tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/political-endorsements-23373/articlesPolitical endorsements – The Conversation2024-02-01T18:09:43Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2224372024-02-01T18:09:43Z2024-02-01T18:09:43ZWhy Taylor Swift is an antihero to the GOP − but Democrats should know all too well that her endorsement won’t mean it’s all over now<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572838/original/file-20240201-29-3iozq0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C0%2C5973%2C3979&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Travis Kelce celebrates with Taylor Swift on Jan. 28, 2024, after the Kansas City Chiefs defeated the Baltimore Ravens in the AFC championship game.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/travis-kelce-of-the-kansas-city-chiefs-celebrates-with-news-photo/1970250651?adppopup=true">Patrick Smith/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A pop <a href="https://people.com/travis-kelce-reveals-when-he-taylor-swift-romance-first-began-8557241">icon falling for one of the NFL’s preeminent superstars</a> may seem like a slice of Americana – a scene from a small-town high school magnified by a factor of 10 million. </p>
<p>But this is America in 2024 so, of course, nothing magical stays that way. </p>
<p>To be clear, public opinion data suggests that most Americans think Taylor Swift is <a href="https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/taylor-swift-the-nfl/">good for the NFL</a>. But with her beau Travis Kelce’s Kansas City Chiefs heading to a fourth Super Bowl in five years, and with Swift herself reportedly preparing for a journey <a href="https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/nfl/taylor-swift-super-bowl-chiefs-tokyo-japan-concert-report/3435863/">across the globe</a> to cheer him on in the big game, the right-wing talk machine has gone into overdrive.</p>
<p>Fox News host <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/10/pentagon-taylor-swift-fox-00134866">Jesse Watters suggested</a> that Swift may be a Pentagon asset used to combat online misinformation. Former GOP presidential candidate <a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/01/29/vivek-ramaswamy-says-super-bowl-could-be-rigged-to-boost-taylor-swift-and-biden/">Vivek Ramaswamy tweeted</a> that he thinks Swift and Kelce are being artificially propped up by the media pending an upcoming Swift endorsement of Joe Biden. OAN referred to the couple as a “<a href="https://www.mediaite.com/media/oan-host-rails-against-americas-love-for-football-in-tirade-over-travis-kelce-and-taylor-swift-psy-op/">Massive Super Bowl Psy-op</a>,” a brainwashing campaign designed to indoctrinate citizens to an elite agenda and away from religion.</p>
<p>The idea that the Swift-Kelce romance is some sort of deep-state plot is perhaps gaining some traction in far-right circles because it lines up with other right-wing conspiracy theories and the right’s broader agenda. </p>
<h2>Swift’s NFL fandom</h2>
<p>Swift has <a href="https://theconversation.com/taylor-swift-person-of-the-year-and-political-influencer-208631">endorsed Democrats</a> in the past, including Joe Biden in 2020. Kelce, while not politically outspoken, was featured in a <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2023/10/02/travis-kelce-promotes-flu-covid-19-shots-pfizer/71033013007/">Pfizer ad</a> touting the COVID-19 vaccine. </p>
<p>Republicans are more likely than Democrats to believe, without evidence, that <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/conspiratorial-thinking-polarization-america-united-kingdom/672726/">a secret group of rulers is controlling the world</a>, as well as <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/gop-voters-vaccines-poll-00117125">that vaccines cause autism</a>. While there isn’t public opinion data yet on the theories from Fox News and the right-wing echo chamber that the Swift-Kelce romance is an elaborate left-wing scheme, it contains elements of similar conspiracies for which partisan splits exist.</p>
<p>And opinions on Swift herself are similarly polarized. The singer is viewed favorably among virtually all groups in America, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/taylor-swift-transcends-americas-political-divides-barely-rcna125908">although Republicans</a> are the only group in which as many members dislike Swift as like her.</p>
<p>Taylor Swift has brought a unique element to NFL fandom. I haven’t seen fans of my hometown Buffalo Bills <a href="https://twitter.com/LavenderKelce/status/1749147389728784475">make signs</a> denigrating a pop star since they thought Jon Bon Jovi wanted to buy the team and <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/bills-to-toronto-concerns-raised-by-documents-is-buffalo-being-played/">move it to Toronto</a> in 2014.</p>
<p>Yet, <a href="https://library.park.edu/scholarsatwork/matthewharris">as a political scientist</a>, I know it’s an open question whether any of this matters politically.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a blue blazer, white shirt and rep tie gestures with open hands." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572840/original/file-20240201-25-7rtsex.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fox News host Jesse Watters has speculated, without evidence, that Swift may be a Pentagon asset.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/host-jesse-watters-as-jesse-watters-primetime-debuts-on-fox-news-photo/1552264944?adppopup=true">Roy Rochlin/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Oprah, Obama and celebrity endorsements</h2>
<p>In the background of these conspiracy theories is the possibility that Taylor Swift could <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/us/politics/biden-trump-election-taylor-swift.html">endorse Joe Biden</a>. The Trump campaign is reportedly thinking about such a possibility, with allies talking behind the scenes about a <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-more-popular-taylor-swift-maga-biden-1234956829/">“holy war”</a> against Swift, brainstorming ways of painting her as a left-wing celebrity advancing an elite Democratic agenda.</p>
