolof the Senateby capturingeight
'Walter Goodman, "4 Minutes A Week: A Liberal on NBC," New YorkTimes, 9 March 1994;
"Dumband Dumber - Cyberdemocracy,"CNN CrossfireTranscript#1229, Air Date: 1 March 1994;
Anthony Lewis, "WordsMatter,"New YorkTimes, 5 May 1995; Todd S. Purdum, "ClintonAssails
the Preaching of the Militia,"New YorkTimes, 6 May 1995.
2 Everett Carll Ladd, "The 1994 CongressionalElections: The RealignmentContinues,"Political
Science Quarterly 100 (Spring 1995): 1-23.
LOUISBOLCEandGERALDDE MAIOare associateprofessorsof politicalscience at BaruchCollege,
City University of New York. DOUGLAS MUZZIO is a professor in the School of Public Affairs at
Baruch College and director of the Baruch College Survey Unit.
Political Science Quarterly Volume 111 Number 3 1996
457
458
| POLITICAL
SCIENCE
QUARTERLY
Democraticseats. The GOPincreasedits majorityto 54 to 46 whenconservative
DemocratsRichardShelbyfromAlabamaandBenNighthorseCampbellof Colorado switchedallegiances. Republicans,by January1996, had addedto their
Housemajoritywhenfive southernrepresentatives
crossedover fromthe Democraticto the Republicanside of the aisle.
The transferof politicalpower at the state level was no less dramatic.The
GOPattainedcontrolof bothlegislativechambersof nineteenstates(Democrats
now controleighteen),capturingelevenlegislaturesformerlyheldby Democrats.
Republicansmaintainedor capturedthirtystate houses- invertingthe partisan
make-upthat existed prior to the election and giving the GOP a majorityof
governorsfor the first time since 1970.
The Republicancampaignto win the House andSenate,governorships,and
state legislative chambersin the 1994 elections was "notjust about ideas but
technology,notjust aboutcraftingideasbutcommunicatingthemto the public."
Indeed, House SpeakerNewt Gingrich's1994 electoralstrategywas to funnel
informationaround"theclassic elite media"directlyto the voters. Republican
leadershavelongheldthattheestablishedmassmediahavea liberalbias. Gingrich
believed that the "new media"gave the Republicansa decisive edge in 1994:
"WithoutC-Span,withouttalk radioshows, withoutall the alternativemedia, I
don'tthinkwe would have won."3
This articleanalyzesthe talk radiophenomenonin the contextof the 1994
House, Senate, and gubernatorialelections. While talk radio has piqued the
interestof mediacommentatorsand some academicresearchers,scantattention
has been focusedon the electoralbehaviorandpoliticalorientationsof talkradio
listeners and their potentialas an emergentvoting bloc and as a categoryfor
electionanalysis(analogous,for example,to evangelicalChristians).We profile
the politicalandpolicy views of "talkvoters"anddetailthe associationof these
variablesto their voting behaviorin 1994. The causal relationshipsbetween
listeningto talk radioand specific attitudesandactivities-and whetherthe medium'sprincipalimpactis amplification,mobilization,or conversion-is beyond
the scope of this study. No panel studydataare availableto dateto permitthese
types of analyses.
"Dial-InDemocracy"examineswhethertalk radiois the "conservativeprecinct"portrayedby conservativecommentatorWilliamRusher,the "grievance
network"heardby DemocraticconsultantBob Shrum,or, worse still, an outlet
meanness[and]name-calling."4
of "testosterone-fueled
Finally, it seeks to place
talk radio, with its populisticimpulses, in the reneweddebateover the nature
of Americandemocracy.
I
Steven Roberts, "OpenArms for Online Democracy," U.S. News and WorldReport, 16 January
1995, 10.
4 WilliamRusher,"TheImportanceof TalkRadio,"NewspaperEnterpriseAssociation, 3 September
1994; Jon Weiner, "Lookingfor the Left's Limbaugh,"Dissent 42 (Spring 1995): 161.
TALK RADIO AND THE 1994 ELECTION |
459
THE GROWTH AND REACH OF TALK RADIO
Talk radiohas grownenormouslyover the past thirty-fiveyears. In 1960, only
two radio stations, KABC in Los Angeles and KMOX in St. Louis, had talk
formats.By the springof 1995, 1,130 (one of nine) radio stationsdevotedthe
bulk of their programmingto news/talk.In the winterof 1994, news/talkwas
capturing16.2 percentof the 12 yearsof age or olderaudienceand 19.5 percent
of men over 18. On the eve of the midtermelections, 20 million Americansa
week were tuningin to conservativetalk host, Rush Limbaugh,on 659 radio
stations.5
In the late 1960s, AM radio began to turn more and more to talk shows
becauseof FM's technicaladvantagein broadcastingmusic. But the real boom
eruptedin the 1980s, spurredby the adventof cheapsatellitetransmissiontechnology. The numberof all-talkor news/talkradiostationsclimbedfrom 200 to
more than 800 in a decade.6
Severaleventsin thelate 1980sandearly 1990sspurredtheemergingpolitical
prominenceof talk radio/TV- the foundingof the NationalAssociationof Talk
Show hosts in 1988, Congress'srecissionin 1989 of a pay raise for itself after
a publicclamorfomentedby talk shows, GenniferFlowers'sintrusioninto Bill
Clinton'squest for the Democraticnominationin 1992, Ross Perot'squirkyon
again-offagaincampaignfor the WhiteHouse, the flap over gays in the military
in early 1993, Zoe Baird'sabortednominationto be attorneygeneralin 1993,
Rush Limbaugh'srapidrise to nationalprominence,the Whitewateraffair, the
1994 healthcare debate, and the OklahomaCity bombing.7
PREVious FINDINGS ON TALK RADIO LISTENERS
The few studiesof talkradiolistenersoffer inconclusiveandconflictingfindings.
Some analyseshave suggestedthat listenersare more politicallyalienatedand
inefficacious, inattentiveto public affairs, socially isolated, and cynical than
nonlisteners.Talklistenerswere foundto havebeen morelikely to takeextreme
sides on policy issues andto be more suspiciousof elites thannonlisteners.8 The
5 Phyllis Stark, "CountryRadio Levels Off; News/Talk Keeps Growing,"Billboard, 18 June 1995,
89.
6 "Everybody'sTalkin' At Us," Business Week, 22 May 1995, 105; Kenneth Jost, "Talk Show
Democracy," The CQ Researcher, 19 April 1995, 372, 375.
7 Howard Fineman, "The Power of Talk,"Newsweek, 8 February 1993, 24-28; Jost, "TalkShow
Democracy," 368, 375, 376, 378; John Fund, "The Power of Talk,"Forbes Media Critic 2 (Spring
1995): 54ff; Benjamin I. Page and Jason Tannenbaum,"Populistic Deliberation and Talk Radio,"
Journal of Communication46 (Spring 1996): 33-54.
8 JohnCrittenden,"DemocraticFunctionsof the OpenMike RadioForum,"Public OpinionQuarterly
35 (Spring 1971): 200-210; Robert K. Avery and Donald G. Ellis, "TalkRadio as an Interpersonal
Phenomenon"in GaryGumpertandRobertCatheart,eds., Inter/Media:InterpersonalCommunications
in a Media World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 108-115; Murray B. Levin, Talk
Radio and the American Dream (Lexington, MA; Lexington Books, 1987); Jeffrey L. Katz, "The
Power of Talk," Governing4 (March 1991): 38-42.
460
| POLITICAL
SCIENCE
QUARTERLY
talk radiolistenersin these studiesappearquite similarto the voters described
in the early election studies-passive, inert followers with little knowledgeof
publicaffairsand, still worse, as the AmericanFoundersfeared, apoliticalclay
"easilymisled by the artfulmisrepresentations"
of interestedmen of "perverted
ambition."
RichardHofstetterand his colleagues'1991 surveyof San Diego talk radio
listenerspresenteda differentportrait.Listenerspaid more attentionto politics
and participatedmore in politicalactivities(includingvoting, campaignwork,
communityaction, and contactingpublic officials) than nonlisteners.Seeking
informationwas the major reason given by San Diegans for listening to talk
radio.'0
The most extensiveanalysisof talk radioandTV listenersandviewers (and
hosts)to dateis TheVocalMinorityin AmericanPoliticsconductedby the Times
MirrorCenterfor The People& The Pressin May 1993."1Thisnationwidestudy
examinedlisteners'motivationsfortuningintotalkradioandanalyzedthepolitical
perceptions,attitudes,opinions, and behaviorsof the talk radioaudience.The
Vocal Minorityfound that "surveillance"reasons such as "keepingup on the
issues of the day"(citedby 84 percent)and"learningabouthow differentpeople
feel aboutdifferentissues"(namedby 85 percent)were by far the most cited
reasonsfor listeningto talkradio.Nearlyhalf of talklistenersreportedthatthey
were more interestedwhen they were listeningto people with an oppositepoint
of view, more thandoublethose who said they preferredto hear someoneexpressinga pointof view similarto theirown. Entertainment
was also animportant
reason, mentionedby fully half.'2
The TimesMirrorfoundtalkshow audiencesto be moreconservative,more
Republican,moreanti-Congress,andmorecriticalof PresidentBill Clintonthan
nonlisteners.The Vocal Minority,like the Hofstetteret al. study, showed the
talk radioconstituencyto be attentiveto politics-and more likely to participate
in public meetings, to write lettersto their officials, and to vote.
