Angaben zur wissenschaftlichen Arbeit
Name (Copyrightinhaber):
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
Titel der Arbeit:
American Campaigning Strategies – The
Importance of states, the Choice of the running
mate and Ethnic party preferences
Sprache:
Englisch
Verfasst bei (Professor/in, LV-Leiter/in):
Frank Fischer
Titel des Seminars/Kurses:
Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and
Foreign
Semester:
SS 2012
Universität / Fachhochschule:
Universität Wien
Institut:
Institut für Politikwissenschaft
Erlangte Note:
Gut
Mailadresse für evtl. Rückfragen:
mathias.hoer[at]gmail.com
Der Verfasser / Die Verfasserin stellt diese Arbeit dem Akademischen Forum für
Außenpolitik (AFA) zur Verfügung, um diese auf der Plattform InternationalRelations.at zu veröffentlichen. Das Copyright bleibt dadurch unberührt. Alle
Angaben zur Arbeit (wie etwa Note, Seminar und Universität) wurden vom
AFA auf deren Richtigkeit durch dementsprechende Nachweise geprüft. Die
Arbeit darf unter Hinweis auf den Verfasser / die Verfasserin zitiert werden,
wobei der Link zur Arbeit in jedem Fall anzugeben ist. Das Akademische Forum
für Außenpolitik (AFA) übernimmt keine Verantwortung für den Inhalt der
Arbeit. Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
210086 SE BAK13
SE Contemporary American Politics:
Domestic and Foreign
Frank Fischer
American Campaigning Strategies – The Importance of states, the
Choice of the running mate and Ethnic party preferences
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
10515777
SoSe 2012
[email protected]
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
1
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
Table of Contest
1.
Introducing the subject ….....................................................................................3
2.
The importance of states......................................................................................3-6
2.1.
The home town advantage...................................................................................6-8
2.2.
The incumbent advantage …...............................................................................8-10
3.
The choice of the running mate...........................................................................10
3.1.
Historical background..........................................................................................11
3.2.
How to choose the running mate.........................................................................11-18
4.
Ethnic voting behavior.........................................................................................18-19
4.1.
General voting behavior......................................................................................19-23
4.2.
Ethnic party preferences.....................................................................................23-27
5.
Conclusion..........................................................................................................27-30
6.
Sources...............................................................................................................30-32
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
2
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
1. Introducing the Subject
In this following essay I am going to focus on the issue of American presidential electoral
strategies. This essay is going to concentrate on three main topics:t he importance of
states, the importance of the running mate and how certain social groups tend to vote for
certain parties. In the end I examine my results and try to draw a conclusion out from my
previous work. Therefore, I mostly used both analytical papers and empirical research of
American college professors and American authors.
2. The importance of states
The American president is by far the world’s most powerful political leader, and so the
electoral process of this position is important. I chose this topic because I was always
fascinated by American campaigning and by the fact that the Austrian elections became
more like American ones. Furthermore, the Austrian party leaders use some typical
American techniques to make our elections and our candidates more personal and more
American. Maybe it was the time which I spent in the United States or maybe it was that
special something that I felt when I first heard a speech from Barack Obama.
Nevertheless, I wanted to know more about what I believe to be a new way of
campaigning. Therefore, I thought that it would be quite interesting for myself to go back to
the roots and trying to find out what makes those electoral strategies so influential. After
giving me a first hand view into American campaigning, my American politics class also
gave me this opportunity to have a closer look on common American campaign strategies.
Because votes are the basic election goal treat, it is important for the candidates to visit
certain states more often than others even though some of the states might not appear to
be so powerful. Further, all candidates try to maximize votes, plurality, or proportion of the
vote.
In my opinion, I personally believe that there is a difference between how often candidates
visit states with a large number of electoral votes and those with a small number of votes.
Therefore, I would assume that candidates visit states with a large number more often
than states with a smaller one.
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
3
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
“Electoral competition plays a central role in American state politics. Besides the
importance of competition to studies of policy, participation, and other political phenomena,
it is important on purely normative grounds. Simply put, in the absence of competition,
accountability suffers.” (Holbrook/Van Dunk: 1993, 960)
The presidential candidates aim to maximize their probability of winning the election,
further they often try helping congressional or senatorial candidates as well in state or local
races. “How the election result is affected by campaign visits depends on how voters
respond and the formal electoral rules.” (Strömberg: 2008, 772) As mentioned above, I
personally believe that campaign visits matter when it comes to election day, However, as
Strömberg stated out in his text: with an increase of visits its formal effect continually
decreases.
“Voters are affected by the candidates divergent policy positions, and perhaps candidate
appearance. We will call all these other factors ideological preferences.” (Strömberg: 2008,
772)
In my opinion the interesting factor here is, that at the time when the campaign staff starts
planning the campaign the candidates are not aware of the voter’s ideological preferences.
“This uncertainty arises both because the true preferences of the voters at the time
campaign plans are made are not known, and because of the realization of stochastic
events after plans are made, which shift voter preferences.” (Strömberg: 2008, 772)
Basically, little is known about the important factors such as organizational and strategic
ones, and the allocations in campaigns. “Part of the problem is that, despite the
sophistication of modern campaign technology, uncertainty about the electoral efficacy of
alternative activities and strategies is so pervasive that it is often impossible to specify
what a rational allocation strategy would look like, much less to determine how closely this
ideal is approximated by actual campaign behavior.” (Bartels: 1985, 928)
Generally a certain uncertainty affects all voters in some kind of the same way and creates
national swings. So when campaigning starts, some states tend to be visited more often
then others. Strömberg points out that there are always some factors which can not be
calculated such as the geographic location of the campaign headquarters which might
affect some states massively when its up to visits.
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
4
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
For example, some mid-western states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri have not been
visited that often. “There is, of course, considerable persistence in candidate attention to
states from one election to the next. […] Obviously, candidates would like to visit large
states more frequently.” (Strömberg: 2008, 781)
This would completely underline my statement at the beginning of this paragraph, but
Strömberg mentions a logical explanation as to why this does not always happen. He says
that size is not everything and that there are certain states that are clearly in one
candidate’s column. So as a matter of fact, campaigning would not change the position of
those states. In conclusion, candidates concentrate on close races.
In the presidential campaigning of 2000 Florida was forecasted to be a close run, so it
received the most attention. However, campaign appearances in equation with their
criterion of strategic rationality mathematical models of campaign rationality cannot hold
their assumptions when it is about winning the votes in states. Thus, those appearances
and advertising funds are sort of centralized resources, “controlled directly by a handful of
strategists at the national campaign headquarters. By contrast, state-level campaign funds
and personell are, by their very nature, more widely dispersed throughout the campaign
organization.” (Bartels: 1985, 933)
Resulting, allocations are more or less centralized and so it is important for strategists to
know exactly about the voting behavior of the local population at a state level.
