WikiSummary, the Social Science Summary Database

Abramowitz and Segal: Beyond Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance

From WikiSummary, the Free Social Science Summary Database

 

Abramowitz and Segal. 1990. Beyond Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance: National Issues in the 1988 Elections. LSQ 15:565-80.

In Brief

The authors test three types of issues--retrospective, prospective, and symbolic--to try to predict the outcomes (separately) in the 1988 presidential, Senate, and House races. The lesson is that "what matters most in politics is not what voters think about the issues but what issues the voters are thinking about."

Puzzle

In 1988, Bush won by a large margin, but Democrats increased their seat share in both the Senate and the House. Why?

Solution

Though people claim that the 1988 presidential race was all about symbolic issues like Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance, it wasn't: It was more of a referendum on Reagan's presidency that turned out in Bush's favor. However, because the presidential campaign involved little discussion of the issues, Bush's coattails were weak--without an ideological agenda, voters had little reason to also support the president's party in Congress.

Data

ANES data from 1988. Three types of independent variable.

Retrospective Issues

  1. Approval of Reagan's presidency
  2. Personal financial situation
  3. National economy

Prospective Issues

  1. Views on abortion
  2. Government aid to blacks
  3. Government spending (on a variety of issues)

Symbolic issues

  1. Liberal-conservative identification (7 points scale). (Criticism: This is a bit weird. They're trying to measure the importance of Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance, and they claim that liberal-conservative identification is adequate. After all, they claim, Bush harped on these issues to try to tag Dukakis as a "liberal." Not sure this is a good measure.)

Findings (Table 4)

Presidential Race

The race was primarily a referendum on Reagan's legacy.

Senate Race

In races where there was a clear ideological difference between the candidates (according to CQ), issues (both retrospective and prospective) mattered slightly. Otherwise, partisanship, incumbency, and coattails explain the vote.

House Race

Issues matter, especially prospective issue positions. Party ID, incumbency, and coattails also matter.