THE DATA
On 8 November1994, the VoterNews Service(VNS)-the consortiumof ABC,
the AssociatedPress (AP), CBS, CNN, and NBC-surveyed 10,210 votersna9 BernardBerelson, Paul Lazarsfeld, and William McPhee, Voting:A Studyof OpinionFormation
in a Presidential Campaign(Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1954), chap. 14; Angus Campbell,
Philip E. Converse, WarrenE. Miller, and Donald Stokes, 7he American Voter (New York: Wiley,
1960); Jack L. Walker, "A Critiqueof the Elitist Theory of Democracy,"AmericanPolitical Science
Review 60 (June 1966): 285-295. 7he Federalist Papers, intro. by Clinton Rossiter (New York: New
American Library, 1961), 384, 34.
'0 C. RichardHofstetteret al., "PoliticalTalkRadio:A StereotypeReconsidered,"Political Research
Quarterly47 (June 1994): 473.
" AndrewKohut, Cliff Zukin, and CarolBowman, The VocalMinorityin AmericanPolitics (Washington, DC: Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press, 1993).
2
Ibid., 10-11.
TALK RADIO AND THE 1994 ELECTION |
461
tionwideas they exitedthe polls. Amongthe questionsaskedin the nationalexit
poll and in twentyindividualstatepolls was whetherthey "frequentlylisten[ed]
to politicalcall-in shows on radio."
Exit polls have severaldesirablequalities.Theirlarge samplesizes permit
more extensive subgroupanalysesthanmost academicsurveys, particularlyin
statewideraces. Also, the immediacyof the surveyto actualvoting eliminates
the "recallproblem,"in which respondentsat some remove from election day
inaccuratelyreporttheir electoralbehavior.Moreover,exit poll interviewsare
conductedimmediatelyafterthe act of voting, when the salienceof elementsof
the voter'sdecisionalcalculus such as candidatequalitiesand policy concerns
are highest.13
The VNS poll resultsaresupplementedby the 1992AmericanNationalElection Study(NES) conductedby the Universityof Michigan'sCenterfor Political
Studies,the 1993 Times Mirrorsurvey, and datafrom LuntzResearchCompanies. Unless otherwisenoted, the datapresentedin this essay are from VNS.
TALK RADIO AND THE
1994 ELECTIONS
Talk radio is thoughtto have wielded considerablepoliticalclout in the 1994
election, its influencepervadingnational,state, and local politics. Indeed, the
Talkradiolisteners
1994 electionhas been calledthe ""first
talk-radioelection."14
madeup 21 percentof House voters nationally;similarpercentagesheld for all
the individualstatesand in all regions surveyedby VNS. In 1994, talk voters
cast 64 percentof theirvotes for Republicansin Houseracesandsix in ten voted
for RepublicanSenatecandidates.These talk voters differedsignificantlyfrom
nonlisteningvoters, who cast 51 percentof theirballots for DemocraticHouse
and Senatecandidates.(See Appendixat end of article.)
Differencesin the voting behaviorof talk radio listenersand nonlisteners
also turnedup in every individualstatesurveyedby VNS. Listenerswere more
likely, oftensubstantiallyso, to supportthe Republicancandidate.Nonlisteners,
on theotherhand,casta majorityor sizablepluralityof theirvotesfor Democratic
contestsin Calicandidates.Only the Senaterace in Ohioand the gubernatorial
fornia, New York, and Ohio were exceptions.
Thevotingbehaviorof talkradiolistenersin thekey statesof Texas, Pennsylvania, andNew York suggeststhattalklistenerscan be viewed as an emerging,
potentiallypotentvotingbloc andas a politicallymeaningfulanalyticalcategory.
For example,hadtalkradiolistenersin the LoneStarstatesplittheirvotesamong
the two majorpartycandidatesthe same way nonlistenershad, DemocratAnn
Richards,who lost to GeorgeBush, Jr. 46 to 53 percent,wouldhave remained
in the governor'smansion.Nonlisteners(78 percentof the electorate)voted for
II HerbertAsher, Polling and the Public, 2nd ed. (Washington,DC: CongressionalQuarterlyPress,
1992), 101-102.
14
Howard Kurtz quoted in Fund, "The Power of Talk," 54.
462
| POLITICAL
SCIENCE
QUARTERLY
her by a 50 to 48 percentmargin.If talk listenersin Texas had voted in like
manner,Richardswould have won by two percentagepoints. But talk voters
overwhelminglysupportedBush, 69 to 31 percent-a marginsufficientto overcome Bush'sdeficit amongthe rest of Texas voters (See Table 1).
Similarly,DemocratHarrisWofford,who lost to challengerRick Santorum
47 to 49 percent,wouldhavebeenreturnedto the U.S. SenatefromPennsylvania
by nonlisteners,who voted for him by a four point margin.The ballotscast by
theone-fifthof theelectoratewho listenedto talkradio,however,wentdecisively
to Santorum.
The rollercoastergovernor'scontestin the EmpireStateis particularlynotable, since the outcomecould have gone in either directionhad talk listeners
voted as nonlistenershad. Accordingto VNS, the 81 percentof the New York
electoratewho did not listento talkradiohaddividedtheirvotes evenlybetween
incumbentDemocratMarioCuomoand RepublicanchallengerGeorgePataki.
But Cuomolost overall, 45 to 49 percentas three-fifthsof talk radio listeners
voted for Pataki.'5
The distinctivenessof talk voters was evident in other key races in large
states. In New Jersey, talk radio listeners cast 57 percentof their votes for
RepublicanGarabed"Chuck"
Haytaian- 19 percentagepointsmorethanfor twotermDemocraticSenatorFrankLautenberg.Lautenbergcarriedthe nonlistener
vote by 53 to 44 percentandwon the race overall, 50 to 47 percent.And in the
Senateracein Virginia,talklistenersalso behaveddifferentlyfromnonlisteners.
RepublicanOliverNorthwas theclearfavoriteoverincumbentDemocratCharles
Robbamongtalklisteners-55 to 36 percentin a three-candidate
race. ButnonlistenersfavoredRobb over Northby a nine point margin-large enoughto keep
Robb in the Senate.
Leadersor spokespersonsof any group that strongly supportsa winning
candidateor partyoften claim (as manytalk show hosts have done) thatit was
theirfollowers'votes thatwere responsiblefor puttingthe candidateor partyin
office. If theirgrouphadvoted differently,they argue, the electionwouldhave
turnedout differently.It is in the political interestof such personsto do so.
Rewardsoughtto come, they say at least implicitly,from such loyalty.
This articledoes not claim thattalk radio, and by extension, the talk vote
determinedthe outcomeof the 1994electionsgenerallyor in anyparticularrace.
Rather,it maintainsthattalk votersappearto be an emergingpoliticalcategory
worthy of empiricalanalyses comparableto the treatmentpolitical scientists
haveaccordedothercategoriesof citizensin the electorate-African Americans,
unionmembers,farmers,southerners,thepoor,senior
Christianfundamentalists,
citizens, andso forth-who have historicallyevidenceddistinctvotingpatterns.
15 The aggregate statewideelection returnsfor these "whatif'
scenarios were drawn from Michael
BaroneandGrantUjifusawith RichardE. Cohen, TheAlmanacof AmericanPolitics 1996 (Washington,
DC: The National Journal, 1995). The statewide percentages of talk voters and non-talk voters are
drawn from the VNS state exit polls.
TALK RADIO AND THE 1994 ELECTION |
a
um
CO
Cr
No
Ij)Co
~
)D co
CM
L O )t C-
Lo
QC
I
C
N
CO C"J
O
C
O
s
0)~~~~~~~
US
Q
CJ
C',
o
CU
C)
.
~ ~cO ~co ~ CV
~ ~~
cwcm0c
L COO
-S
0
|
X0 M
QC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-o
I
co
N
'
v
o
G cu
0
co
c
UCO)(
Co~~~
0
~~~0)0
C,) ~C,
~~~~~~~
F)f-
O
U)LC
cjzr.Q
CU
CU
N~~~CMt-CO
c
CI)
CI'-0
coo
-~~0
o
coO)
0
t3
cts
a)I
0
>-aEZZ o
cJCJ
0)
4.
o
0)
C~ciJ0/
00c)
~~~~CU
~
CO.t
~ ~ ~~
)C.)
