How Candidate Attributes Shape Partisans’ Views of Their Candidacy

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

It is often easy to point out significant problems in American democracy. For instance, we are at a moment of exceptionally high negative partisanship and polarization in both federal and state politics, and in 2016, “identity politics” have become part of every day’s headlines. Meanwhile, candidates of color, working-class candidates, and women are underrepresented in American politics, which has clear implications for representation.

Yet, while these issues readily present themselves, we often have difficulty identifying their causes, not to mention potential solutions. This panel includes four papers that search for the electoral roots of these problems. The underlying premise is straightforward: If certain types of candidates are disadvantaged early in the electoral process, they will find a more difficult path to success. If such candidates ultimately win at smaller rates, their absence has implications for legislative politics. For instance, if party elites support ideologically extreme candidates over moderate ones, their recruitment efforts are likely to foster greater polarization in the long term. Similarly, if working-class candidates or women face roadblocks to election, their voices will ultimately not be as loud in legislative chambers.

The four papers on this panel evaluate how various candidate attributes shape the manner in which both mass and elite partisans view them. Two papers explicitly consider how local party chairs—who are crucial to recruitment and support of early candidacies—view prospective candidates. Nick Carnes’ paper examines whether the chairs favor wealthier, more professional candidates—to the detriment of working-class candidates. The Doherty et al. paper leverages a conjoint experiment embedded in a survey of party chairs in an effort to see how candidates’ issue congruence and disposition toward compromise is judged. These authors replicate the experiment on a representative mass sample as well, and so their paper can speak not only to what chairs think their voters want, but also whether they are correct. The Karpowitz et al. paper forges important new ground in considering whether, in focusing on women running for high office, we have missed an important aspect of the question, “are women candidates disadvantaged?” Karpowitz et al. study both the mass public and Republican partisans, finding that Republicans do have an apparent preference for men in entry-level elections, which previous research has overlooked. Finally, the Masket paper speaks to potential remedies and/or exacerbating forces when it comes to judging non-white, non-male candidates, in determining how identify frames shape voters’ evaluations of Democratic candidates.

Thus, these papers leverage unique, mostly experimental designs to answer important questions. One of the things we find most compelling about this panel is that it engages a range of partisans: Elites (chairs), activists, and voters. As such, some of the papers are more focused on the explicit recruiting behavior of the party, while others are engaging questions relating to framing and voter preference. Thus, the panel should attract interest not only from party scholars, but also those who study elections and/or the political behavior of both elites and the voting public.

In short, each of these papers marks an important contribution; together, they make a compelling panel with a broad audience.

Sub Unit

• DIVISION 35: Political Organizations and Parties

Individual Presentations

• Why Do Party Leaders Prefer Professionals? - Nicholas Carnes, Duke University

• Does Polarization Have Local Roots? Evidence from Party Chairs and Voters - David Doherty, Loyola University Chicago; Conor M. Dowling, University of Mississippi; Michael G. Miller, Barnard College

• How Selection Effects and Self-Presentation Strangle Women’s Representation - Christopher F. Karpowitz, Brigham Young University; Quin Monson, Brigham Young University; Jessica Robinson Preece, Brigham Young University; Alejandra Gimenez Aldridge, Stanford University

• Learning from Loss? How Interpretations of the Last Election Affect the Next One - Seth E. Masket, University of Denver

Chair

• Michael G. Miller Barnard College

Discussants

• Katherine Krimmel Barnard College

• Hans J.G. Hassell Florida State University