2008 Conference Program - Midwest Political Science Association

Thursday, April 3-2:45 pm
21-16 FRAMING POLICY AND PUBLIC OPINION
Room Suite 14-150 on the 14th Floor, Thur at 2:45 pm
Chair Howard Lavine, Stony Brook University
Howard.Lavine@stonybrook.edu
Paper Competitive Frames and Public Opinion: Evidence from the
Same-Sex Marriage Debate
This paper engages recent literature on competitive framing
environments by testing attitudes towards same-sex marriage. I find
support for the argument that respondent attitudes are more likely to
be linked to core values when frames compete.
James Krueger, University of Iowa
james-krueger@uiowa.edu
Paper Attitudes Towards Risk and Policy Frames
Citizens vary in the amount of risk that they are willing to tolerate
(and the amount of risk they are eager to seek). Our project
contributes examines the impact of attitudes towards risk on
susceptibility to policy frames.
Cindy D. Kam, University of California, Davis
cdkam@ucdavis.edu
Elizabeth Nicole Simas, University of California, Davis
ensimas@ucdavis.edu
Paper When Do Frames Work A Laboratory Study of Group Size &
Frames
Using a laboratory experiment, we analyze whether group size
mediates an individual's susceptibility to frames that target groups
by examining turnout in a voting game.
Christy Aroopala, Rice University
aroopala@rice.edu
Rick K. Wilson, Rice University
rkw@rice.edu
Paper Behavioral Expectations When Prospect Theory’s Known
Effects Send Conflicting Signals
Prospect theory offers several behavioral expectations when
individuals make choices. I conduct an experiment in order to
explore behavior when one or more of prospect theory’s effects send
conflicting signals.
Aaron Dusso, George Washington University
aaron444@gwu.edu
Disc. David O. Sears, University of California, Los Angeles
sears@issr.ucla.edu
22-4 RED AND BLUE: PARTY POLARIZATION AND
REALIGNMENT
Room UEH 408 on the 4th Floor, Thur at 2:45 pm
Chair Magdalena E. Wojcieszak, University of Pennsylvania
mwojcieszak@asc.upenn.edu
Paper The Shifting Terrain of the Mountain West
This paper examines the occurrence of shifting partisan trends in the
Mountain West region. It uses issue-based theories of realignment
to explain the changes in partisan trends in the eight states of the
Mountain West region.
Theresa Marchant-Shapiro, Winona State University
marchantshapiro@yahoo.com
Kelly D. Patterson, Brigham Young University
Kelly_Patterson@byu.edu
Paper Race and Realignment: A Southern Story Goes North
The South and non-South underwent starkly congruent realignment
processes in the late 20th century. In each region one monolithically
Democratic group--Southern whites and non-South Catholics--
realigned as the parties took distinct positions on race.
Matthew Atkinson, University of California, Los Angeles
matthewa@ucla.edu
Paper
Paper
Disc.
Reconstructing the Red and Blue Debates from the Bottom Up
Why have vote choice among poor voters in the conservative area
become increasingly diverged from their economic standing In this
paper, I will examine two competing hypotheses---self-selection or
conversion.
Iris Hui, University of California, Berkeley
iris_hui@berkeley.edu
Issue Voting in Red and Blue, and Blue and Gray: Regional
Voting in 2006
This paper examines the differences in issue positions between
Southern and non-Southern voters in the 2006 congressional
election. Then, the paper examines how these differences affected
vote choice in the House races.
Brian K. Arbour, John Jay College, CUNY
barbour@jjay.cuny.edu
Edward M. Burmila, Indiana University, Bloomington
eburmila@indiana.edu
23-3 CAMPAIGN STRATEGY: SHARPENING THEIR
SWORDS
Room Salon 8 on the 3rd Floor, Thur at 2:45 pm
Chair Amber Wichowsky, University of Wisconsin, Madison
wichowsky@wisc.edu
Paper Crafting a Policy Message: How Candidates Discuss Issues
Online
Using content analysis data from over 700 congressional candidate
websites from 2002, 2004, and 2006, we explore the issues
emphasized by candidates and the strategy behind their policy
message.
James N. Druckman, Northwestern University
druckman@northwestern.edu
Martin J. Kifer, University of Minnesota
martinkifer@gmail.com
Michael D. Parkin, Oberlin College
michael.parkin@oberlin.edu
Paper 2008 Presidential Contenders: Where They Stand, What
They’re (Not) Saying, and How They’re Framing the Issues
We analyze the content of 12 top candidates' speeches, websites
and debates to obtain their positions on 30 topical issues, on “nonissues”
(campaign finance reform, regulating corporations, poverty,
for instance), and candidates’ framing of issues.
Suzanne Soule, Center for Civic Education
soule@civiced.org
Jennifer Nairne, Center for Civic Education
nairne@civiced.org
Paper When Candidates Refuse to Take a Stand
An assessment of why candidates for public office frequently refuse
to tell voters where they stand on issues--even when explicitly and
repeatedly requested to do so by Project Vote Smart and elites in
both political parties.
Gerald C. Wright, Indiana University
wright1@indiana.edu
Evan Ringquist, Indiana University
eringqui@indiana.edu
Elizabeth Rigby, University of Houston
erigby@uh.edu
Paper Issues, Candidate Strategy, and Campaign Dialogue
This paper examines how candidates build their electoral strategy of
emphasizing particular issues. For presidential general and primary
elections, it, first, tests how individual candidates pick issues and,
second, if candidates engage in dialogue.
Hannah Goble, University of Wisconsin, Madison
hbgoble@wisc.edu
130