463
464
| POLITICAL
SCIENCE
QUARTERLY
Talk votersdo not fit conceptuallyinto traditionalanalyticalcategoriesused to
define other groupsor collectivitiesthathave been of long-standinginterestto
social scientists-race/ethnicity,occupation,region, class, religion,generation,
gender,type of community,or associationalmemberships.The most salientand
theoreticallymeaningfulcharacteristicof talk voters appearsto be the medium
and the type of programmingthey listen to. Whatbinds these folks togetheris
thatthey are "talknetworked."
The 1994 Talk Voter
Who was the 1994 talk voter? Demographically,he was predominantlymale
andwhite. In 1994, therewas a cleardifferencein the listeninghabitsandvoting
behaviorbetweenmen andwomen. Men were morelikely to listento talkradio.
Twenty-threepercentof men in the total samplecheckedoff the talk radiobox
in the 1994 VNS exit poll comparedto 18 percentof all women, thus making
talk voters decidedlymale-56 to 44 percent.
Men were also significantlymore likely thanwomen to vote Republicanin
House races-58 vs. 42 percent.Male talk listenersoverallwere 12 percentage
pointsmore likely to vote for GOPHouse candidatesthanfemaletalk listeners,
thoughsubstantialmajoritiesof bothsupportedRepublicans.Whitemenlisteners
were similarlymore likely to vote Republicanthan white women listenersbut
bothhad even higherlevels of supportfor Republicancongressionalcandidates
thannonlisteners.(See Appendixat end of article.)
The genderdifferencesamongtalk listeners(and, to a lesser extent, among
nonlisteners)are in accord with the literatureon the gendergap-the partisan
divisionof the voting behaviorof men and women-which emergedduringthe
1980 presidentialelection as women appearedto be movingto the Democratic
party.The emphasisof commentatorson womenandtheirDemocraticleanings
obscured,however, a politicallymore profoundmovement-a reverse gender
gap of white men voting increasinglyRepublican.16These gendergaps held in
the 1988 and 1992 presidentialelections and the 1990 midtermelections. In
1994, the partisanrift betweenmen and women was the widest ever since the
electionwhenthe "gendergap"enteredthe politicalvocabulary.'7
Reagan-Carter
The 1994 Republicanelectoralsuccesses have been creditedto the "angry
white male."'8Indeed,over three-fifthsof white males surveyedby VNS voted
16
Louis Bolce, "The Role of Gender in Recent PresidentialElections: Reagan and the Reverse
Gender Gap,"Presidential Studies Quarterly15 (Spring 1985): 372-385; Daniel Wirls, "TheGender
Gap in AmericanElections: LingeringIllusions and Political Realities"in BenjaminGinsbergand Alan
Stone, eds., Do Elections Matter? 2nd ed. (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1991), 117-133.
17 KarlynH. Bowman, "TheGenderFactor"in Everett Carll Ladd, ed., Americaat the Polls: 1994
(Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, 1995), 52-57.
18 SusanEstrich, "TheLast Victim,"New YorkTimesMagazine 18 December 1994, 54-55; Richard
Berke, "DefectionsAmong Men to G.O.P. Helped Insure Rout of Democrats,"New YorkTimes, 11
November 1995.
TALK RADIO AND THE 1994 ELECTION |
465
for RepublicanHouse candidatesin 1994, up from the 52 percentin the 1992
National Election Survey. Nearly three-fifthssupportedRepublicansfor the
Senate. Whitewomen in generalless widely supportedthe GOP in both House
and Senateraces in 1994. (See Appendix.)
majorities
Malewhitetalkvoterswereindeedanti-Democratic.Extraordinary
votedRepublicanfor HouseandSenatecandidates.Yet, whitefemaletalkvoters
wereby no meanspro-Democratic:nearlytwo-thirdsof themalso votedfor GOP
House and Senatecandidates.White male and female supportfor Republicans
among nonlistenerswas substantiallylower. GOP House candidateswon 59
percentof the vote from nonlisteningwhite males; GOPSenatecandidatesgarnered 54 percent. Female nonlistenersdistributedtheir votes equallybetween
Democratsand Republicansfor the House and the Senate.
While there was a gap in voting behaviorbetweenmen and women, there
was a chasm separatingwhites from blacks. Althoughthe proportionof whites
and blacks who listened to talk radio was quite similar-20 and 19 percent,
respectively-their voting behaviorswere quite different.As seen in the Appendix, whites cast 58 percentof their votes for RepublicanHouse candidates
and 55 percentfor GOP Senatecandidates.And white talk radiolistenerswere
thannonlisteners.
even more Republican-voting
Butlisteningto talkradioappearsto havebeenunrelatedto thevotingbehavior
of AfricanAmericans.Blacks, whetherthey listenedto talk radioor not, voted
Democraticby at least 8-to-1 margins.This shouldnot be surprisinggiven the
monolithicblacksupportfor Democratssince 1964,despitethegrowingeconomic
diversityamong blacks, their conservatismon some socioculturalissues, and
appealsof prominentleadersof the GOP to be more inclusionary.19Since talk
radiowas not associatedwiththe partisanvotingbehaviorof AfricanAmericans,
the remainderof this articlereportsdataon whitetalkradiolistenersandnonlistenersunless otherwisespecified.
Differencesin talk radiolisteningpatternsand voting behaviorwere not as
pronouncedamongotherdemographicor socioeconomicgroupingssuchas marital status,religiousaffiliation,education(exceptfor a moderatecurvilinearpatternpeakingamongthosecompletingfouryearsof college), andincome(except
for a moderatedisparitybetweenthe poorestandwealthiestcategories)thanthey
werewithgender.Noneof thesefactors'werenearlyas importantin differentiating
the votingbehaviorof talklistenersfromnon-talklistenersas racein conjunction
with gender.
'9 Michael Combs and Susan Welch, "Blacks, Whites and Attitudes Toward Abortion,"Public
Opinion Quarterly 46 (Winter 1982): 510-520; Richard Seltzer and Robert C. Smith, "Race and
Ideology: A Research Note Measuring Liberalismand Conservatismin Black America,"Phylon 46
(Summer 1985): 98-105; Louis Bolce, GeraldDe Maio, and Douglas Muzzio, "Blacksand the Republican Party: The 20 Percent Solution,"Political Science Quarterly 107 (Spring 1992): 63-79; Louis
Bolce, Gerald De Maio, and Douglas Muzzio, "The 1992 Republican'Tent':No Blacks Walked In,"
Political Science Quarterly 108 (Summer 1993): 255-270.
466
| POLITICAL
SCIENCE
QUARTERLY
TABLE 2
Political Characteristics of the 1994 White Electorate, Talk Radio Listeners and Nonlisteners
% of Total
Electorate
Ideology
Conservative
% with
Attribute Who
Listen to Talk
Radio
% of Talk
Listeners
% of
Nonlisteners
% of Electorate
with Attribute Listening
To Talk Radio
39
29
54
35
11
Liberal
16
16
12
17
2
Moderate
39
16
35
47
(N)
(4550)
a
(943)
(3607)
(4550)
39
31
27
3
26
12
12
14
50
19
29
2
37
34
26
3
10
4
6
Party ID
Republican
Democrat
Independent
Other
(N)
7
(4645)
a
(946)
(3619)
(4645)
41
40
15
(4640)
26
14
23
a
52
27
17
(950)
39
43
14
(3690)
11
6
4
(4640)
1992 Vote
Bush
Clinton
Perot
(N)
a. The base Ns for column 2 are: conservatives, 1775; liberals, 728; independents, 2028; Republicans, 815;
Democrats, 1440; other, 139; Bush voters, 1902; Clinton voters, 1856; Perot voters, 646.
Note: 1. Percentages for columns 1, 3 and 4 may not add to 100% due to rounding, votes for minor party
candidates, and "omits." Columns 2 and 5 do not add to 100% since they are subsets of the response category
from which they are computed.
2. Column 2 should be read, for example, that 29% of conservatives listened to talk radio (and, thus,
71% did not); 26% of Republicans listened to talk radio (and, thus, 74% did not); 26% of Bush voters listened
to talk radio (and, thus, 74% did not).
3. Column 5 is a product of columns 1 and 2. Thus, the 11 % of the electorate who were conservative
talk radio listeners is the product of the 39% of the electorate who called themselves conservatives multiplied
by the 29% of conservatives who listened to talk radio. Likewise, the 10% of the electorate who were Republican
talk radio listeners is the product of the 39% of the electorate who called themselves Republican multiplied by
the 26% who listened to talk radio.
Source: Voter News Service 1994 national House exit poll.