States in which the outcome is considered to be close are called swing states. “The
electoral votes of the state must also be decisive in the Electoral College in the sense that,
ex post facto, moving a state from one candidate`s column to the other`s changes the
national outcome.” (Strömberg: 2008, 786)
Of course, campaign planners do not know whether a state might be a decisive swing
state or not, so candidates must make their plans on the probability of states being
decisive swing states.
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
5
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
I started this paragraph by assuming that smaller states are not so important as big states,
yet all states have at least three electoral votes. As a result, small states have many
electoral votes per capita. In 2000 this meant that Wyoming had 6.1 electoral votes per
million, and California, a state which has more than 30 million inhabitants had only 1.6
electoral votes per million. In other words, small states sometimes get more attention than
larger ones. “The variance in the number of electoral votes from a state is proportional to
these votes squared. Therefore, the effect on the total variance, per electoral vote, is larger
in large states. Further, the variance in a state outcome is higher the closer the expected
result is to a tie. By visiting a state where the leading candidate is ahead, the trailing
candidate moves the expected result closer to a tie, and increases the variance in election
outcome. Similarly, decreasing the number of visits to a state where the lagging candidate
is leading increases the variance.”(Strömberg: 2008, 790-791)
As a matter of fact, candidates should be devoted to states that are likely to be decisive
swing states and candidates should be willing to put more effort into those states and also
more resources should be spent in those. When reported in news, most people may not
passively react to news frames, so visiting states might have more of an impact on people.
2.1. The Home State Advantage
One quite important factor has not been mentioned yet, the so called home state
advantage, which more or less explains the fact that presidential candidates regularly win
their own home state.
“ [...] Every national contest brings forth numerous claims of home state advantages for
presidential candidates. These claims have prompted the suggestion that presidential
candidates are generally from large two-party swing states precisely because the home
state advantage can mean a home state victory.” (Lewis-Beck/Rice: 1983, 548)
Some scholars such as Brogan have even argued that a presidential candidate must come
from such a state. This lies in the fact that the American electoral system is based on a
winner-take-all votes principle.
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
6
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
The consequence would be that the victory in a large state is substantially more important
than in a small one.
At this point it is important to mention that just a small majority of major presidential
candidates have won their home state so far, but this does not that, “contrary to the
popular view, the home state does not favor its native son in a White House race.” (LewisBeck/Rice: 1983, 549) The home state advantage can be explained as a better competing
in the race than former candidates, but still not winning the state. Winning electoral votes
is one thing, the other one might be fundraising, because having a certain resource of
money guarantees the candidate to organize more events and also to invest in more
advertisements. Bearing this in mind, this means that a presidential candidate could
technically rely on an assured add up of money from their home state. “For example, then
Governor Clinton used his connections in Arkansas to raise over $2.5 million in 1992, a
remarkable harvest from a state with a population of only 2.3 million.” (Polsby: 2008, 55)
In other words, the local candidate could tremendously reduce the votes of the opposing
candidate.
Explaining this advantage is quite easy and at the same time quite complex as well.
“It gives us a chance to show ´pride in our own´ by voting for a native son. Such local
loyalty is not wholly unreasonable. We are offered the psychological satisfaction of
identification with a president who is more like our ´friends and neighbors´. Further, we
might hope that as president he would remember ´the folks back home when distributing
federal largess.” (Lewis-Beck/Rice: 1983, 551) The home state advantage reminds the
voters of the fact that the candidate is one of their “group”.
The more complex explanation is pending on two other variables the political party and
incumbency. First of all, “Democratic candidates should receive a larger home state
advantage than Republican candidates, because Democratic turn out at lower rates than
Republican voters. Therefore, Democratic candidates have the opportunity to mobilize
relatively more votes from traditionally nonvoting partisans, who may be especially
responsive to such ´nonissues´as the candidate`s home state.” (Lewis-Beck/Rice: 1983,
554)
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
7
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
Secondly, incumbency plays an important role, because presidential incumbents often are
not only returned but also awarded by a larger number of votes the second time. Some
who were originally home state voters now tend to vote for the incumbent because of his
incumbency status. Finally, “the incumbency advantage appears to be an even more
prominent feature of the U.S. Electoral landscape than previous studies would suggest.
The incumbency advantage existed even further back in U.S. Electoral history than is
indicated by the analyses of the general elections alone. This finding contradicts claims
that
relatively
contemporary
factors
account
for
the
incumbency
advantage.”
(Ansolabehere/Hansen/Hirano/Snyder Jr.: 2007, 665)
In the end of this section about the home state advantage I have to admit that this theory
has not been tested, but empirically the candidate can expect up to four percentage points
more in his home state beyond what he would otherwise expect. This advantage does not
instantly say who is going to win, but it can make the difference between losing or winning
the race. “Among the several explanatory variables that seem important, state population
size stands out. The smaller the home state, the larger the margin of the candidate`s
advantage. But paradoxically, party strategists aiming to maximize the electoral college
vote must often seek this advantage in states where it is thinnest.” (Lewis-Beck/Rice:
1983, 555-556)
When candidates are able to do so, then the chance of winning gets more and more
realistic.
2.2. The Incumbency Advantage
Another advantage has already been mentioned, the incumbency advantage. In the next
couple lines I want to outline some of the main points of this curiosity.
“The conventional wisdom holds that legislative incumbents have uniquely high electoral
advantages for two reasons. The first is that many things that are thought to affect
reelection rates are unique to legislature. The most important of these are redistricting and
seniority.”(Ansolabehere/Snyder jr: 2002, 315)
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
8
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
Incumbency has grown over the last decades and interestingly the party effects have fallen
in importance substantially. The challenger is representing a party, while the incumbent
had time to shape his office and so as a result he is not just representing his party, but also
his own individual interests and activities. As a result, the voters is turning away from the
collective goods and parties, therefore they see the candidate themselves.
“We are in an era of high incumbent vote margins and of strong short-term local factors.
The incumbency advantages in all offices are four times what they were in the 1950s.”
(Ansolabehere/Snyder jr: 2002, 328)
As a result I would say, that this is so, because the incumbent fills his office with a personal
side effect, which means that with primaries the candidates´ characteristics become a
salient component of elections. “Since voters cannot use party labels or large ideological
differences in primary elections, as they do in the general elections, primary election voters
will tend to evaluate candidates´ based upon personal characteristic, such as their
experiences, their advertising, and their fame.
