All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Campaign Participants and Interest Group Activists: Not So Strange Bedfellows
Unformatted Document Text:  10 institutional staying power, been smaller in size and had less steady membership (e. g., “Moral Majority”). Furthermore, the institutional differences in relationships between the major parties and social and interest groups carry over to the views of identifiers. Using the ANES Cumulative file from 1980-2004, we find that more than twice as many Democratic identifiers spontaneously associate their party with groups in answering the likes and dislikes about their party (25%) as do Republicans (12%). As a result, our expectations of group spillover should be more applicable to the Democrats than to the Republicans, particularly over the period examined here (1984-1996). Even though Democratic caucus participants comprise a group at the upper level of involvement (only about 10% of eligible voters attend even the most important caucuses), and are far more likely to be involved in general election campaigns (giving us the variation we want here), still one-in-four were not involved in the 1984 general election campaigns at any level for either party. Although, the sample is far more active in groups than is the general electorate, almost a third (31.2%) was not involved in Democratic coalition groups. Given the goals of this paper, this is a very suitable sample. The sample has the advantage, also, of being a multi-wave panel. This provides two very important strengths. First, as Finkel and Muller (1998), Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley (2004), Bartels (2006) and others have pointed out, in disentangling causality, the use of panel data is extremely beneficial. It allows us, by using Wave 1 of the independent variable, together with a cross-lagged measure of the dependent variable, to identify much more easily the effect of the independent on the dependent variable than would otherwise be the case. The other advantage here is that with a panel of twelve

Authors: Rapoport, Ronald. and McCann, James.
first   previous   Page 11 of 36   next   last



background image
10
institutional staying power, been smaller in size and had less steady membership (e. g.,
“Moral Majority”).
Furthermore, the institutional differences in relationships between the major
parties and social and interest groups carry over to the views of identifiers. Using the
ANES Cumulative file from 1980-2004, we find that more than twice as many
Democratic identifiers spontaneously associate their party with groups in answering the
likes and dislikes about their party (25%) as do Republicans (12%). As a result, our
expectations of group spillover should be more applicable to the Democrats than to the
Republicans, particularly over the period examined here (1984-1996).
Even though Democratic caucus participants comprise a group at the upper level
of involvement (only about 10% of eligible voters attend even the most important
caucuses), and are far more likely to be involved in general election campaigns (giving us
the variation we want here), still one-in-four were not involved in the 1984 general
election campaigns at any level for either party. Although, the sample is far more active
in groups than is the general electorate, almost a third (31.2%) was not involved in
Democratic coalition groups. Given the goals of this paper, this is a very suitable sample.
The sample has the advantage, also, of being a multi-wave panel. This provides
two very important strengths. First, as Finkel and Muller (1998), Pattie, Seyd and
Whiteley (2004), Bartels (2006) and others have pointed out, in disentangling causality,
the use of panel data is extremely beneficial. It allows us, by using Wave 1 of the
independent variable, together with a cross-lagged measure of the dependent variable, to
identify much more easily the effect of the independent on the dependent variable than
would otherwise be the case. The other advantage here is that with a panel of twelve


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 11 of 36   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.