Politics and TalkRadio
What most distinguishedtalk listeners from nonlistenerswas their ideology,
partisanship,andthe way thosein the "politicalmiddle"votedin 1992and 1994.
(See Tables2 and 3.)
ConservativecommentatorWilliamRusher'sobservationthattalkradiohad
becomea "conservativeprecinct"was correct.20The datain Table2 demonstrate
this in several ways. First, self-describedconservativesin the 1994 electorate
were much more likely to have listenedto talk radio than liberals-29 vs. 16
percent(column2). This far greatertendencyof conservativesto tune into talk
radio, when combinedwith the fact that there were many more conservatives
20
Rusher, "TheImportanceof Talk Radio."
TALK RADIO AND THE 1994 ELECTION
| 467
TABLE3
TalkRadio and the "PoliticalMiddle":The 1992 and 1994 House VoteAmong
WhiteTalkListeners(in percent)
1992
TalkListeners
Independents
Moderates
Perot Voters
Nonlisteners
Dem %
Rep %
(N)
Dem %
Rep %
56
58
49
44
42
51
(218)
(154)
(118)
59
57
58
41
43
42
(N)
(183)
(122)
(101)
1994
TalkListeners
Independents
Moderates
Perot Voters
Dem %
Rep %
34
43
28
66
54
73
Nonlisteners
(N)
Dem %
Rep %
(N)
(225)
(303)
(141)
39
52
28
56
46
67
(835)
(1518)
(461)
Note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding, votes for minor party candidates, and "omits."
Source: The 1992 figures are drawn from the Center for Political Studies' National Election Study; the 1994
figures are from the 1994 Voter News Service national election exit poll.
in the total electorate than liberals -39 vs. 16 percent (column 1)- produced an
electorate in which conservative talk radio listeners made up 11 percent of all
1994 House voters while talk radio-listening liberals made up only 2 percent
(column 5). Simply, the profile of the 1994 national House electorate shows
conservatives outnumbering liberals, and substantially more likely to have tuned
into talk radio.
The conservative dominance of the talk radio medium is further illustrated
the
by
ideological profile of the 1994 talk voter: 54 percent of 1994 white voters
who tuned into talk radio were self-described conservatives, while only 12 percent
characterized themselves as liberals -a better than 4 to 1 margin (column 3).
This decidedly conservative bent of the white talk radio audience in 1994
appears to offer little cheer for those who wish to present an effective counterbalance to conservative talk radio. The five to one edge of conservative to liberal
talk listeners in the entire 1994 national electorate (column 5) suggests that liberal
talk hosts such as Mario Cuomo, Jerry Brown, Gary Hart, and Jim Hightower
face an uphill struggle to provide ideological balance to the medium.
More air time for talk radio programs hosted by liberals, it could be argued,
might nonetheless lead more nonliberals as well as liberals to listen to liberal
talk radio - "broadcast it and they will come." This appears problematic for a
number of reasons. The available pool of white liberals in the 1994 white electorate
was too small to provide an effective counterweight to conservative talk. Even
if more progressive radio hosts could have quadrupled listenership among white
liberals from 16 percent in 1994 to 64 percent, the liberal talk audience that
would have been generated would still have not equalled the percentage of conser-
468
| POLITICAL
SCIENCE
QUARTERLY
vative talk listenerswho voted in the 1994 elections (The figures are derived
from columns 1 and 2 in Table 2).
Whywouldconservativesandmoderatestuneintoliberaltalkradio?Because
as the Times-MirrorVocal Minoritysurvey found, most listeners tune in for
information,for "surveillance,"
for listeningto differentviewpoints,for "reconnaissance."Why might they, along with liberals, not stay tuned?The Vocal
Minorityalso foundthatentertainmentwas a majorreasonfor listeningto talk
radio. While hardlya scientificallytested proposition,liberal hosts appearto
have been unsuccessfulin challengingthe dominanceof conservativetalk, at
least in part,because,accordingto commentatorssuchas Hightower,they have
been "dulland stuckup."21
Indeed,conservativetalk radiomay have increasedits edge over its liberal
counterpartin the year afterthe midtermelections. Hightower,the most widely
listened to liberal talk show host, seems to have fallen victim to insufficient
ratings.His show was droppedby ABC in October1995. In January1995, San
Francisco'sleadingtalk stationreplacedliberaltalk show hosts with conservatives.22
Talk radio was also a Republicanprecinctfor white talk radio listenersin
1994. A majoritycheckedoff Republicanin VNS'spartyidentificationquestion;
a fifth selectedDemocrat,while independentsaccountedfor nearlythree-in-ten
talk voters. A majorityof 1994 white talk voters reportedhavingcast a ballot
for GeorgeBushin 1992; nonlistenersgave a pluralityof theirvotes to Clinton.
A postelectionnationwidesurvey by Luntz Researchprovides additional
evidence of the political relevanceof talk radio. It shows a strongmonotonic
relationshipbetweenthe amountof talk radiolisteningandthe tendencyto vote
Republican.Voters who had no exposureto talk radio evenly split their votes
betweenDemocraticandGOPcandidates.Thosewho listenedfor at leasteleven
hoursweekly supportedRepublicancandidatesby 3-to-1. Citizenswho listened
betweenone and ten hoursa week tendedto have voted more Republican,the
more they listenedto talk radio.23
Theutilityof thetalk/nontalkdichotomyas ananalyticalcategoryis illustrated
by how differentlywhitevoters, particularlywhitetalkvoters, in the "middle"
self-describedmoderates,independents,and those who had voted for Perot in
1992-cast theirballotsin 1994 comparedto two years earlier. Generally,talk
radio listenersevidencedthe most pronouncedshift towardRepublicans.(See
Table 3.)
Whitemoderatetalklistenersin 1994lopsidedlysupportedRepublicanHouse
candidates,whereasnonlisteningmoderatespreferredDemocraticcandidates.
21 Quotedin Fund, "ThePower of Talk,"58; see also, Fund, 56 and Weiner, "Lookingto the Left's
Limbaugh"for other examples of calls for liberal alternatives;see Kohut et al., The Vocal Minority,
11, on the entertainmentvalue of talk radio.
22 Edmund Andres, "ABC Pulls Plug on a Populist's Radio Show," New YorkTimes, 9 October
1995; "Choppingat the Competition,"MEDIAWATCH,November 1995, 6.
23 Luntz Research, personal communication,25 May 1995.
TALK RADIO AND THE 1994 ELECTION |
469
In 1992, thingswere different.Then, therewas no variationbetweentalkvoters
and nonlisteners;both supportedDemocraticHousecandidateswith three-fifths
of their votes.
Even more strikingwas the surge in votes for Republicansamong white
independents,especiallyamongthosewho listenedto talkradio.Supportfor GOP
Housecandidatesfromindependenttalkradiolistenersswelledby 22 percentage
points from 1992 to 1994. Nonlistenersalso shifted from the Democraticto
the Republicancolumnbetween 1992 and 1994; they gave RepublicanHouse
candidates56 percentof theirvotes in 1994, up 15 pointsfromtwo yearsearlier.
The voting behaviorof listeningvs. nonlisteningpolitical independentsgrew
moredistinctover the two elections;only threepercentagepointsseparatedtheir
supportfor GOPHousecandidatesin 1992;by 1994 the gap hadwidenedto ten
points. Similarly, the gap that divided talk radio listening from nonlistening
moderatesalso widened.It was one percentagepointin 1992; it was eightpoints
in 1994.
Perot voters, a closely scrutinizedgroup whose supporthad been courted
by bothpartiesin 1992and1994(andwooedby virtuallyallpresidentialaspirants
for 1996)departedfromtheir 1992votingpatternandstronglysupportedRepublicancongressionalcandidatesin 1994. The largerincreasein Republicanvoting
came fromPerotvoterswho did not listento talkradio-25 pointsvs. 22 points
for listeners. But talk listeners who voted for Perot in 1992 supported1994
RepublicanHousecandidatesin greaternumbersthantheirnonlisteningcounterparts-73 vs. 67 percent.
In contrastto self-classifiedmoderatesand independents,Perotvoters, both
listenersandnonlisteners,were morealikein theirvotingbehaviorin 1994 than
and
they were two years earlier. One explanationis thatthe labels "moderate"
"independent"
arevague, meaningdifferentthingsto differentpeople. Bothcategories include individualswith disparateand often contradictoryviews. Perot
voters are, by definition,more concretelydefinedas a group, havingvoted for
a candidatewho articulateda specificpolicy agenda,manyitems of whichwere
coopted in 1994 by the GOP in their "ContractWith America"(for example,
term limits, a balancedbudgetamendment,and reformof House rules).