Incumbents will learn to cultivate their personal reputations among their primary
constituents.” (Ansolabehere/Hansen/Hirano/Snyder Jr.: 2007, 666)
Assuming this is true, then the primary election incumbency advantage is to precede with
the growth of the general election incumbency advantage. Some other factors are credited
for the incumbency advantage such as the growth of congressional staff, growth in
subsidies for communication with constituents and television.
“The fact that a large incumbency advantage emerged in primary elections during the first
part of the twentieth century only deepens the puzzle of why such an advantage did not
appear in general elections until the 1960s.” (Ansolabehere/Hansen/Hirano/Snyder Jr.:
2007, 665-666)
In the end, I have to admit that the number of electoral votes and the size of a state do
matter, but it does not have such a huge impact as I imagined in the beginning. What does
matter is the fact that whether it is a close run or not in that particular state. Further, there
are other factors, which do influence the voting behavior and the spending of resources.
For example, the home state advantage forces the other candidate to put more effort into
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
9
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
the home state of his opponent than originally planned by strategists. Additionally, the
incumbent advantage has to be mentioned as well,because this phenomenon grants the
incumbent a more authentic image of himself, correlating with more votes on election day.
However, it is not 100% sure if the incumbency helps, because some analysis
demonstrate “that legislators lose part of their incumbency advantage – and expected vote
share – among […] new voters. […] Incumbents facing new voters don’t simply lose the
stable 6 or 7 percent bonus that incumbency provides – because incumbency is not a
bonus. Rather, incumbency is an anchor that stabilizes the voters of the less partisan.
When redistricting cuts these voters loose from their old representative, their behavior
depends on their underlying partisanship, the saliency of the election, and short-term
political tides.” (Desposato/Petrocik:2003, 28) So far, I thought that the home state
advantage exists, but now I have to reconsider this idea. Reconsidering, I would say that
incumbents may lose some votes, but six to seven percent seem to be quite a lot, because
someone has to bear in mind that it is unlikely for new voters vote for the incumbent, but
the older ones do. I would say, that choosing a new unknown running mate, might
antagonize with the loss of new voters.
The home state, the running mate and incumbency are also important variables, when the
candidate is running for the oval office, and all lead to the process of selecting the running
mate. This might attract new voters which sometimes has the advantage of the home state
as well and helps to shape the image of the presidential candidate.
3. The Choice of the Running Mate
From my perspective, the running mate has a difficult role to fulfill, because the running
mate has to make sure that the party is unified again. After campaigning for more than a
year, the running mate has to be chosen wisely, so that in November the whole party is
reunited by the candidate and the running mate. So, the question I am trying to answer is
whether the running mate has to be the opposite of the presidential candidate himself.
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
10
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
3.1. Historical Background
Before 1940 the vice president has been chosen by party leaders and the concept of the
nominee was not planned to contribute in campaigning. In 1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt
sought a third term, as a result he needed a replacement for his former Vice President and
so after threatening the Democratic convention not to run for a third term, the convention
allowed him his choice of Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace. With only one exception
in 1956, when Adlai Stevenson allowed the delegates to choose his running mate, all
presidential candidate´s lead in the selection of the running mate. “Presidential nominees
seek to select, from a pool of potential running mates they deem at least minimally
qualified to serve, the one who will provide the greatest boost to their chances of being
elected.” (Sigelman/Wahlbeck: 1997, 855)
3.2. How to Choose the Running Mate
The choice of the running mate was supposed to be based on a long term governance
consideration, but in reality it is mostly based on short-term electoral calculations. Balance
the ticket, is considered to be one main electoral calculation, if not the most important one,
because balance dominates discussions of the vice presidential selection. “For example, a
liberal is supposed to opt for a moderate or perhaps even a conservative running mate,
thereby extending an olive branch to other factions of the party and reaching out to the
electorate at large. By the same token, a westerner is expected to choose an easterner, an
´outsider´to settle on an ´insider,´ an elderly nominee to select someone young and
presumably vigorous, and a young nominee to pick someone older and presumably more
experienced.” (Sigelman/Wahlbeck: 1997, 855)
Further, age is also of advantage, because being of a different age than the presidential
nominee constitutes an advantage for the possible running mate. Although, the perfect
candidate does not have to be the opposite of the presidential candidate, it has to depend
on the characteristic of the presidential nominee. The relationship between the nominee
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
11
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
and the presidential candidate is essential, and this collaboration is further based on some
additional elements. “In 1976, Jimmy Crater frequently justified his elaborate vice
presidential search process with the explanation that he was looking for the most able
successor – and a true White House partner.” (Petzold: 2012, 59)
Regional and
Geographical balance has been the main concern of some presidential nominees, such as
Jimmy Carter, who did not want to have a running mate from his region. Others try to find a
suitable candidate from their region, because this would strengthen their home state
advantage while others look for running mates all over the country.
“Demographic balancing is also possible. Perhaps the most dramatic example is the
strategy pursued by Walter Mondale in 1984, when he set out to diversify the ticket in
terms of gender and race or ethnicity by considering such a lengthy parade of minorities
and women that critics derided the process as, among other things. […] Compared to
others under serious consideration for the vice presidential nomination, there is no
guarantee that women or racial/ethnic minorities will find themselves at a competitive
advantage.” (Sigelman/Wahlbeck: 1997, 856) More important than most factors is religion,
in a country that has such a religious diversity. Religion always has to be considered.
When there is a Protestant candidate, it is more likely that his running mate is Catholic,
than also Protestant. All these variables, which I have just mentioned, summed up even
help so called ´outsiders´ to set foot in Washington D.C. especially when the mate is an
insider who is already known in Washington D.C.
Some scholars agree upon the fact that it is not empirically possible to show if a “good”
running mate selection is going to directly help the presidential candidate, but it is definitely
better to choose wisely to avoid another McGovern´s fiasco since a “poor” choice can hurt
the campaign.
“Battles for the presidential nomination often pit one ideological wing of a party against
another. […] For a party to triumph in the fall campaign, factions that were torn asunder
during the spring and summer must be rejoined, and the selection of a running mate
provides an opportunity to do just that. Balancing the ticket ideologically has the potential
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
12
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
to reconcile disaffected elements of the party and to broaden the presidential nominee´s
appeal.” (Sigelman/Wahlbeck: 1997, 856) One negative aspect about choosing a running
mate from a different wing of the party could lead to awkwardness, because in the end
they both have to be on stage and have to represent the same ideals. However choosing
someone from an opposite part of the party can reconcile the nominee’s differences, but it
is more strategic for the victor to consolidate the party control. It is doubtful whether being
from a different wing has its advantages or disadvantages, but “most presidential
nominees realize that voters now care more about a vice presidential candidate´s
competence and loyalty – the ability to succeed to the presidency ably and to carry on the
departed president´s policies faithfully – than they do about having all religious faiths or
party factions represented on the ticket.” (Hiller/Kriner: 2008, 408)
The running mate has to be chosen wisely, because he can also attract the home state
advantage. “In the context of choosing a running mate, this means that it is more blessed
to be from a large state than a small one. A vice presidential nominee who can help
capture the electoral votes of a mega-state may determine the outcome of the election.
