Partisan Intensification in Campaigns: Proof of Concept?

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of book: Informationsflüsse, Wahlen und Demokratie
Open Access Full access

Informationsflüsse, Wahlen und Demokratie

Festschrift für Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck

Authors:
Series
Studien zur Wahl- und Einstellungsforschung
Volume
35
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright year
2023
ISBN-Print
978-3-7560-0800-1
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-1555-3

Chapter information

Open Access Full access

Partisan Intensification in Campaigns: Proof of Concept?

Authors:
ISBN-Print
978-3-7560-0800-1
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-1555-3
Preview:

Bibliography

  1. References Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  2. Alvarez, R. Michael. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  3. Baker, Andy, and Lucio Renno. 2019. Nonpartisans as False Negatives: The Mismeasurement of Party Identification in Public Opinion Surveys. Journal of Politics 81(3): 906-922. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  4. Bargsted, Matias A., and Orit Kedar. 2009. Coalition-Targeted Duvergerian Voting: How Expectations Affect Voter Choice under Proportional Representation. American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 307–23. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  5. Bartolini, Stefano, and Peter Mair. 1990. Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability: The Stabilisation of European Electorates, 1885-1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  6. Blais, André. 2002. Why is there so Little Strategic Voting in Canadian Plurality Rule Elections? Political Studies 50(3): 445–454. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  7. Breton, Charles, Fred Cutler, Sarah Lachance, and Alex Mierke-Zatwarnicki. 2017. Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote Choice in the 2015 Federal Election. Canadian Journal of Political Science 50(4): 1005-1036. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  8. Brody, Richard A., and Lawrence S. Rothenberg. 1988. The Instability of Partisanship: An Analysis of the 1980 Presidential Election. British Journal of Political Science 18(4): 445-465. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  9. Campbell, James E. 2008. The American Campaign: U.S. Presidential Campaigns and the National Vote. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  10. Campbell, James E, Lynna Cherry, and Kenneth Wink. 1992. The Convention Bump. American Politics Quarterly 20(3): 287-307. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  11. Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  12. Cox, Gary W. 2018. Portfolio-maximizing strategic voting in parliamentary elections, in Erik S. Herron, Robert J. Pekkanen, Matthew S. Shugart, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  13. Duch, Ray, Jeff May, and David A. Armstrong II. 2010. Coalition-directed Voting in Multiparty Democracies. American Political Science Review 104(4): 698-719. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  14. Erikson, Robert S., and Christopher Wlezien. 2012. The Timeline of Presidential Elections: How Campaigns Do (and Do Not) Matter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  15. Hagen, Michael G., and Richard Johnston. 2007. Conventions and campaign dynamics. In Costas Panagopoulos, ed., Rewiring Politics: Presidential Nominating Conventions in the Media Age Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. pp. 29-52. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  16. Henderson, Michael, D. Sunshine Hillygus. 2016. Changing the Clock: The Role of Campaigns in the Timing of Vote Decision. Public Opinion Quarterly 80(3): 761–70. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  17. Huber, Sascha, and Robert Welz. 2022. Dynamics of Coalition Preferences and Vote Choices, in Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger, Sigrid Roßteutscher, Harald Schoen, Bernhard Weßels, and Christof Wolf, eds. 2022. The Changing German Voter. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 183-206. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  18. Iyengar, Shanto, Gaurav Sood, and Yphtach Lelkes. 2012. Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3): 405–431.  Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  19. Jennings, Will, and Christopher Wlezien. 2015. The Timeline of Elections: A Comparative Perspective. American Journal of Political Science 60(1): 219-33. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  20. Johnston, Richard. 2023. Affective Polarization in the Canadian Party System, 1988–2021. Canadian Journal of Political Science. 56(2): 372-95. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  21. Johnston, Richard, and Henry E. Brady. 2002. The Rolling Cross-Section Design. Electoral Studies 21(2): 283-295. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  22. Johnston, Richard, and Sarah Lachance. 2022. The Predictable Campaign: Theory and Evidence. Electoral Studies 75(1): 1-12. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  23. Kaplan, Noah, David K Park, and Andrew Gelman. 2012. Polls and Elections: Understanding Persuasion and Activation in Presidential Campaigns: The Random Walk and Mean Reversion Models. Presidential Studies Quarterly 42(4): 843–866. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  24. Kedar, Orit. 2005. When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections. American Political Science Review 99(2): 185-199. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  25. Lee, Francis. 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  26. Lenz, Gabriel. 2009. Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science 53(4): 821–37. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  27. Lenz, Gabriel. 2012. Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians Policies and Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  28. Le Pennec, Caroline, and Vincent Pons. 2023. How do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multicountry Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 138(2): 637–701. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  29. Matthews, J. Scott. 2017. Issue Priming Revisited: Susceptible Voters and Detectable Effects. British journal of Political Science 49(2): 513-531. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  30. McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2007. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  31. Meffert, Michael F., and Thomas Gschwend. 2010. Strategic coalition voting: Evidence from Austria. Electoral Studies 29(3): 339-49. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  32. Partheymüller, Julia, and Richard Johnston. 2022. Plus ça Change? Stability and Volatility in German Campaigns, in Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger, Sigrid Roßteutscher, Harald Schoen, Bernhard Weßels, and Christof Wolf, eds. 2022. The Changing German Voter. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 282-310. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  33. Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger, and Thorsten Faas. 2006. The Campaign and its Dynamics at the 2005 German Election. German Politics 15(4): 303-419. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  34. Shively, W. Phillips. 1972. Party Identification, Party Choice, and Voting Stability: The Weimar Case. American Political Science Review 66(4): 1203-1225. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  35. Sides, John, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck. 2022. The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  36. Taagepera, Rein, and Bernard Grofman. 1985. Rethinking Duverger's Law: Predicting the Effective Number of Parties in Plurality and PR Systems – Parties Minus Issues Equals One. European Journal of Political Research 13(4): 341-352. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247
  37. Wlezien, Christopher, and Robert S. Erikson. 2002. The Timeline of Presidential Election Campaigns. Journal of Politics 64(4): 969-93. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-247

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF) Download complete (PDF)

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Share via email

Media