<p>But how much would such an endorsement matter? </p>
<p>In political science literature, a hallmark case of the power of celebrity endorsements is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewr031">Oprah Winfrey’s 2008 backing of Barack Obama</a>. Winfrey’s endorsement occurred during a primary in which he was taking on a more well-known opponent, Hillary Clinton. </p>
<p>Winfrey’s endorsement, wrote the authors of a prominent study of the case, led participants in the study “to see Obama as more likely to win the nomination and to say that they would be more likely to vote for him.” In other words, it helped advance public perceptions of Obama’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208321948">viability as a candidate</a>.</p>
<p>A Swift endorsement of Biden would be different. </p>
<p>Swifties are <a href="https://theconversation.com/taylor-swift-person-of-the-year-and-political-influencer-208631">largely suburban and young</a>. Almost <a href="https://pro.morningconsult.com/instant-intel/taylor-swift-fandom-demographic">half are millennials</a>, and over 10% belong to Gen Z. They represent a slice of the youth vote that candidates have attempted to court for decades, and the <a href="https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-bcf4-d17b-a1ff-bef5e8a70000">suburbs are increasingly a battleground</a> in the country’s urban-rural divide. A Swift Instagram post in 2023 helped lead to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/09/22/1201183160/taylor-swift-instagram-voter-registration">35,000 new voter registrations</a> – and her ability to generate funds could also be <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/us/politics/biden-trump-election-taylor-swift.html">invaluable to Biden</a>. </p>
<p>But an Oprah-like effect is less likely for a Swift endorsement of Biden, who is running as an incumbent without a serious primary challenger and his status as the Democratic nominee is certain.</p>
<p>Further, polling demonstrates that the effect of a Swift endorsement could be essentially <a href="https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/18-of-voters-more-likely-to-back-taylor-swift-endorsed-presidential-candidate-poll-shows-2024-election-voting-ballot-biden-trump-white-house-politics-travis-kelce-kansas-city-chiefs">a net wash</a>, with 18% of the public saying they’d be more likely to support a Swift-backed candidate and 17% saying they would be less likely to support Swift’s favored choice. </p>
<p>Even those numbers might be affected by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0">partisan-motivated reasoning</a>, where a person’s party identification colors their perceptions of information. Swift’s prior backing of Democrats and perceived liberalism might cause her supporters and detractors to use polling questions asking about a potential Swift endorsement to express support or disfavor of her, regardless of how her endorsement would actually influence their choice. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a blue blazer, blue tie and white shirt in front of an American flag, holding his right hand in a fist." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572842/original/file-20240201-23-hzjgww.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Swift endorsement, if it comes, could be less important than Donald Trump’s response to that endorsement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-presidential-candidate-and-former-u-s-president-news-photo/1965960388?adppopup=true">David Becker/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Not just a love story</h2>
<p>Essentially, a Swift endorsement might matter at the margins, but there are many, many other factors at play in a general election. That’s especially true in an election between two men who have both served as commander in chief, a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/few-former-presidents-have-run-for-their-old-jobs-or-anything-else-after-leaving-office/">rarity in American politics</a>.</p>
<p>A Swift endorsement, then, is perhaps less important in and of itself than Donald Trump’s response to a Swift endorsement of Biden. </p>
<p>Public opinion polling in the wake of Trump’s Access Hollywood remarks in 2016 showed that majorities of both women and men believed Trump had little or no <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/11/04/trump-respect-for-women/">respect for women</a>. But Trump actually improved his numbers among <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/">women voters in 2020</a>. </p>
<p>A Swift endorsement of Biden could bring out some of Trump’s worst impulses. Perhaps the effect of his response on how voters view him could be more important than her endorsement of Biden.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222437/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt Harris does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The idea that the Swift-Kelce romance is some sort of deep-state plot is perhaps gaining traction in far-right circles because it lines up with the political right’s broader agenda and beliefs.Matt Harris, Associate Professor of Political Science, Park UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1842312022-06-15T12:27:03Z2022-06-15T12:27:03ZTrump-endorsed candidates would generally win even without his support – and that’s usually the case with all political endorsements<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/468548/original/file-20220613-12-6awtrc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=10%2C26%2C3551%2C2355&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ohio GOP Senate candidate J.D. Vance won his primary after Trump endorsed him. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2022Politics/d059c994c426472d8dccde6793fe6db0/photo?Query=(persons.person_featured:(Donald%20AND%20Trump))%20AND%20%20(Trump%20endorsement)%20&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=217&currentItemNo=3">AP Photo/Joe Maiorana</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the past few months, many <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096589956/indiana-ohio-primaries-what-happened-takeaways-vance-trump">journalists and pundits</a> have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/28/trump-may-endorsements-status/">credited</a> the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-endorsement-success-rate-average-performance-vote-percentage-gop-primaries-2022-5">power</a> of Donald Trump’s endorsements with determining the winners of Republican primaries. </p>
<p>Trump has made <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Donald_Trump">238 candidate endorsements</a> in the 2022 election cycle so far, targeting state, congressional, gubernatorial and even <a href="https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/ryanjrusak/article256799582.html">local</a> races. </p>
<p>Based on the numbers alone, receiving a “Trump bump” seems like a surefire way to win an election. So far, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Donald_Trump#Regular_endorsements">92% of Trump’s favored candidates</a> have won their Republican primaries.</p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/trump-endorsed-candidates-would-generally-win-even-without-his-support-and-thats-usually-the-case-with-all-political-endorsements-184231&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>But as a political scientist who <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=RG_vffMAAAAJ&hl=en">studies</a> voting and public opinion, I have my doubts about the true power of Trump’s endorsements. Instead, it is more likely that most of the candidates Trump has chosen to endorse were already on track to win their respective races. </p>
<p>Political science says that <a href="http://boudreau.ucdavis.edu/uploads/9/2/1/3/92138496/boudreau_oxford_handbook_2018.pdf">endorsements do occasionally matter</a> for determining election outcomes. But in most cases, their effects are far <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912915595882">less potent</a> than commentators might expect.</p>
<p>This is because endorsements are not made in a vacuum. Much like the endorsements of interest groups and political parties, the so-called “Trump bump” is mostly a reflection of the attributes a candidate already had before the endorsement.</p>
<h2>Backing the winners</h2>
<p>Candidates’ electoral fortunes mostly stem from <a href="http://boudreau.ucdavis.edu/uploads/9/2/1/3/92138496/boudreau_oxford_handbook_2018.pdf">whether they’re incumbents, which political party they belong to, their ideology and their political savvy</a>. In turn, these attributes also determine <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912915595882">who gets endorsed</a> by prominent groups and people. </p>
<p>For this reason, Trump’s endorsements are an excellent lesson in what scholars call “<a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/reverse-causality">reverse causality</a>.” This is what happens when people mistake a phenomenon’s effects for its cause, like thinking that people holding umbrellas have caused it to rain. In this case, reverse causality implies that Trump’s favorite candidates are not more likely to win because of his endorsement. </p>
<p>To be sure, candidate endorsements can act as <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00399.x">valuable cues</a> for voters seeking to make informed decisions. Voters might think to themselves, “If this person, whom I trust and like, supports a candidate, then I should trust and like the candidate too.” This is especially true in elections in which little is known about the contenders.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/468553/original/file-20220613-22-hu4he2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man with gray hair wearing a blazer at a campaign rally with signs held behind him." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/468553/original/file-20220613-22-hu4he2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/468553/original/file-20220613-22-hu4he2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/468553/original/file-20220613-22-hu4he2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/468553/original/file-20220613-22-hu4he2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/468553/original/file-20220613-22-hu4he2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/468553/original/file-20220613-22-hu4he2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/468553/original/file-20220613-22-hu4he2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trump endorsed former Sen. David Purdue, seen here, in the 2022 GOP primary for governor in Georgia. But the incumbent, Brian Kemp, won the nomination.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2022/7db40e86264a47f1ad561fcc23993e9f/photo?Query=david%20perdue&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=1201&currentItemNo=8">AP Photo/John Bazemore</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-018-9512-2">Such mental shortcuts</a> allow voters with limited knowledge of the candidates to vote according to their preferences. But in most cases, endorsements do little to persuade voters to shift their support from one candidate to another.</p>
<h2>The real sources of the ‘Trump bump’</h2>
<p>There are at least three other reasons that many of Trump’s favored candidates are finding success in 2022. </p>