Yet, the home state advantage is questionable.” (Sigelman/Wahlbeck: 1997, 857)
According to Rosenstone, who wrote about the home state advantage in 1983, the vice
presidential nominee earns about 2.5% more than it would have been vice versa.
Nevertheless, the key thought here is whether the presidential nominees and their
advisors think such a home state advantage could help them, even though they do not
know if it exists in reality. The running mate home state advantage is broadly discussed by
several authors. Most of them agree upon the fact that it exists, but there are also some
disagreeing that this would be a myth regarding the vice president. “Several other myths
about vice presidential selection persist. For instance, pundits continue to highlight the
potential benefit of choosing a running mate from a crucial swing state. But presidential
nominees rarely choose running mates based on this criterion, and there is no evidence
that running mates have carried their home states in recent decades.” (Petzold: 2012, 82)
Interestingly, strategists often suggest to offer the second spot as a consolation prize to a
defeated rival of the primaries. Other scholars such as Dudley and Rapoport stated that it
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
13
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
is very unlikely that the running mate could carry a whole state. Nevertheless, they further
thought of the idea that the geographically ticket is of relevance, but of more significance is
the size of the state. A candidate could turn a smaller state around easier than a large one,
because the ´friends and neighbors´ effect is more fruitful. “Since 1976, the influence of the
vice presidency and the seriousness of the selection process ratcheted up in a reinforcing
cycle: the more important vice presidents became, the more extensive and reliable the
selection process became, and as the selection process improved, it yielded better vice
presidents. The changes in the vice presidential selection process and criteria represent
an unusual story in American politics: voters and the media forced presidential candidates
to move beyond strategic political concerns and do better for the country.” (Petzold: 2012,
78) However, once the choice of the running made was made, the presidential candidate
should dominate the nation´s politics and therefore, also dominate the media of the
running mate´s home state. Furthermore, the vice president has more opportunities and
more power today than in the beginning. “Likewise, the growth of the vice presidency as
an office of substance, spurred at least in part by changes in the incentives governing
running mate selection, and the close proximity in which recent presidents and vice
presidents have worked suggest that a prospective running mate´s personal compatibility
with the presidential candidate play, alongside his or her governing experience, a greater
role today than it did in the past.” (Hiller/Kriner: 2008, 418-419)
All in all, the vice presidency is an essential add to the presidency itself and can further
help to position the vice president in Washington, if he is an “outsider”.
Moreover he is also the successor to the president and vice presidents playing an
increasingly important role. As history has shown, there have been vice presidents which
ran for the oval office after all such as Al Gore, who was Bill Clinton´s vice president and
then ran for the office in 2000.
“The pluses and minuses of this strategy closely parallel those of ideological balancing,
but another element is added to an already volatile mix – the residue of personal bitterness
from months of high-stakes competition. Indeed, during the modern era, losing out for the
top spot may dim one´s vice presidential prospects.” (Sigelman/Wahlbeck: 1997, 857)
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
14
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
Nevertheless, researchers such as Hiller and Kriner have stated that former primary rivals
do have a certain advantage getting elected as vice president. Since the running mate is
chosen by the presidential candidate, a lot of new factors were added to the selection
process.
In case of what was just stated before about the advantage of former primary rivals, there
are other writers which say that this case is an exception rather than the rule. “In the
primary era, having been a rival of the eventual nominee in the presidential nomination
contest is thought to negatively affect one´s chances to win the vice presidential
nomination. While it is popular to speculate that other primary opponents, especially those
who have run especially well, will be selected as the presidential nominee´s running mate.”
(Baumgartner: 2008, 766)
All the factors, which I have already mentioned above were also mentioned by
Baumgarnter, but she added another interesting variable: media presence. “By the time a
nominee announces his running mate, he has built a political brand that drives his
campaign´s narrative and creates the imperative for his election.” (Petzold: 2012, 81)
Having a greater media presence as running mate means name recognition, which equals
with more possible votes. However, their lives has to be fully outlined since before a
running mate is announced people already investigated his or her life.
“The increased time to pick a running mate and the freedom to choose one who appeals
not to an alienated party faction but to the median voter in November has enabled the
greater use of opinion polls pairing the presidential nominee with various possible running
mate to aid selection.” (Hiller/Kriner: 2008, 418) In the papers I read, were a lot of equal
variables and some were considered to be more relevant while others were called “not
recognized” by other scholars. However, all had one thing in common- that they always
pointed out the fact that empirical sources are missing. They all offered models to predict
and calculate possible running mates, Baumgartner also added a post running mate
announcement paragraph, where she compares the actual candidates with her
predictions. “The model predicts Joe Biden as Obama´s pick with an 83% probability. […]
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
15
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
John McCain, who announced his pick on August 29, was reportedly considering Sen. Joe
Lieberman (CT), Gov. Sarah Palin (AK), Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN), Rom Ridge, and Mitt
Romney. From this list, the model predicts Tom Ridge with a probability of 42.8%.
Following Ridge are Joe Lieberman (30.0%), Tim Pawlenty (17.4%). His eventual choice,
Sarah Palin, was not even included in the original mode, which contained approximately
one-half of all of the names mentioned throughout 2007-08. Regardless, she was
predicted with a 7.2% probability, and Mitt Romney rounds out the list at 1.7%. Thus, the
model correctly predicted one of the two 2008 picks. This lower the overall success rate of
the model from 72.2% (13 of 18) to 70% (14 of 20).” (Baumgartner: 2008, 770)
This shows, that all these variables are important for the outcome of the election, but in the
end the presidential candidate chooses his running mate. However, the variables have
changed over the years, “as the selection process evolved between 1940 and 1976, the
criteria changed. Balance receded – before reshaping – as other factors emerged. Political
scientists Nelson and Milkis reflect the sentiment of numerous scholars of the executive
branch in their matter-of-fact observation that the mid-twentieth century saw surprising
´new public expectations about vice-presidential competence´” (Petzold: 2012, 63) Overall,
all the models selected the most possible candidate in relation to the votes he or she could
aggregate, but in the end – the election of 2008 – we can say, that the running can be a
vote catcher, but it does not have to be. As already mentioned, it is not about how many
votes or states the running mate could win, rather than if he or she can win them.