The Democraticrout in 1994 can be attributed,in part, to their failureto
retain moderates,independents,and Perot voters-three skepticaland pivotal
(especiallyin this era of dealignment)overlappingsegmentsof the electorate.24
Talk VoterIssues
VNS's 1994 exit poll asked respondents,"whichone or two of these [issues]
matteredmost in yourvote for Congress?"The nine issueswere: foreignpolicy,
healthcare,the federalbudgetdeficit,Clinton'sperformanceas president,crime,
24 Drummond Ayers, Jr., "RepublicationProgress Fails to Impress Perot's Faithful,"New York
Times, 9 April 1995.
470
| POLITICAL
SCIENCE
QUARTERLY
TABLE4
VotingIssues for U.S. House: WhiteTalkRadio Listenersand Nonlisteners(in percent)
Nonlisteners
TalkListeners
AI %
Taxes
Crime
Clinton'sperformance
Health
Economy/Jobs
Federal budget deficit
Time for a change
Candidate's experience
Foreign policy
No issue selected
28
25
22
21
20
19
16
10
5
6
N = 959
Rep %
Dem %
All %
Rep %
Dem %
34
25
29
14
16
20
21
7
4
4
622
15
27
9
35
26
19
6
19
8
9
267
5
12
11
28
3
13
8
7
4
9
3775
7
13
16
20
2
16
9
6
4
7
1837
4
9
7
38
4
11
5
9
5
8
1493
Note: Percentages add to more than 100% because multipleresponses were accepted. The question asked:
"Which1 or 2 of these mattered most in your vote for Congress?"
Source: Voter News Service 1994 national House exit poll.
time for a change, candidate'sexperience, taxes, and the economy/jobs.Talk
voters and nonlistenersdifferedsubstantiallyon the incidenceof issue voting,
the frequencyandtypes of issues mentioned,andthe salienceof PresidentClinton'sjob performancein their vote decisions.
Whitetalk listenerswere one-thirdless likely to cast an issueless vote than
nonlistenersand substantiallymore likely to mentionissues as reasonfor their
vote (1.7 issues cited comparedto .91). They were also twice as likely to say
thatClinton'sjob performancefactoredintotheirvote decision.Whiletherewas
no significantdifferencein the mean frequenciesof issues mentionedby white
talkvoterswho voted for eitherRepublicanor Democraticcongressionalcandidates,thosewho voted for Democratswere morethantwice as likely not to have
foundany of the issues includedin VNS's exit poll as a factorin the vote.
Healthcare was by far the most importantissue cited by nonlisteners.(See
Table4.) Talklistenerswere also concernedabouthealthcare;buttaxes, crime,
the stateof the economy/jobs,as well as the Clintonpresidencywere important
too.
There were significantdifferencesin the salience of the types of the issues
that "matteredmost"to white talk voters dependingon whetherthey supported
Republicansor Democratsfor the House (with the exceptionof crime and the
deficit).Voterswho wentDemocraticweretwo-and-ahalftimesmoreconcerned
with healthcare and the experienceof theircongressionalcandidate,10 points
moreinclinedto cite theeconomyandjobs, andtwice as likelyto castan issueless
vote. To white talk voters who cast ballots for RepublicanHouse candidates,
taxes, Clinton'sjob performance,and the need for changeloomedlarge. These
mattersbarelyconcernedtheir Democraticcounterparts.
TALK RADIO AND THE 1994 ELECTION |
471
TABLE5
Evaluationsof Clinton,Congress, and Directionof Country:WhiteTalkRadio
Listenersand Nonlisteners(in percent)
ClintonApproval
Approve
Disapprove
(N)
Congress Approval
Approve
Disapprove
(N)
Vote Reason
Support Clinton
Oppose Clinton
Clinton not factor
(N)
Directionof Country
Right direction
Wrong track
(N)
TotalSample
TalkListeners
Nonlisteners
41
54
(4734)
24
73
(959)
45
49
(3775)
15
85
(4734)
9
88
(949)
16
78
(3775)
14
29
53
(4734)
10
46
41
(959)
16
24
56
(3775)
37
57
(4734)
27
69
(959)
40
54
(3735)
Note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding and "omits."
Source: Voter News Services 1994 national House exit poll.
The ClintonFactor
Bill Clinton'srace for the presidencyin 1992 to some commentatorswas the
by heavyemphasison
campaign,characterized
quintessentialcandidate-centered
and masteryof moderncommunicationstechnology.This "newstyle"of campaigning,akinto FranklinRoosevelt'suse of the new radiomediumof his era,
aimsto reachthe multitudeof potentialvoterson a personallevel thatis difficult
to reachby traditionalmediaandconventionalmeans.25In 1992, whitetalkradio
listenersfavoredClintonover George Bush 42 to 37 percent(and Democratic
Housecandidatesover Republicans55 to 45 percent),accordingto the National
ElectionStudy.Nonlistenersalso supportedClintonover Bush, 43 to 38 percent
(and DemocraticHouse candidates48 to 41 percent).
Two years later, the white electorate(both talk listenersand nonlisteners)
disapprovedof Clinton'sjob performance54 to 41 percent.Whitetalk listeners
disapprovedClinton'spresidentialperformanceby a threeto one margin,while
nonlistenerswere marginallynegativein theirassessmentof Clinton'shandling
of the presidency.(See Table 5.)
25 RobertAgranoff,"TheNew Style of Campaigning:The Decline of Partyandthe Rise of CandidateCenteredTechnology"in Jeff Fishel, ed., Parties and Elections in an Anti-PartyAge (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1978), 230-240; Stanley Milkis, "The New Deal, Party Politics, and the
AdministrativeState"in Peter W. Scrammand BradfordP. Wilson, eds., AmericanPolitical Parties
and ConstitutionalPolitics (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1993), 160.
472
| POLITICAL
SCIENCE
QUARTERLY
TABLE 6
House Voteby Evaluationsof Clinton,Congress, and Directionof Country:
WhiteTalkRadio Listenersand Nonlisteners(in percent)
ClintonApproval
Approve
Disapprove
Congress Approval
Approve
Disapprove
Vote Reason
Support Clinton
Oppose Clinton
Clinton not factor
Directionof Country
Right direction
Wrong track
Dem
Rep
(228)
(654)
74
17
23
81
(1530)
(1710)
38
74
(92)
(790)
68
39
30
59
(604)
(2633)
93
5
43
6
95
57
(91)
(419)
(357)
93
5
50
7
95
50
(604)
(872)
(1830)
58
16
42
82
(250)
(622)
62
30
36
68
(1401)
(1866)
Dem
Rep
(1758)
(2364)
85
10
15
88
31
62
(696)
(3423)
62
24
92
5
49
8
95
51
(630)
(1300)
(2205)
61
27
37
71
(1651)
(2428)
Dem
Rep
76
15
22
83
67
36
Nonlisteners
TalkListeners
TotalSample
Note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding and "omits."
Source: Voter News Services 1994 national House exit poll.
A negativeassessmentof Clinton'shandlingof the presidencywas related
to voting for GOPHouse candidates.This was especiallythe case amongwhite
talk voters. Half of all whites who voted for RepublicanHouse candidatessaid
that their vote was cast to express oppositionto the president.(VNS question
read:"Wasone of the reasonsfor yourvote for U.S. Housetoday: 1. to express
supportfor Bill Clinton;2. to expressoppositionto Bill Clinton;3. Bill Clinton
wasn'ta factorin yourvote.")Voters'use of theirballotsto sendan anti-Clinton
messageincreasedto 64 percentamongwhitetalk listenerswho voted Republican, while 45 percentof their nonlisteningcounterpartscast oppositionalballots. Looked at anotherway, white talk voters who disapprovedof Clinton
supportedRepublicanHouse candidateswith nearlynine of ten of their votes.
(See Table 6.)
The Clintonfactoris furtherseen in voters'responsesto VNS'sitem, "which
one or two issues matteredmost"in theirvote. Thosewhitevoters(talklisteners
and nonlisteners)who cited localistic factors, such as the "experience"of the
congressionalcandidate,chose Democrats,56 to 44 percent. But whites who
as amongthe top one or two reasonsfor their
cited "Clinton's
job performance"
vote decisionwent for Republicans,75 to 25 percent.Amongwhitevoters who
listenedto talk radiowho citedthe president'sjob performanceas a key element
in their vote, nearlynine of ten (88 to 12 percent)went for RepublicanHouse
candidates.(The dataabove are derivedfrom the indicatorspresentedin Table
4.) These data lend supportto a view that has lost favor in recentyears-that
nationalfactors,includingthepopularityof theincumbentpresident,theadministration'sperformance,andthe stateof the economycan be at least as important
TALK RADIO AND THE 1994 ELECTION |
473
as localfactors(suchas thequalitiesof thecongressionalcandidates,incumbency,
and so forth)in decidingoff-year elections.26
Overall,the emergenceof Clintonas an issue in the 1994 electionsappears
to havehurtDemocraticHousecandidates.Listeningto talkradiowas relatedto
heightenedconcernwith Clintonandthis, in turn,was coupledwith significantly
higherlevels of supportfor RepublicanHouse candidates.