<p>First, most of Trump’s endorsed candidates already hold office. This gives them <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/26/here-is-why-incumbents-in-congress-are-hard-to-beat.html">a distinct electoral advantage</a>. Only one of the congressional incumbents whom Trump endorsed lost in the primary. That candidate, Rep. Madison Cawthorn in North Carolina, chose to run in a <a href="https://www.themountaineer.com/news/the-real-story-behind-madison-cawthorn-switching-congressional-districts/article_ae55d270-46e3-11ec-94b9-236cb74043ff.html">new congressional district</a>, partially scuttling his incumbency advantage. </p>
<p>The stellar performance of Trump-backed incumbents is unsurprising, because incumbents already have a <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2020:_Incumbent_win_rates_by_state">nearly 100% chance</a> of winning primaries. The rare primary upset of an incumbent, like the one that elected New York Democratic <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/nyregion/joseph-crowley-ocasio-cortez-democratic-primary.html">Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez</a> in 2018, normally sends shock waves through the political landscape. </p>
<p>Of course, Trump has also endorsed some challengers. Research shows that challengers <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673x15575753">raise more money</a> if they receive high-profile endorsements. Trump’s endorsement might have had a similar effect. </p>
<p>But longtime incumbents often have even <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2132148">deeper pockets</a>, making them difficult for challengers to defeat. The record reflects this reality: Of the nine Trump-endorsed challengers who have gone up against incumbents in primaries thus far, only three have managed to win.</p>
<p>Trump endorsements are also likely determined by a <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/strategic-politicians-and-the-dynamics-of-us-house-elections-194686/75781C1A742A44F566C84B68EF157075">candidate’s quality</a>, which can be defined as the extent to which a candidate possesses the skills, reputation and resources – including money – to win elections. High-quality candidates normally contest only those elections they <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X07300908">know they can win</a>. Key endorsers like Trump stake their reputation on their support for candidates, meaning they are probably choosy about whom to endorse. This helps to explain why not all <a href="https://www.phillyvoice.com/senate-primary-candidates-pennsylvania-republican-sean-gale-2022/">vocally pro-Trump candidates</a> have received his official blessing.</p>
<p>Finally, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912915609437">a candidate’s ideology</a> plays an important role in determining winners, losers and support from endorsers. Trump is likely to endorse conservative candidates who align with his policy preferences – <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/04/15/trump-endorsements-no-slam-dunk-so-far/">though not always</a>. Successful conservative candidates run in districts and states with many conservative voters. Trump’s endorsement will merely clarify these voters’ affinity for the candidate, while reaffirming others’ decision to vote for someone else.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/468561/original/file-20220613-26-y7toeo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two people, a man and a woman, voting at booths with a lot of writing on them." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/468561/original/file-20220613-26-y7toeo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/468561/original/file-20220613-26-y7toeo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/468561/original/file-20220613-26-y7toeo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/468561/original/file-20220613-26-y7toeo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/468561/original/file-20220613-26-y7toeo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/468561/original/file-20220613-26-y7toeo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/468561/original/file-20220613-26-y7toeo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many elements influence how a person votes, and an endorsement is not usually decisive. Here, voters in Atlanta, Ga., on primary election day, May 24, 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/voters-participate-in-the-georgia-primary-on-election-day-news-photo/1240883289?adppopup=true">Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>No endorsement, no problem for Republicans in ‘22</h2>
<p>Before assigning Trump the credit for boosting candidates in the upcoming 2022 general election, observers should recognize the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/108118001129172107?journalCode=hija">notorious difficulty</a> of proving causation in the realm of electoral politics. 2022 is primed to be a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/senate-control-midterms-2022/">banner year</a> for Republican candidates, whether they receive a nod from Trump or not.</p>
<p>Midterm election years are almost always <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/30023420">tough contests</a> for the party of the incumbent president. Voters associate candidates down the ballot with the president’s performance in office. After an early honeymoon phase, presidential approval often <a href="https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/40/1/1/1836685">slumps</a> as midterm elections near, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/determinants-of-the-outcomes-of-midterm-congressional-elections/2D3701D5F63001FAAD7BF14394DCCAB8">damaging</a> the chances of congressional candidates. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111453">volatile economy</a> is also bad news for the party of the incumbent. While presidents’ actions <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/706108">might not have much effect</a> on national and global economic conditions, many voters <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591290305600303">blame the incumbent party</a> anyway.</p>