However, all these variables about the running mate made me think of how predictable the
sectoral process really is.
In the beginning I assumed that the selection was a quite easy decision to make, but in
fact it is not. You can add all these variables which define a running mate, but still it is up to
the presidential candidate to choose his running mate. “Senator John Kerry told ABC´s
This Week, ´I Think John McCain´s judgment is once again put at issue, because he´s
chosen somebody who clearly does not meet the national security threshold, who is not
ready to be president tomorrow.´” (Petzold: 2012, 73) The 2008 presidential election made
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
16
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
it clear that even if you consider all potential running mates and include them in the
equation, Sarah Palin was chosen, who was not the predicted running mate .
Interestingly, all scholars agreed upon the fact that in the end it is up to the presidential
candidate and that nothing has been empirically proven so far. “Today, vice presidential
competence represents a consideration for voters and the media in evaluating presidential
nominees´judgment.” (Petzold: 2012, 66) So, I wonder why the running mate is such a
widely discussed and also influential issue in the electoral process, when nothing has been
proved.
As far as I am able to judge, the running mate definitely has to fulfill certain criteria to make
him or her suitable, but those factors changed over the past decades. In other words, I
would say that when at least some variables fit the running mate, he is a candidate.
“Following an extensive information-gathering process, Bush chose Quayle with almost no
input on criteria or consultation about the decision. The pick surprised many of his closest
aides, who had earlier dismissed Quayle´s chances.” (Petzold: 2012, 67)
Today, the running mate has to demonstrate presidential judgment, preparedness to serve
as president and show the ability to rule the country, because he is the rightful successor
of the president. Moreover, they have to create a political profile including enough policy
and political consistency to create a clear message and to ensure continuity in case
something happens to the president.
“So presidential nominees must decide what kind of president-vice president relationship
they envision, and what kind of compatibility that vision requires. They need to address the
political context of the moment and the circumstances they would face if elected. A running
mate is a statement about the presidential nominee´s identity and a measure of his
judgment. Whomever a presidential nominee picks, he must be prepared to defend his
running mate as both his preferred White House partner and his preferred successor.”
(Petzold: 2012, 83)
In the end, the presidential candidate has a wide range of possible candidates to choose
and this might also be the reason why it is so tremendously difficult to forecast the running
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
17
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
mate, because the presidential candidate can choose between, young or old, insider or
outsider, liberal or conservative, male or female and Black, Hispanic, Asian or other
ethnical running mates.
Choosing the right candidate brings votes, but again strategists have to consider the
possibility whether they can bring votes. Further, the office of the vice president became
more important over the years and now it is considered as a position in which politicians
attract a lot of attention and sometimes even as preparation for even running at one point.
Finally, the running mate helps giving the presidential candidate a profile, shaping his
image and even participating actively in the campaigning process.
Even though it has not been completely proven yet, but presumably, running mates do
attract at least some votes and so this next paragraph is going to deal with the issue of
voting behavior. More specifically, the voting behavior of ethnical groups will be the focus
because I have always been fascinated by voting behavior. Moreover, I think the American
voting behavior is really interesting, because the American population is a very diverse
group and even within those groups there are major differences in consideration of their
wealth and their social position. Generally speaking, dealing with the issue of American
voting behavior is a quite complex issue, because so many various variables have to be
considered.
4.Ethnic Voting Behavior and Preferences
I would assume that there is a typical voting behavior existing in the United States and that
there are certain ethnic groups which tend to prefer the same party, because of the
American two-party system. According to the party system, I would say that the voting
behavior is more predictable in countries where you only have two parties or two
candidates running for the same office.
In this following paragraph, I am going to deal with the issue of ethnical voting behavior of
American ethnics in different social positions.
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
18
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
“In the past decade, there has been a substantial amount of research on the demographic,
economic and social incorporation of immigrants in the United States. In the demographic
arena, researchers have investigated how migrants´ patterns of fertility, health and
mortality, and settlement compare with those of natives.” (Ramakrishnan: 2001, 870)
Electoral turnout theories have emphasized on several sets of factors such as
demographic characteristics and individual resources in response to socioeconomic
issues, participation in social networks and communities, institutional barriers, the
mobilization of political actors and the attitudinal factors. However, most theorists have
paid attention to the incorporation of individuals into communities or other social contexts,
which may encourage political participation.
4.1. General Voting Behavior
Before talking about typical ethnic voting behavior, I want to point out some main voting
behavior points such as the unemployment rate. “The unemployed are less likely to
participate in politics, not only because they tend to have lower incomes, but also because
they do not participate in social networks in the workplace that reward political
participation.” (Ramakrishnan: 2001, 874)
Furthermore, stable networks are necessary. This is a result of a residential stability and
without such a stability are less likely to vote, because they are less likely to be vested in
their social networks. Those networks are sources to foster participation and somehow are
forcing the subjects to actively participate.
Nonetheless, those networks do not have to be native communities, because studies in
the 1990s (DeSipio, 1996) have shown that in areas, where there is a high concentration
of the co-ethnics the political participation increases particularly in metropolitan areas,
because the mobilization costs are lower. At the same time areas with the same ethnic
population, in this case Latinos, can be areas of lower participation. This is because of the
emigrational historical background, such as higher residential poverty, greater proportions
of noncitizens and low English proficiency.
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
19
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
During the 1960s electoral restrictions such as poll taxes and literacy tests were
eliminated, however, there are still institutional barriers existing such as state-level rules on
registration and absentee voting. “Recent studies of electoral turnout have revived
concerns about party competition and political mobilization in general. […] They show that
individuals who live in states where presidential contests are close are more likely to vote
than those living in states where there is a clear favorite. This is due largely to differences
in state-level mobilization by political actors.” (Ramakrishnan: 2001, 875)
Political mobilization is relying on the number of electoral contests in an election, because
when states vote upon their senator and the president at the same time, it is quite logical
that there the voters turnout is higher. Last but not least, the regional aspect is important,
because some states tend to have a low electoral participation. It is not surprising
mobilization is somewhat harder than in states or regions with a significantly historical
participation background. “Indeed, political scientists in the 1970s and 1980s noted a kind
of regional ´political culture´ in the South, a vestige of one-party competition and racial
disenfranchisement that led to lower turnout among Southern blacks and whites.”
