2006 Conference Program - Midwest Political Science Association

19-15 VOTING IN RED AND BLUE STATESRoomChairPaperPaperPaperPaperPaperDisc.TBA, Fri 8:30 amKyle L. Saunders, Colorado State UniversityBehind the Red-Blue Divide: The Causes of GeographicPolarizationDavid A. Hopkins, University of California, BerkeleyOverview: Voting patterns in American elections have becomemore geographically distinctive since the 1970s. This paperanalyzes survey data in order to test the common claim that thisphenomenon has been driven by the increased salience of socialissues.Taxing, Spending, Red States, and Blue States: The PoliticalEconomy of Redistribution in the US Federal SystemDean P. Lacy, The Ohio State UniversityDonald P. Lacy, The Ohio State UniversityOverview: Since 1984, states that receive the most federalspending per tax dollar that their citizens pay have votedincreasingly for Republican presidential candidates. We explainthe reason for this federal fiscal paradox.The Matter with Kansas: Rural Republican Voting inPresidential ElectionsSeth C. McKee, University of North Carolina, CharlotteOverview: Exit polls show a striking increase in Republicanvoting among rural residents in recent presidential elections. Iuse exit poll data and census data to explain the increase inRepublican voting among rural residents in presidentialelections.Is There Really Anything the Matter with Kansas? ANationwide AssessmentShannon C. Nelson, University of Illinois, ChicagoOverview: What's the Matter with Kansas suggests Kansans nolonger vote in their economic interests. Precise economicmeasures are presented to test this thesis and to ascertainwhether this pattern is evident nationwide.What's the Matter with Massachusetts: Why Minority PartyGovernors WinStacey L. Pelika, University of Wisconsin, MadisonHannah B. Goble, University of Wisconsin, MadisonOverview: We investigate a sample of recent gubernatorialraces in which candiates of the state's minority party wereelected. In particular, we examine hypotheses regarding the roleof partisanship in the vote and candidate portrayals inadvertising.Daron R. Shaw, University of Texas, Austin20-2 THE POLITICS OF PRESIDENTIALNOMINATION CAMPAIGNSRoomChairPaperPaperPaperDisc.TBA, Fri 8:30 amKenneth E. Fernandez, University of Nevada, Las VegasThe Winnowing Effect in Presidential NominationCampaignsThomas G. Hansford, University of South CarolinaA. J. Barghothi, University of South CarolinaOverview: We investigate winnowing effect in presidentialnomination campaigns via duration analysis. We empiricallytest our hypotheses using data we have collected for the sevenpost-reform presidential nomination campaigns (1980-2004).Prairie Progressives: The Iowa Democratic PresidentialCaucuses, 1972-2004Laurence Horton, University of EssexOverview: The Iowa caucuses are a media event. Iowa’sprimacy ensures it undue attention. Rather than an opportunityfor lesser known candidates to emerge, the caucuses act as ahandicap, consuming disproportionate resources with littlereturn.Why Do Democrats Keep Nominating Senators (Who Lose)?Christian A. Farrell, University of OklahomaOverview: The structure of party organizations leads todiffering decisions on what kinds of candidates to nominate forpresident. This can be used to explain why Democrats keepnominating unelectable Senators and Republicans nominatemore electable governors.Larry Butler, Rowan University22-11 THE INFLUENCE OF PUBLIC OPINION ONPOLICYMAKINGRoomChairPaperPaperPaperPaperDisc.TBA, Fri 8:30 amPatrick Sellers, Davidson CollegeThe Role of Public Opinion in Presidential DecisionMaking: The Case of Iranian Hostage CrisisCengiz Erisen, SUNY, Stony BrookOverview: This paper analyzes the role of public opinion inparticular crises between Iran and the U.S. The main objectiveis to evaluate whether the public is really influential inpresidential decision-making on foreign issues.Tough Choices: Determinants of Senators' Trade VotesClaire V. Kramer, Franklin & Marshall CollegeAdam P. Brinegar, Duke UniversityJennifer L. Merolla, Claremont Graduate UniversityJohn H. Aldrich, Duke UniversityOverview: In this paper, we test the linkages betweenconstituency opinion, party organization, and key trade votes inthe Senate from 1988 to 1994 using data from the ANES SenateElection Study. We argue that the influence of different levelsof constituencyExploring Changing Preferences for Public Goods in theUnited StatesSean Nicholson-Crotty, University of Missouri, ColumbiaOverview: This paper investigates variation in citizen supportfor government programs from which they can expect no privatebenefit and compares that measure to an existing indicator of"mood" regarding levels of U.S. government activity.When Made to Choose: Do Senators Follow the President orPublic Opinion?Jose D. Villalobos, Texas A&M UniversityOverview: I focus on Republican senators who are crosspressuredbetween public opinion, loyalty to the president, andtheir own interests. Using fractional polynomial time analyses tomeasure behavior change, I find that members choose to followthe public.Patrick Sellers, Davidson College22-17 PARTY POLARIZATION (Co-sponsored withVoting Behavior, see 19-19)RoomChairPaperPaperPaperPaperTBA, Fri 8:30 amBrian F. Schaffner, American UniversityDo You See What I See? Perceptions of Party Differencesand Political ParticipationCraig Goodman, Texas Tech UniversityGregg Murray, SUNY, BrockportOverview: This manuscript explores the voting behavior ofcitizens who do not see differences between the two majorparties in the United States. Our results suggest that those whofail to see differences are less likely to vote.The Left Shift in American Politics: Affect, Information,and PolarizationMichael MacKuen, University of North Carolina, Chapel HillEvan Parker-Stephen, University of North Carolina, ChapelHillOverview: Political affect, rooted in personality traits andinformation channels, shapes people's beliefs about politicalparties. Historical data confirm a powerful system ofasymmetric attribution biases that yield the Left Shift inAmerican politics.Birds of a Political Feather: Assessing Political Segregationin American CountiesMelissa J. Marschall, Rice UniversityWendy M. Rahn, University of MinnesotaOverview: Using an additive measure of segregation, Theil’s H(Fisher et al. 2004; Reardon and Firebaugh 2002), wedecompose political segregation levels in select Americancounties into three components.Polarization and Party Politics: The Changing Face ofAmerican Tolerance?Michael H. Murakami, University of California, BerkeleyOverview: I use survey data collected over the last 30 years toexamine if increasing party polarization among attentive, strong133