<p>These factors combine to heavily favor Republican candidates this year. Trump’s endorsements are far less important for voting behavior than the political and economic context of this year’s elections. </p>
<p>Hopefully, when it comes time to <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2132104">discuss the reasons</a> that some candidates won and others lost, commentators will keep these lessons from voting behavior research in mind.</p>
<p><em>This story has been updated with the latest data on Trump endorsements as of August 30, 2022.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184231/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Anson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Bottom line: Political endorsements are overrated.Ian Anson, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Maryland, Baltimore CountyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1654162021-08-03T18:27:26Z2021-08-03T18:27:26ZDoes a Trump endorsement make a difference? Yes, but not the way a candidate hopes it will<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414325/original/file-20210803-15-3nm9mg.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C16%2C3764%2C2594&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sen. Dean Heller, right, and President Donald Trump, who endorsed him, at a rally on Sept. 20, 2018, in Las Vegas. Heller lost the reelection.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-looks-on-as-u-s-sen-dean-heller-news-photo/1037056040?adppopup=true">Ethan Miller/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Former President Donald Trump may see himself as a winner, but the candidates he endorses don’t always win. In fact, his endorsement often helps the opponents of his candidates.</p>
<p>That was true in the 2018 midterm elections, and a similar effect could happen in the upcoming 2022 midterms. One early indication: In late July, Republican and <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jake-ellzey-texas-congress-runoff-6th-district-susan-wright/">Trump endorsee Susan Wright lost to fellow Republican Jake Ellzey</a> in the special election runoff in Texas’ 6th Congressional District. </p>
<p>The failure of Trump’s endorsement to propel Wright to victory has raised questions among political observers about <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/07/28/donald-trumps-endorsement-record-takes-a-hit-with-jake-ellzeys-win-over-susan-wright/">the sway the former president has in GOP politics</a>. The loss led to <a href="https://www.axios.com/trump-team-blames-conservative-failed-endorsment-17aa2dd1-b4be-4ca7-beeb-c74d1d472a09.html">Trump’s inner circle</a> casting about for whom to blame.</p>
<p>While some Trump allies were quick to <a href="https://www.axios.com/trump-team-blames-conservative-failed-endorsment-17aa2dd1-b4be-4ca7-beeb-c74d1d472a09.html">point fingers at internal party divisions</a> and Republican infighting, <a href="https://www.axios.com/trump-team-blames-conservative-failed-endorsment-17aa2dd1-b4be-4ca7-beeb-c74d1d472a09.html">Trump himself blamed Democratic voters</a> for Susan Wright’s loss. </p>
<p>Trump’s endorsement may have mobilized Democrats and independents, who ultimately voted for <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/29/jake-ellzey-donald-trump-texas-6-congressional-seat/">Wright’s GOP opponent, Jason Ellzey</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12284">Our work</a>, and the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/711407">work of other political scientists</a>, suggests that endorsement backlash frequently occurs in contemporary politics. As political scientists, we observed the prolific tweeting of President Trump and wanted to know whether his endorsements of congressional candidates affected their campaigns and the campaigns of their opponents. </p>
<p>We found that during the 2018 midterm elections, President Trump’s endorsements helped Republicans he endorsed raise money, but also helped their Democratic opponents raise money.</p>
<p>Ultimately Trump’s endorsement was more detrimental than helpful. It led to an increased vote share going to the Democratic opponent of the candidate Trump endorsed.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414328/original/file-20210803-13-cj13z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a lectern in front of American flags." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414328/original/file-20210803-13-cj13z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414328/original/file-20210803-13-cj13z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414328/original/file-20210803-13-cj13z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414328/original/file-20210803-13-cj13z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414328/original/file-20210803-13-cj13z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414328/original/file-20210803-13-cj13z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414328/original/file-20210803-13-cj13z.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Democrat Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House in 2018 when the GOP, including Trump-endorsed candidates, lost control of the House in the midterm elections.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/house-minority-leader-nancy-pelosi-holds-a-news-conference-news-photo/1058677340?adppopup=true">Zach Gibson/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The ‘backlash effect’</h2>
<p>Trump endorsed <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12284">80 different congressional candidates</a> in the 2018 midterm elections. He tweeted 134 endorsements to 45 congressional candidates and endorsed another 35 congressional candidates at 47 in-person campaign events. </p>