(Ramakrishnan: 2001, 875)
Generally speaking, the voting behavior increases with the ability of the English language
and the generation variable, which means that the longer a family lives in the United
States, the more fluent they are in English and the lesser they know their original mother
tongue the more likely they are to vote. “While first generation citizens may have deeper
ties to their co-ethnic communities, such ties may not lead to greater participation in the
United States because first generation ethnic organizations tend to orient themselves more
towards homeland politics than U.S.politics.” (Ramakrishnan: 2001, 878) Consideration
that this might be the reason, because first generation migrants are still connected with
their homeland through some variables such as the lingual barrier.
Those lingual barriers can be overcome by education. Therefore college graduates and
those with graduate degrees do tend to vote more often. This also results in a higher
salary, which leads to more political participation. As I have already mentioned the Latino
community, I would now like to turn to other ethnicities, “for blacks, voting participation
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
20
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
increases in a stepwise manner from the first generation to higher generations. A similar
straight-line pattern can be found among Asian-Americans, although the increase in
participation seems to taper off after the second generation. The tapering off in
participation means that racial gaps in participation persist for Asian-Americans in the third
generation and higher. Even after being in the United States for three or more generations,
Asian-Americans are considerably less likely to vote than their whit, black and Latino
counterparts. Finally, among Latinos, the highest likelihood of participation is among the
first generation citizens who have lived in the United States for 20 years or more. The
likelihood of participation actually decreases for second generation Latinos and remains
low for those in the third generation and higher. So, we see that the generational patterns
in participation vary across racial/ethnic groups – highest participation among long-term
immigrants for Latinos, a straight-line pattern among blacks, a tapering off in participation
for Asian-Americans, and a second generation advantage among whites.” (Ramakrishnan:
2001, 887-888)
The reason whites having a higher participation in their second generation, might be
because the second generation does not face so much societal discrimination and
linguistic barriers. The first generation is merely concentrating on their homeland, whereas
the second does not as much.
Secondly, the third generation and the ones following are less attached to political
institutions than their ancestral generations. “It is important to note that, unlike their white
counterparts, many blacks, Asian-Americans and Latinos in the third generation and higher
confronted significant barriers to social incorporation and political participation until the
1970s. Despite this legacy of disenfranchisement, blacks in the third generation and higher
have been able to reach parity in participation with whites, thanks largely to the mobilizing
effects of the civil rights movement. […] Asian-Americans and Latinos also faced several
institutional barriers to participation until the 1970s, but they did not experience a social
movement on the scale of the civil rights movement. As other scholars have noted, the
absence of such broad-scale movements among third and higher generation AsianAmericans and Latinos may account for the continued racial gap in participation for such
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
21
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
groups. ” (Ramakrishnan: 2001, 889)
In other words, it is essential for a group to fight for their participation rights and as soon as
they got them it influence higher generations, because then they start appreciating the
right to vote more than groups which did not have to fight for them. This can be seen when
it is about the political participation of blacks, because they had to fight a hard war until
they gained something.
However, the political incorporation of immigrants is not equally the same for members of
various racial and ethnic groups. Even though most of the barriers have been removed,
but there are still some invisible ones existing, like a lingual one, which has already been
mentioned. “For example, researcher have typically found that earnings and Englishlanguage ability improve the longer immigrants live in the United States. At the same time,
there are also differences in language acquisition across generations. Foreign-born
individuals frequently do not speak English as well as their native-born children, and
second generation immigrants often retain some understanding of their parents´ mother
tongue. Those in the third generation of higher typically lose all proficiency in the original
migrants´language unless they make some special effort to regain it.” Ramakrishnan:
2001, 875)
Resulting, with a higher generation somehow the ties of origin loosen up and so, it is
easier to participate in a political way especially in consideration of the lingual knowledge,
which reduces political barriers by education. “Given that education is still significantly
related to generational status in the multivariate context, it is possible that controlling for
education will render insignificant the differences in income.” (Ramakrishnan: 2004, 395)
Now I am interested in how different ethnic groups participate and if there are any
differences in the generational factor.
“Blacks are the only group for whom participation increases in a linear manner from the
first generation to higher generations. For whites, we find that voting participation is
highest among second generation respondents. As […] suggested earlier, this second
generation advantage may be due to higher levels of cynicism among those in the third
generation or higher or to a greater sense of relative deprivation among second generation
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
22
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
respondents. […] For Asian-Americans, there is an increase in voting participation after the
first generation, but it tapers off after the second generation. For Latinos, the likelihood of
voting is lower among second and ´3+ generation´ respondents than among long-term
immigrant residents.” (Ramakrishnan: 2001, 894) Interestingly, the duration period of the
immigrants stay in the United States is also influencing the political participation process.
For example, the longer whites and Latinos stay, the more likely it is for the first generation
to participate, but this is not accountable for blacks and Asian-Americans. “So, even
though duration of stay is associated with higher turnout for all racial/ethnic groups in the
bivariate analysis, […] the relationship has a positive slope only for Latinos and whites
when controlling for the various other factors in our full model.” (Ramakrishnan: 2001, 890)
From my point of view, it is really interesting that the outcome of the duration of the stay is
influencing blacks and Asian-Americans less than Latinos and whites. This might be the
case because Latinos and whites do not have so many difficulties with integrating in a
social network.
4.2. Ethnic Party Preferences
This last paragraph of this section is going to focus on the issue of voting preferences of
the different ethnic groups, because now that I have already stated why certain groups are
more likely to vote and what variables have to be considered to be actively involved in the
political participation process, I am interested in what parties certain ethnicities prefer.
Merely, I am going to focus on Asian-Americans and blacks, because in my opinion both
ethnic groups somehow have contrary starting points.
“In order to cast her ballot, a potential voter must engage in a three-step process –
naturalization, registration and turning out – that involves, at each turn, a set of costs.”
(Collet/Lien/Ramakrishnan/Wong: 2001, 625) As a matter of fact Asian-Americans tend to
be more engaged in becoming naturalized way earlier and “the rate of naturalization for
Asians was at least twice as high as that for immigrants from Canada, Mexico, and the
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
23
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
United Kingdom.” (Collet/Lien/Ramakrishnan/Wong: 2001, 625)
Pointing out, Asians are
also more likely to get registered and to show up on election day. Generally speaking, five
variables are very likely to influence the voting participation of Asian-Americans. These are
also countable for all voters and include: socioeconomic factors, demographic factors,
social connectedness/ties, political connectedness and political context. As all these
factors have been mentioned before, it is interesting that the time, which Asian-Americans
need to naturalize, is very little. This might be because of the lack of proximity to their
homelands, or in other words, their immigration was driven by political rather than
economic motives.
“Living in states or metropolitan areas with higher percentages of
Asians does not increase the likelihood of voting among Asian-American citizens except
for those in the third or higher generation.” (Collet/Lien/Ramakrishnan/Wong: 2001, 628)
According to the party preferences and the figures, which were used in the paper of Collet,
Lien, Ramakrishnan and Wong, voting for Democrats and Republicans is quite even, but in
a more narrow view, there are differences within the origin of Asian-Americans.