A GrievanceNetwork?
Talk radiohas been criticizedas "cateringto and built up by people who used
to sit on bar stools and complainto each other"-a higher tech, albeit more
is unfair,the frustraimpersonalgrievanceforum.27While this characterization
tions voiced over the airwavesdid turnup in talkvoters'evaluationsof governmentalinstitutions,politicalleaders,thedirectionof thenation,andin thereasons
these citizens cited why they voted the way they did.
andideology,weremorenegaWhitetalkvoters,irrespectiveof partisanship
tive/oppositionalthannonlisteningvotersas seen in Table5. Talkvotersdid not
particularlylike how Congresswas handlingits job, they were not happywith
Clinton'sjob performance,nor did they like the directionthatthe presidentand
Congresswere takingthe country.Overwhelmingmajoritiesof bothtalkvoters
andnontalkvotersdisapprovedof Congress.Approvalof Congressamongwhite
talk radiolistenerswas in single digits. Also, nearlyfive times as many white
talk listeners-46 to 10 percent-voted in House elections to oppose President
Clintonthanto supporthim. Moreover,largemajoritiesof bothtalkandnontalk
voters felt that the countrywas "seriouslyoff on the wrong track"ratherthan
"generallymoving in the right direction,"with talk listenersmore likely than
those who didn'ttune in to expressthis view (69 vs. 54 percent).Finally, talk
listenerswere twice as likely as nonlistenersto have cited "timefor a change"
as an issue thathad figuredprominentlyin theirvoting calculus. (See Table4.)
OtherVNS data (not presentedhere) demonstrateconservativeswere far
more pessimisticthanmoderatesand liberals;conservativetalk radiolisteners
were the mostpessimisticof all politicalgroupings.Republicanandindependent
talk voters were more likely to believe that the countrywas headeddown the
wrong track than their nonlisteningcounterparts.Talk voters who identified
themselvesas Democratsmore widely believed thanRepublicansand independents thatthe countrywas going in the rightdirection,but still one-thirdwere
pessimisticaboutthe futureof the country.
26 CompareEdwardR. Tufte, "Determinants
of the Outcomesof MidtermCongressionalElections,"
AmericanPolitical Science Review 69 (September 1975): 812-826; with Morris Fiorina, "An Era of
Divided Government,"Political Science Quarterly 107 (Fall 1992): 395; and Norman Luttbeg and
Michael M. Gant,AmericanElectoralBehavior, 1952-1992, 2nd ed. (Itasca,IL: F. E. Peacock, 1995),
chap. 5.
27
Timothy Egan quoted in Fund, "The Power of Talk," 55ff.
474
| POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY
Overall,on the four "grievance"indicators,talk voters accountedfor about
twiceas largea proportionof theelectoratewhotookopposition/critical
positions
thanthose who expressedsupportiveviews.
TalkRadio and Retrospective Voting
How didthesecitizens,disgruntledabouttheirgovernment'sperformance,manifest theirdissatisfactionon 8 November1994?They votedagainstthe governing
party and for the opposition.Voters, particularlytalk voters, appearto have
votedretrospectivelyin 1994. Retrospective,or backwardlookingvoting,occurs
when citizensbase theirvote decisionon the past performance(competence)of
the partyin power, that is, rewardingthe incumbentadministrationwhen it is
viewed as managingthe nation'saffairs satisfactorilyand punishingthose in
power when conditionsare perceivedas deteriorating.It is probablythe most
commonform of issue voting.28
Eachof VNS'sitems concerningthe directionthe countrywas heading,attitudeson Congress,andtheClintonfactortapintovariousaspectsof retrospective
judgments.Voter responsesto each of these items demonstratethat the 1994
electioncan be viewed largelyas a whiterepudiationof the nationalDemocratic
party'scompetencein handlingthe affairsof the nation,withdissatisfactionmost
pronounced,again, amongtalk voters.
Citizenswho thoughtthe countrywas on the righttrackpresumablywould
be more likely to vote for Democrats;those who saw the countryheadeddown
the wrong trackwould, if they voted retrospectively,presumablyvote Republican. Bothwhitetalkandnontalkvoterscanbe seento havevotedretrospectively
in 1994 but there were again differences. (See Table 6.) Talk listeners who
evaluatedthe state of the nationpositively gave House Democraticcandidates
58 percentof their votes; nonlistenersholdingthis view were somewhatmore
supportiveof Democrats.The relationshipbetweenbelieving that the country
was headingdown the wrongtrackand voting Republicanwas in the expected
direction,but again it was much more pronouncedamongtalk radiolisteners.
Two-thirdsof such nonlistenerssupportedRepublicanHouse candidates;over
four-fifthsof talk listenerswho thoughtthe countrywas headingin the wrong
directionvotedRepublican.Virtuallythe identicalpatternturnedup in the voting
behaviorof talk and nontalklistenersin Senateraces.
Thatcitizensdissatisfiedwitha Congressdominatedby one partyfor roughly
half a centurywould be inclinedto vote againstcandidatesof thatpartyis not
difficultto understand.Talkvoterswho disapprovedof CongresssupportedRepublicans74 to 24 percent;they were 15 points more likely to supportGOP
candidatesthannonlistenersdissatisfiedwith Congress.The oppositetendency
amongthose who evaluatedCongresspositivelyis also easy to apprehend.Citi28 MorrisP. Fiorina,RetrospectiveVotingin AmericanNationalElections(New Haven:Yale University Press, 1981).
TALK RADIO AND THE 1994 ELECTION |
475
zens who approvedof Congressvoted overwhelminglyfor Democraticcandidates, 67 to 31 percent. Yet four of ten white talk voters who approvedof
Congressvoted Republican.
Talk listeners'use of the vote as a mechanismto registerdiscontentwith
governmentalleadersand institutions,theirgreaterissue focus, and the shift in
congressionalvoting from Democratsin 1992 to Republicansin 1994 among
Perot voters, independents,and moderatessuggeststhat they voted rationally.
Theirvotingbehaviorwas in accordwiththeirbeliefsaboutgovernmentalinstitutions andleaders,andthe correctivesthey thoughtwere neededto remedytheir
grievances(suggestedby theirciting "timefor a change"as the reasonfor their
vote). The relationshipbetweenthe perceptionsand electoralbehaviorof these
VNS respondentsis consistentwith V.0. Key's argumentthat "votersare not
fools.
. . . [T]he
electorate behaves about as rationally and responsibly as we
shouldexpect,giventheclarityof thealternativespresentedto it andthecharacter
of the informationavailableto it."29Talkvoterscanbe saidto havevotedresponsibly whenthey employedtheirvotes to signaloppositionanddissatisfactionand
bring a change in control of Congress- not as "uncontrolledtwo year olds
throwinga tempertantrum,"as ABC's PeterJenningscharged.30
TalkRadio Listeners: Involved or Indifferent?
Theearlystudiesof talkradiolistenersas well as commentaryby somejournalists
have portrayedtalk radiolistenersas socially isolatedand politicallyalienated.
The 1994talkvoterappearsdifferentfromthisportrayal:theyweremoreopinionated, less apt to cast an issueless vote, and more concernedwith publicpolicy
mattersthanwith personalqualitiesof candidates.
These Voter News Service dataare in accordwith the 1992 NES dataand
the 1993 Times Mirrorpoll, which presenta positive pictureof talk voterswith theirgreaterinterestin politicsandhigherpoliticalparticipationrates. The
1992 NationalElectionStudy,for example,foundtalkvotersto be substantially
more likely to watchnews every day, to be "verymuch"interestedin andto pay
a "greatdeal"of attentionto news aboutcampaigns,and to engage in political
discussion. (See Table 7.)
Nonlistenerswere significantlymore likely to express no interestin campaigns, never to watch news programs,to pay no attentionto the presidential
campaign,andnot to discusspoliticswith others.The greaterpoliticalinvolvement of talk radio listeners is furthersuggestedby a December 1995 survey
conductedby the WashingtonPost, the KennedySchool of Government,and
the KaiserFamily Foundation.The study found that regularlistenersto Rush
Limbaugh'sradiotalkshow hadmuchhigherparticipationratesandinformation
29 V.0. Key, Jr., 7he ResponsibleElectorate:Rationalityin Voting,1936-1960 (New York: Vintage
Books, 1968 [1966]), 7.
30 Quotedin Terry Eastland,"TheNew Congress & the Old Media,"Forbes Media Critic2 (Spring
1995): 42.