<p>Our research looked at campaign fundraising, turnout and vote share for candidates whom Trump endorsed in the 2018 midterm elections as well as their opponents. </p>
<p>While presidents often campaign for and support candidates for the House and Senate in midterm elections, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3162/036298007782398468">most of that previous activity occurred in person and at the local level</a> rather than on Twitter or some other national platform. Previous presidents also haven’t been nearly as generous in their endorsements as Trump. </p>
<p>President Barack Obama, for instance, endorsed 16 congressional candidates in 2010 and eight candidates in 2014. All those endorsements were given at local events rather than on social media. While <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Donald_Trump">Trump has already endorsed 22 candidates leading up to the 2022 election</a>, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Joe_Biden">President Joe Biden has endorsed only two</a>. </p>
<p>Trump endorsements did affect the races: Our research found that Trump-endorsed candidates raised more money from more donors immediately following the president’s endorsement.</p>
<p>But an endorsement from President Trump also benefited the endorsed candidate’s Democratic opponent. Democrats took advantage of Trump’s unpopularity among Democrats and independents and <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2018/09/15/donald-trump-endorses-dallas-congressman-pete-sessions-re-election/">made sure that those voters also knew about the endorsement</a>. And while endorsed candidates raised more money, their opponents also raised more money from more donors immediately following the president’s endorsement. </p>
<p>Opponents of Trump-endorsed candidates also benefited from increased mobilization at the polls. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414334/original/file-20210803-23-1xx824z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A newspaper headline that reads 'In a major upset against a candidate backed by Donald Trump, Jake Ellzey wins runoff for Fort Worth-area congressional seat.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414334/original/file-20210803-23-1xx824z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414334/original/file-20210803-23-1xx824z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414334/original/file-20210803-23-1xx824z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414334/original/file-20210803-23-1xx824z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414334/original/file-20210803-23-1xx824z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=587&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414334/original/file-20210803-23-1xx824z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=587&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414334/original/file-20210803-23-1xx824z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=587&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Texas Tribune headline on a story about Jake Ellzey’s runoff victory over a Trump-backed candidate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/27/susan-wright-jake-ellzey-texas-6-congressional-seat/">Screenshot, Texas Tribune</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Races with a presidential endorsement had higher turnout than comparable races without an endorsement – but that didn’t help the endorsed candidate. Instead, Trump’s 2018 endorsements decreased the endorsed candidate’s vote share by almost 2.5 percentage points compared with candidates in similar districts who did not receive Trump’s endorsement. </p>
<p>Without Trump’s endorsement, Republicans likely would have won control of <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Minnesota%27s_7th_Congressional_District">Minnesota’s 7th Congressional District in 2018</a> rather than having to wait until 2020 for <a href="https://www.startribune.com/michelle-fischbach-ousts-collin-peterson-in-minnesota-s-seventh-district/572948862/">Republican Michelle Fischbach to defeat incumbent Democrat Collin Peterson</a>. Likewise, without <a href="https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2018/10/31/macarthur-kim-debate-trump-policies-but-steer-clear-of-trump-676331">Trump’s endorsement of New Jersey Rep. Tom MacArthur in 2018</a>, our estimates suggest he would have won reelection by about 1.2 percentage points <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-jersey-house-district-3">rather than losing by 1.3 percentage points</a>. </p>
<p>Ultimately, we found that Trump’s endorsements cost Republicans 16 seats – exactly 20% of the 80 candidates he endorsed. That represented 12 in the House of Representatives and four in the Senate. </p>
<h2>Not just Trump</h2>
<p>Other research has also shown that the engagement of national political figures at the local level appears to mobilize supporters and opponents alike. </p>
<p>Visits from presidential and vice presidential candidates in 2016 increased local donations both to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/18/trump-is-going-back-holding-rallies-he-might-be-helping-biden/">candidates who were visited and their opponents</a>. Notably, Trump campaign rallies in 2016 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/711407">increased donations from the local area</a> to Hillary Clinton’s campaign more than to his own. </p>
<p>These findings suggest that high-profile interventions from divisive political figures ultimately may be unhelpful or, worse, damaging in the general election to the endorsed candidates. While such an endorsement does provide some benefits to the endorsed candidate, it also generates a backlash effect that can ultimately benefit an opponent. </p>