“For example, respondents of South Asian, Korean, Filipino, and Japanese origins
are
more
likely
than
Chinese
or
the
Vietnamese
to
identify
as
Democrat.”
(Collet/Lien/Ramakrishnan/Wong: 2001, 629) This can be explained by two ways. First of
all there is education, which is essential when it is up to language difficulties. Secondly,
there is the length of residence, which is attributed with the American political system, the
length is also a fact closely connected with the educational path and the knowledge of the
language. “Asians residing in localities with higher numbers of Asian-American candidates
may be expected to participate at greater rates than Asians residing elsewhere.”
(Collet/Lien/Ramakrishnan/Wong: 2001, 629)
All in all, Asian-Americans are considered to be voting as regularly as whites, when they
have been registered. However, it has to be pointed out, that the definition of AsianAmerican includes a wide range of different nationalities, which are not completely a
homogenous group. It is a quite diverse group. “Key independent variables – such as
income, education, length of residence, and gender – may be insignificant, or their
influence may be greatly altered by Asian Americans´ unique combination of relative
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
24
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
affluence, recent immigration, and non-white status.” (Collet/Lien/Ramakrishnan/Wong:
2001, 629)
The second ethnic group which I want to reflect here are blacks, it is hardly surprising that
on election day voters will support candidates with the same skin color the most. Further
there are other variables which are accountable such as religious preferences, military
experience, alma maters, and club memberships.
As interesting as it may be, blacks tend to vote for the same candidate or party when they
are living in familiar communities. “As a political minority, Blacks have traditionally found
themselves supporting the major party that constituted the ´lesser of two evils´; thus, it is
possible that Black support for the Democratic party is merely driven by the current
nonattractiveness of the Republican party.” (Tate: 1998, 50)
However, the voting behavior has changed since Jackson, who ran for the Democratic
Party. Blacks started supporting the Democratic party, the ethnic group of blacks is a quite
unstable one, because they would vote for an alternative pro-Black candidate or for a third
party candidate. In fact despite most thoughts Blacks were originally favoring the
Republican party, “not only did the majority of Blacks not consider themselves to be
Democrats, given their small numbers within the party and disfranchisment in the South,
but the Democratic party did not consider them to be an important component of the New
Deal coalition forged by Roosevelt. Blacks received little in return for their votes.” (Tate:
1998, 51)
Resulting of the new racial liberalism of the Democratic party Blacks started identifying
with the Democratic party at the beginning of the 1960s. So as a matter of fact, an invisible
income line is dividing whites into being more likely a Democrat or a Republican. This is
not the case when dealing with Blacks.
“Although income divides White Americans along party lines in that working-class and poor
Whites are more likely to identify themselves to be Democrats, Blacks at all income levels
are all equally likely to be Democrats. Similarly, Black men and women are equally likely to
identify with the Democratic party. Nor does region appear to make a difference.
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
25
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
Blacks residing in the South as well as outside the South are disproportionately
Democratic in identification.” (Tate: 1998, 63)
Even though, such an income line is not existing, there are certain different lines which do
exist in other ethnic groups. For example, young voters are due to a lack of political
experience less likely to be Democrats and also there is another dividing line including
age, but also gender. “Black men and younger Black Americans are less likely to identify
with the Democratic party than to be political independent or Republicans.” (Tate: 1998,
66)
Generally speaking, Black voters are very loyal voters and differ from the Republican Party
when it is about economy and social welfare to the Democratic Party. This is probably the
reason why Black have become a very loyal voting group for the Democratic Party.
This actually started with President Johnson´s “War on Poverty” legislation, when he was
addressing racial inequalities and discrimination.
“Although unemployment remains for many Blacks a more important issue than
discrimination or crime, nevertheless crime has become more politically salient within the
Black community today. Reflected in Black public opinion, this shift is also evident in the
statements made by national Black leaders. […] In calling Black-on-Black crime the
number one civil rights issue confronting Black America today.” (Tate: 1998, 207)
All in all, I would like to point out that Blacks are more likely to vote for the Democratic
party, due to their policies such as welfare and issue topics, as long as the Republican
party is not offering any other options, such as a Black presidential candidate. A black
presidential candidate, would gain quite a huge number of Black votes, because Blacks
tend to vote for a candidate from their ethnicity. Historically seen, rich Blacks were the first
ones to vote and so they were more likely to vote for the Republican party rather than for
the Democrats. However, this has changed over the last decades, because in the
beginning Blacks were not real Republicans they just preferred Roosevelt, because he
was more sympathetic. Nowadays, most Blacks are supporting the Democratic Party quite
loyally no matter what social class they belong to.
Asian-Americans on the other hand, are not as homogenous as the group of Blacks,
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
26
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
therefore it is more difficult to predict who they would vote for, generally they prefer the
Democrats, but within this huge group of different nationalities there are tremendous
differences. Further, Asian-Americans are more likely to participate in political processes
than other ethnicities such as donations or as helpers during election time.
In general, immigrants do prefer the Democratic party, because it is associated with being
more liberal and fighting for a better welfare state. However, the voting behavior is pending
on some quite essential variables, which do effect whether immigrants are voting or not.
Such variables are demographic characteristics and individual resources in response to
socioeconomic issues, participation in social networks and communities, institutional
barriers, the mobilization of political actors and the attitudinal factors.
Their life has to be stable, otherwise immigrants are less likely to participate in elections.
Also, they have to live in a vital environment, where people are actually participating, more
politically interested. The environment is a major determinant in how people are
participating in the electoral process.
5. Conclusion
As writing this paper I got the impression that there are way more variables, which have to
be considered when planning a presidential campaign. In the beginning, I thought that
these three aspects, the importance of states, the choice of the running mate and ethnic
voting behavior, which I chose, are more than enough. However, in the end I came to the
conclusion that there are way more issues connected with them.
Starting with the importance of states, I never thought that with an increasing of visits the
effect continually decreases since it is a misconception that a high number of visits
ensures more votes. This led me to the point where I realized that smaller states often get
more attention than larger ones, because of the fact that there has to be a minimum
number of electoral votes per state.
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
27
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
By visiting a state where the leading candidate is ahead, the trailing candidate moves the
expected result closer to a tie.
From visiting states, I got the point where the incumbency is relevant, which I did not think
of in the beginning.
Incumbency, has grown over the last decades and interestingly while the challenger is
representing a party, the incumbent had time to shape his office and the result is, he is not
just representing his party, but also his own individual interests and activities. Another
curiosity is the home state advantage, which is also quite closely connected with the
choice of the running mate.