476
| POLITICAL
SCIENCE
QUARTERLY
TABLE7
PoliticalInvolvement:WhiteTalkRadio Listenersand Nonlisteners,1992 (in percent)
Interest in political campaigns
Very much interested
Not much interested
N
Watched TVnews programs
Every day
Never
N
Number of programs watched about politics on TV
A good many
Just a few/none
N
Attentive to news about presidential campaign
A great deal
Not at all
N
Talked to others about campaign
Yes
No
N
% of TalkUsteners
% of Nonlisteners
59
7
(942)
42
15
(827)
57
7
(1032)
36
17
(917)
43
16
(876)
28
25
(704)
27
10
(954)
13
18
(757)
45
55
(948)
33
67
(826)
Note: Percentages for the first of our variables do not add to 100% because only the polar responses are
shown. The Ns include all response categories for the variable.
Source: 1992 Center for Political Studies National Election Survey.
levels than"mostpoliticallyengagedvoters."Summarizingthe research,thePost
noted:"withvoter registrationtopping80 percent,more thanhalf of dittoheads
[Limbaugh'slisteners]say they are very interestedin politics, comparedto only
a quarterof non-dittoheads."31
If normativetheoristsare correct in maintainingthat democraticsystems
presupposepoliticalinvolvement,"vigilance,"and the "practiceof discussion"
among its citizens, then talk radiovoters arguablymeet this requirement.32
IMPLICATIONS OF TALK RADIO FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Ithasbeenwidelyassumedby talkradiolisteners,callers,andhosts,byjournalists
andcommentators,by the Speakerof the Houseand the presidentof the United
Statesthattalk radiohad an effect on the 1994 electionand thatthis new use of
an old mediumandthedevelopmentof new interactivemediawill haveimportant
politicalconsequencesin the future.
The 1994 Voter News Service nationalelection exit poll data permitthe
analysisof the politicalorientationsand voting behaviorof talk radiolisteners
in the 1994 midtermelections. What emerges from the 1994 nationalHouse,
31 Mario S. Brossard, "AudienceParticipationin Radio Land," WashingtonPost, 29 January1996.
32
See BernardBerelson et al., Voting, chap. 14; and Angus Campbellet al., TheAmericanVoter.
TALK RADIO AND THE 1994 ELECTION
j 477
Senate, and gubernatorialexit poll data from VNS (as well as the 1993 Times
Mirrorandthe 1992 NationalElectionStudydata)is thattalkradiolistenersare
moreconservativeandRepublican,morenegativetowardgovernment,andmore
thannonlisteners.Thedatapainta portraitof anopinionated,reasonparticipatory
ably well educated,and socially integratedsegmentof the electorate.
The VNS data do not permita causal analysisof the impactof talk radio;
thatis, the datacannotmakethe case thattalk radio'seffect on its listenershad
a causalimpacton theirelectoralbehaviorand led, at least in part, to the 1994
Republicancongressionalvictories.Surely,manytalkradiolistenerswouldhave
bothturnedout on electionday andcast theirballotsthe sameway hadthey not
tunedin to talk radio. But there were otherswho voted in 1994 the way they
did becausetalk radioso amplifiedtheirinterestsandconcernsthatthey turned
out to vote where they would not have otherwise.And therewere undoubtedly
still othervoterswho were convertedor persuadedin some way to changetheir
vote becauseof their talk radiolistening.
Journalisticobserversand academicanalystsoffer widely divergentviews
of the effects of talk radio on Americanpolitics and its party system. Some
believethattalkradioandotheralternativemediamayexacerbatecitizendisaffectiontowardgovernment,politicalleaders,andthetwo majorparties,aggravating
electoralinstabilityand societalstrain.Thus, talkradiohosts and listenerspose
a dangerto Americanconstitutionalgovernment-to the point of advocating
insurrection.An Economist headline: "1-800-MOB-RULE"epitomizes this
view.33Othercommentatorssee talkradioandnew communications
technologies
as a plus for democracyby expandingthe country'spoliticalconversationand
discussion,andthe citizen'ssenseof empowerment,consideredby sometheories
the essence of democraticpractice.34
The press talks of "cyberdemocracy,"
"electronictown halls," and computer-TVinteractivevoting.Onefearis thatthesenewmediaformatsareushering
- aninherently
in aneraof "hyperdemocracy"
unstableformof directdemocracy.
Talkradiothuspresentsa "specterof governmentby feverishplebiscite,"a process
thaterodesthe essence of "representative
democracy"by makingit "harderand
"35JamesMadison'swarning
harderforCongressto exerciseconsideredjudgment.
of a phalanxof unbridledpopularpassionsis raisedin Timecover stories and
on the editorialandop-edpages of majorAmericannewspapersand in journals
of opinion.
The classic Americanstatementon the need for representativegovernment
has been Madison's"filtering""
imageryin the FederalistPapers: "torefine and
enlargethe publicviews by passingthemthroughthe mediumof a chosenbody
of citizens"whosewisdom,prudence,andtemperancewouldmitigatethepopular
33 "1-800-MOB-RULE,"Economist, 18 August
1993, 22.
Berelson et al., Voting, chap. 14; BernardHennessy, Public Opinion, 5th ed. (Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole, 1985), chap. 2.
35 Robert Wright, "Hyper-Democracy,"Time, 23 January1995, 15-21; Fineman, "The Power of
Talk," 25; Roberts, "OpenArms," 10.
3
478
| POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY
excesses of democracy.The Framersof the Constitution,fearingimpassioned
majoritiesand their tendencyto destroyand tyrannize,rejectedplebiscitaryor
"pure"or "direct"democracy."Representative
democracy"was a defenseagainst
the "temporaryerrorsand delusions"of the people.36
Madison'schief bulwarkfor the mischiefof faction- the extendedrepublicis now easily breachedin an age of global, instantaneouscommunicationin its
many emergingforms. The advantageof a large countryin 1787, as Madison
arguedin TheFederalist,No. 10 was the checkit placedon faction.Whenpeople
are geographicallydispersed,even if a majorityhas a "commonmotive,"the
distanceamongthemwill makeit hardfor them"todiscovertheirown strength
and to act in unisonwith each other."37
In Madison'sview, the majorityhaving
such coexistentpassionor interest,mustbe rendered,by theirnumberandlocal
situation,unableto concertand carryinto effect schemes of oppression.
Talk radiocan createinstantaneouscommunitiesof coexistentinterestand
passionovercontinentaldistances.Andthefilters- thechosenbodyof representatives- can be clogged with the telephonecalls, faxes, and e-mail messages of
an increasinglyactive citizenryand can be all too willing to act impulsivelyon
behalf of these impassioned,fractioussegmentsof the populace.
Thegrowingprominenceof talkradioandtheemergenceof new communicationsmediaover the last twentyyearsmayhave exacerbatedthe extendedperiod
of dealignmentthathas come to characterizeAmericanelectoralpolitics. Talk
radioallowsvotersto bypassbothpoliticalpartiesandtheestablishednewsmedia
for politicalinformationand voting cues, thus furtherweakeningthe two-party
system and destabilizingthe politicalprocess.
Thosewho considertalkradioto have a salutaryeffect on Americanpolitics
and governmentsee the mediumas a "forumfor discussionand dissent"- the
modern equivalentof the soapbox, committeesof correspondence,the bully
pulpit, the village square,and the town hall.38Talk radio, for otherdefenders,
is a mediatinginstitutionthat gives people a sense of connectionin politics,
"fulfillingsome of the functionsthat traditionalpolitical institutions-parties,
Thisandtheother"newmedia"provide
unions,or civic groupsusedto perform."39
novelwaysforofficialsandconstituentsto engagein two-wayconversations;they
are a modernmeans by which citizens can petitionand instructtheir elected
representatives.TalkradioandTV shows "inasmuchas they improveboth substance and relevanceof informationcan contributeto democracyvia a clearer
pictureof electoralalternatives,"for the level of informationhelps determine
how well the public can controlgovernment.40
Amongothercitedbenefitsof talkradiois thatthemediumdiminishespolitical
and social alienationand increasesself-efflcacyandparticipationby creatinga
7he Federalist Papers, 82, 384.
Ibid., 83.
38 CNN, "LateEdition," 16 April 1995, transcript#81.
39 Robin Toner, "Election Jitters in Limbaughland,"New York Times, 3 November 1994; John
Fund, "The Power of Talk," 52-59.
4 ChristineF. Ridout, "News Coverage and Talk Shows in the 1992 PresidentialCampaign,"PS:
Political Science & Politics 26 (December 1993): 712-715; BenjaminPage and Robert Shapiro, 7he
36
37
TALK RADIO AND THE 1994 ELECTION |
479
sense of connectednesswith like-mindedcitizens andby tapping"newwells of
opinionand reviv[ing]confidencein the politicalprocess."4'Democraticparty
activist Ann Lewis notes the more participatorymode promotedby the new
media: "Theold media acted as gatekeepers,decidingwhat the people should
know. The new media involves the 'democratization'
of political knowledge.