<p>Early indications in Trump endorsements for 2022 suggest they may be even more detrimental than in 2018. In addition to the failure of Trump’s endorsement to carry his preferred candidate to office in Texas’s 6th Congressional District recently, opponents <a href="https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1421201487246643203?s=20">have outspent Trump-endorsed candidates this cycle </a>. </p>
<p>Given both parties’ anticipation of a hotly contested election in 2022, with control of both the House and Senate likely to be up for grabs, party leaders and candidates may want to carefully evaluate whether they need or want the help of both President Biden and former President Trump on the campaign trail. These endorsements may ultimately prompt more backlash than support.</p>
<p>[<em>Understand what’s going on in Washington.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/politics-weekly-74/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=politics-most">Sign up for The Conversation’s Politics Weekly</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165416/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Candidates: Be careful what you wish for.Hans J.G. Hassell, Associate Professor of Political Science, Florida State UniversityAndrew Ballard, Assistant Professor, Government, American UniversityMichael Heseltine, PhD. Candidate, Political Science, American University School of Public AffairsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1493512020-11-12T13:27:19Z2020-11-12T13:27:19ZWhen scientific journals take sides during an election, the public’s trust in science takes a hit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368891/original/file-20201111-13-hvhyb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=447%2C60%2C5157%2C3745&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People lose faith in science when it takes a political side.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2020WisconsinVoting/f700f11017154b8198897294aaa18cba/photo?boardId=d7f2514f50804466b15dfb81ed00d9cd&st=boards&mediaType=audio,photo,video,graphic&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=15&currentItemNo=6">AP Photo/Wong Maye-E</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em></p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>When the scientific establishment gets involved in partisan politics, it decreases people’s trust in science, especially among conservatives, according to our recent research.</p>
<p>In the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, several prestigious scientific journals took the highly unusual step of either endorsing Joe Biden or criticizing Donald Trump in their pages.</p>
<p>In September, the editor-in-chief of the journal Science wrote a scathing article titled “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe7391">Trump lied about science</a>,” which was followed by other strong critiques from both the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2029812">New England Journal of Medicine</a> and the cancer research journal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30548-9">Lancet Oncology</a>.</p>
<p>Several other top publications – including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02852-x">Nature</a> and <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden1/">Scientific American</a> – soon followed, with overt endorsements of Biden. The statements focused on each candidate’s impact on scientific knowledge and science-based decision-making.</p>
<p>To evaluate whether political endorsements like these might influence people’s attitudes toward science, we ran an <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NuknCbGqhuJyeGYLGuqBCqa9hC0MR13Z/view?usp=sharing">online survey experiment</a>.</p>
<p>We asked one group of respondents to read a news article about a scientific journal or magazine. We asked a second group of people to read an article that contained the same description of the publication but with additional details about the political position it took and quotes from its actual statements regarding Biden and Trump. Then we asked respondents about their trust in scientists, scientific journals and science as an institution.</p>
<p><iframe id="qH79F" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/qH79F/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>We found that trust in science declined among respondents who learned about a publication’s partisan statement. The magnitude of the observed effects is small but statistically significant, holds across a range of controls and is persistent across different ways of measuring trust in science. The finding was most pronounced for conservatives, likely because the endorsements were all supportive of Biden and against Trump.</p>
<p>Furthermore, we also found an interesting indirect effect. As trust in science decreased, so did the reported likelihood of complying with scientific recommendations about health behaviors related to COVID-19 – for example, wearing face masks.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>There’s a lot of new research in the area of trust in science, including large polls of the public. Some findings suggest that there is still confidence in scientific expertise – but this <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/">declines as soon as science mixes with policy recommendations in people’s minds</a>.</p>
<p>Public policy issues have become highly polarized, reflecting larger political trends. While scientific research itself has not driven such polarization, some areas of scientific research, such as climate change, have become very politicized.</p>