The home state advantage can be explained as a better competing in the race than former
candidates, but still not winning the state. Besides winning electoral votes, fundraising is
an essential resource of campaigning, because money guarantees the candidate to
organize more events and also to invest in more advertisements. Interestingly, Democrats
can rely on a larger home state advantage than Republican candidates, due to the fact
that Democrats turn out at lower rates than Republican voters.
From the home-state-advantage I turned to the choice of the running mate, because the
running mate can somehow rely on almost the same advantages as the presidential
candidate themselves and therefore its selection is closely connected to this issue.
Choosing, the right running mate brings votes, but strategists have to consider if the
running mate bring votes, rather than whether he can bring votes. The choice itself is
definitely a challenge, because strategists often suggest to offer the second spot as a
consolation prize to a defeated rival of the primaries, so that the party is united again on
election day. The choice of the running mate is supposed to be based on a long-term
governance consideration, but in reality it is mostly based on short-term electoral
calculations. Balancing the ticket, is considered to be one main electoral calculation, if not
the most important one, because balance dominates discussions of the vice presidential
selection. Balance is also the reason, why offering the office to a defeated candidate might
easily strengthen the party again.
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
28
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
The running mate is someone completing the presidential candidate, so if the presidential
candidate is quite liberal and young, the running mate should be a bit more conservative
and more experienced for example.
However, choosing a running mate from a different wing of the party could lead to
awkwardness, because in the end they both have to be on stage and have to represent
the same ideals. In the end strategists have to bear a lot of aspects in mind, because the
running mate is the potential successor of the president. Further, the running mate also
attract more people from his home state and his persona does also attract certain
ethnicities.
Even though voting restrictions were eliminated, there are still invisible ones existing, such
as institutional barriers like state-level rules on registration and absentee voting. The voting
behavior increases with the ability of the English language and the generation variable.
Asians are also more likely to get registered and to show up on election day, but even for
them there are five variables which influence the political participation of Asian-Americans:
socioeconomic
factors,
demographic
factors,
social
connectedness/ties,
political
connectedness and political context. Asian Americans are considered to be as voting as
regularly as whites, once they have been registered. Nevertheless, the term AsianAmerican includes a wide range of different nationalities, which are not completely a
homogenous group. Since it is a quite diverse group Asian-Americans are favoring the
Democrats. When we have a closer look on all various ethnicities there are huge
differences in their preferences. On the other hand, Blacks started supporting the
Democratic party, because of the Democratic benefits, such as a good welfare state
system and their more liberal views.
However, they would vote for an alternative pro-
Black candidate or for a third party candidate. Surprisingly, no income line is existing within
the group of Blacks, but there are certain different lines. For example, due to a lack of
political experience young voters are less likely to be Democrats. Gender and age are also
factors.
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
29
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
In the end I came to the conclusion, that campaigning in America, is a really difficult issue,
where strategists have to bear a lot in mind, because of the fact that empirically all these
things have not been completely proved. The campaigning history shows that they are
somehow true and another aspect which makes it even more difficult is the one that in the
end the presidential candidate is making the important decisions for example the final
choice of the running mate.
6. Sources
ANSOLABEHERE, Stephen / SNYDER Jr. , James M. : The Incumbency Advantage in
U.S. Elections: An Analysis of State and Federal Offices, 1942-2000, in “Election Law
Journal, Vo. 1, No. 3 “ (2002) , Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
ANSOLABEHRE, Stephen / HANSEN, John Mark / HIRANO, Shigeo / SNYDER Jr. ,
James M. : The incumbency advantage in U.S. primary elections, in “Electoral Studies 26”
(2007), Elsevier
BARTELS, Larry M. : Resource Allocation In a Presidential Campaign, in “The Journal of
Politics, Vol. 47, No. 3” (Aug., 1985) , Cambridge University Press on behalf of the
Southern Political Science Association
BAUMGARTNER, Jody C.: The Veepstakes: Forecasting Vice Presidential Selection in
2008, in “Political Science Review” (Oct. 2008), East Carolina University
COLLET, Christian / LIEN, Pei-tei / RAMAKIRSHNA, S. Karthick / WONG, Janelle: Asian
Pacific-American Public Opinion and Political Participation, in “Political Science Review”,
(Sep. 2001)
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
30
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
DESPOSATO, Scott W. / PETROCIK, John R.: The Variable Incumbency Advantage: New
Voters, Redistricting, and the Personal Vote, in “American Journal of Political Science, Vol.
47, No. 1” (Jan. 2003), Midwest Political Science Association
DUDLEY, Robert L. / RAPOPORT, Ronald B.: Vice-Presidential Candidates and the
Homes State Advantage: Playing Second Banana at Home, in “American Journal of
Political Science, Vol. 33, No. 2” (May, 1989), Midwest Political Science Association
HILLER, Mark / KRINER, Douglas: Institutional Change and the Dynamics of Vice
Presidential Selection, in “Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3” (Sep., 2008) ,
Center for the Study of the Presidency
HOLBROOK, Thomas M. / VAN DUNK, Emily: Electoral Competition in the American
States, in “The American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 4” (Dec., 1993) , American
Political Science Association
LEWIS-BECK, Michael S. / RICE, Tom W.: Localism in Presidential Elections: The Home
State Advantage, in “American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 27, No. 3” (Aug., 1983) ,
Midwest Political Science Association
PETZOLD, Jake A.: How to Pick a Running Mate: Rethinking the Vice Presidential
Selection Process and Criteria, in “CMC Senior Theses” (2012)
POLSBY, Nelson W.: Presidential elections: strategies and structures of American politics,
(2012) , Laharm, MD: Rowman & Littleflield Publishers
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
31
Mathias Leopold Hörlesberger
1051577
RAMAKIRSHNA, S. Karthick: Second-Generation Immigrants? The “ 2.5 Generation” in
the United States, in “Social Science Quarterly, Vo. 85, No. 2” (Jun. 2004), Southwestern
Science Association
SIGELMAN, Lee / WAHLBECK, Paul J.: The “Veepstakes”: Strategic Choice in
Presidential Running Mate Selection, in “The American Political Science Review, Vol. 91,
No. 4” (Dec., 1997), American Political Science Association
STRÖMBER, David: How the Electoral College Influences Campaigns and Policy: The
Probability of Being Florida, in “The American Economic Review, Vol. 98, No. 3” (Jun.,
2008), American Economic Association
TATE, Katherine: From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American Elections,
(1998), Harvard University Press
SE Contemporary American Politics: Domestic and Foreign
32