Ordinarypeopleare takingover some of thatpower, andoften in a morehonest
way."42As Madisonput it in his NationalGazetteessays in 1791, when he was
anoppositionleaderin theHouse,accessto multipleinformationoutletsmitigates
the influenceof the dominantopinionmoldersby enabling"everygood citizen
to be a centinel"of the republic.43
The new/alternativemediawith theirdemocratizationof knowledgeforce a
rethinkingof ourconceptionsof directandrepresentative
democracy.Theformer
no
be
may longer adequatelycapturedby ThomasJefferson'sward republics,
Alexis de Tocqueville'sdescriptionof the town meeting,or NormanRockwell's
classic "Freedomof Speech"painting.Nor can representativedemocracyin the
UnitedStatestodaybe equatedwith Madison's"chosenbody of citizens whose
wisdom may discernthe true interestof their country"or JosephSchumpeter's
depictionof the democraticmethodas an "institutional
arrangementfor arriving
at politicaldecisions"in which politicalleaders"acquirethe powerto decideby
means of a competitivestrugglefor the people'svote."" The new interactive
modes of communicationand participation,includingtalk radio, fosterthe continuedevolutionandblendingof whatMartinDiamondcalledthetwo "species"
direct and representativedemocracy-of the "genus"populargovernment,perhapsdrawinginspirationfromthe anti-Federalisttraditionof Americanpolitics,
which has looked favorablyuponprocessesand institutionsthatapproximatean
assemblyof thepeopledirectlygoverningthemselves.45
Tocqueville'scelebration
of the town meetingis an exampleof this sentimentas are the initiative,referendum,and recall of the Populistsand progressivesat the turnof the twentieth
democracy"by the New Left in the 1960s.46
centuryandcalls for "participatory
RationalPublic:Fifty Yearsof Trendsin Americans'PolicyPreferences(Chicago:Universityof Chicago
Press, 1992).
41 Hofstetteret al., "PoliticalTalk Radio,"469; StevenRoberts,"OpenArmsfor OnlineDemocracy."
42 Quotedin Fund, "ThePower of Talk,"55; see also Page and Tannenbaum,"PopulisticDeliberation", 49-52.
4 Lance Banning, Jeffersonand Madison: ThreeConversationsfrom the Founding (Madison, WI:
Madison House, 1995), 203; Richard K, Matthews, If Men Were Angels: James Madison and the
Heartless Empire of Reason (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995), 158, 214-215.
" FederalistPapers, 82; JosephSchumpeter,Capitalism,Socialism, and Democracy, 3rd ed. (New
York: HarperTorchbooks, 1950), 269.
45 Martin Diamond, "Democracyand The Federalist: A Reconsiderationof the Framers'Intent,"
AmericanPolitical Science Review53 (March 1959): 54; HerbertJ. Storing, Whatthe Anti-Federalists
WereFor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 17-18.
" Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, George Lawrence, trans., J. P. Mayer, ed.,
(GardenCity, NY: AnchorBooks, 1969), 68-70; Donald Lutz, Popular Consentand Popular Control
(BatonRogue: LouisianaStateUniversityPress, 1980), chap. 8; JohnF. ManleyandKennethDolbeare,
eds., The Case Against the Constitution:From the Antifederaliststo the Present (Armonk, NY: M.E.
480 | POLITICALSCIENCE QUARTERLY
While talk radio is not direct democracyin the classic sense, or even the
teledemocracyof participatoryvisionaries,it is an expressionof a voxpopulia street-levelpublicopinion- whichmustbe factoredintotheAmericanrepresentative system. Today, representativeinstitutionshave enteredan era in which
theirresponsivenessto thepopularwill canbe monitorednotonlyby professional
governmentwatchers(journalists,social scientists)but also a growingattentive
and suspiciouspublic who need only a radio, telephone,and perhapsaccess to
a computeror fax machineto become informedand communicatetheirviews.
If democraticideology is about"oppositionas it is aboutgovernance,"then
the new communicationstechnologiesandnew uses for oldertechnologiessuch
as talk radio can "providecitizens with alternativeperspectivesand force the
criticalexposureand scrutinyof elites."The effect can be to renderelite control
more tenuousand "undermineexisting constellationsof power."47
Talkradiois one of manyformsof interactivetelecommunications
thathave
begunto comprisewhatLawrenceGrossmanhasdubbedthe"electronicrepublic."
Thesemediaappearto be transformingAmericandemocracyintoa moreparticipatoryregime.
Interactivetelecommunications
technologymakesit possibleto revive, in a sophisticatedmodemform, some of the essentialcharacteristicsof the ancientworld'sfirst
democraticpolities. Insteadof a show of hands, we have electronicpolls. Instead
of a single meetingplace, we have far-flung,interactivetelecommunications
networksthatextendforthousandsof miles. Inplaceof personaldiscussionanddeliberation, we have call-ins, talk shows.... 48
The new styles of political participationcharacterizedhere are evolving.
Many observerssee these interactivemedia eventuallybecomingthe "nation's
dominantmeansof communication."49
Supportersof the participatorypotential
of the electronicrepublic,manyof whom echo fears concerningthe excesses of
democracy,advocatecivic educationto producea moreenlightenedandtemperate
citizenry. Yet the "electronicpublic sphere,"incarnatedin Grossman'sFederal
ElectionsCommissionon Citizenship,or Ross Perot'selectronictown halls, or
JamesFishkin'sNationalIssues Convention,appearsutopian.50
The recent study and commentaryon participatorydemocracycombined
withthe researchreportedhere suggesta moreplausiblescenario:the American
political system will need to accommodatean active and opinionatedcitizenry
whocanbe mobilizedby interactivecommunications
andwhocaninstantaneously
transmittheir views directly (and often in concert) to decision makers. The
Sharpe, 1987); BenjaminR. Barber,StrongDemocracy:ParticipatoryPoliticsfora NewAge (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1984), 274.
4 Eric Schickler, "DemocraticizingTechnology: Hierarchyand Innovationin Public Life," Polity
27 (Winter 1994): 175-199.
48 LawrenceK. Grossman, TheElectronicRepublic:ReshapingDemocracy in the InformationAge
(New York: Viking, 1995), 48.
4 Jost, "TalkDemocracy," 364.
50JamesS. Fishkin, Voiceof the People: Public Opinionand Democracy(New Haven:Yale University Press, 1995).
TALKRADIOAND THE 1994 ELECTION|
481
electoratein the electronicrepublicmightcome to resembletalk radiolisteners
as they have thus appeared-informed,althoughperhapstoo partially;opinionated,butperhapstoo passionately;andpoliticallyactive,butperhapstoo impetuously. But whetherthe talk radio phenomenonfactionalizesor unifies, skews
politics to the left, right, or center, whetherits audiencesare engagedcitizens
or divisive malcontents-talk radiolistenersmay signalthe emergenceof a new
politicaltype.*
Appendix
TalkRadio Listenersand NonlistenersAmong Votersin the 1994 Elections
% of votersfor
House &Senate
candidateswho
listen to
talkradio
TotalSample
Dem% Rep%
TalkListeners
N
Dem% Rep%
N
Nonlisteners
Dem% Rep%
N
21
21
All Voters
House
Senate
48
48
52
49
(4923)
(3602)
36
38
64
59
(1023)
(774)
51
51
49
46
(3900)
(2828)
23
24
Men
House
Senate
42
42
58
55
(2399)
(2058)
29
32
71
66
(558)
(493)
45
46
55
51
(1828)
(1565)
18
18
Women
House
Senate
54
51
46
47
(2524)
(2196)
41
43
59
56
(465)
(390)
56
53
44
45
(2051)
(1806)
21
22
Whites
House
Senate
42
43
58
55
(4221)
(2826)
29
30
71
68
(887)
(612)
45
46
55
52
(3334)
(2214)
23
24
White Men
House
Senate
37
39
63
59
(2075)
(1363)
23
25
77
73
(473)
(331)
41
43
59
54
(1602)
(1032)
19
19
White Women
House
Senate
47
46
53
52
(2121)
(1442)
35
35
65
63
(410)
(277)
50
49
50
49
(1711)
(1165)
Note: Senate percentages may not add to 100% due to votes for minor party candidates, "omits,"or
rounding.
Source: Voter News Service 1994 national exit poll.
* The authors would like to thank Jeffrey Alderman, the director of polling at ABC News, and
Gary Langer, senior polling analyst at ABC, for access to the VNS data and for their insights on the
1994 election, and Luntz Research Companies for providing data from their postelection survey on
talk radio. They also thank Thomas Halper for his comments and suggestions.