<p>Further, while <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/27/public-confidence-in-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/">public trust in scientists and science has remained largely stable</a> over the years, the American public is <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/">divided along party lines</a> in terms of trust in, and perceived impartiality of, science. Even more concerning, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/516412-polls-show-trust-in-scientific-political-institutions-eroding">trust in science and medicine has been on the decline</a> since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>Our findings suggest there may be costs when scientific institutions take partisan stances on electoral politics.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="people with signs at a March for Science in DC" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Science supporters – like these at a 2017 March for Science – risk looking like just another advocacy group.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/ScienceMarch/547723549891476ba4b3595c94e3bc10/photo?boardId=d7f2514f50804466b15dfb81ed00d9cd&st=boards&mediaType=audio,photo,video,graphic&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=15&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How we did our work</h2>
<p>Because a single survey – even with a sample as large as our initial group of 2,975 demographically diverse Americans – could be a fluke, we ran a second survey. We configured a new sample of 1,000 people to be representative of the U.S. population, allowing us to generalize our findings better. The results lined up with those from the first study, indicating that our findings were not a fluke but robust. We will submit our full analysis to a peer-reviewed journal soon.</p>
<p>Because of the experimental design of our study, the effects we have identified can’t be due to people’s initial views coming into the survey. That’s because participants were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups, no matter what their prior beliefs on science or partisan positions. </p>
<p>As with any experimental study, we don’t know whether these effects will last or not. The highly partisan environment of the 2020 election may make some of our results specific to this time and place.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149351/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin L. Young donated to a PAC during the current election, focusing on voter mobilization.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bernhard Leidner receives funding from the National Science Foundation for his current work on COVID-19 and, among other things, trust in science.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stylianos Syropoulos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When the scientific establishment gets involved in partisan politics, surveys suggest, there are unintended consequences – especially for conservatives.Kevin L. Young, Associate Professor of Economics, UMass AmherstBernhard Leidner, Associate Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences, UMass AmherstStylianos Syropoulos, PhD Student in Psychological and Brain Sciences, UMass AmherstLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1301742020-01-29T13:21:45Z2020-01-29T13:21:45ZThe meme endorsement you might have missed – and why it matters for 2020<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/312140/original/file-20200127-81416-syahhh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C11%2C748%2C482&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Memes played a role in 2016 – and they're set to play an even bigger one in 2020.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bernie Sanders Dank Meme Stash</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Jan. 19, the New York Times editorial board made history when it <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html">endorsed two candidates</a>, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, for president, concluding, “May the best woman win.”</p>
<p>This came on the heels on another key endorsement, one that got far less media coverage: On Jan. 15, New Urbanist Memes for Transit-Oriented Teens, a private Facebook <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/whatwouldjanejacobsdo/">meme group</a>, endorsed U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. </p>
<p>Within hours, Bernie <a href="https://twitter.com/drooliet/status/1217871003021389824">personally thanked</a> the group’s nearly 180,000 “NUMTOTs,” as they affectionately call themselves.</p>
<p>Why would a leading contender for the Democratic nomination so eagerly patronize a niche group on a social media site? </p>
<p>In 2020, it’s simply smart politics – and a sign of how campaigning and political messaging strategies are rapidly changing. Bernie’s post on the Facebook group’s page now has over 16,000 reactions and nearly 3,000 comments.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/312137/original/file-20200127-81341-6c1wva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/312137/original/file-20200127-81341-6c1wva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/312137/original/file-20200127-81341-6c1wva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=850&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312137/original/file-20200127-81341-6c1wva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=850&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312137/original/file-20200127-81341-6c1wva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=850&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312137/original/file-20200127-81341-6c1wva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1068&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312137/original/file-20200127-81341-6c1wva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1068&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312137/original/file-20200127-81341-6c1wva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1068&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A meme posted on NUMTOT highlights why many of issues important to group members are compatible with Sanders’ platform.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">New Urbanist Memes for Transit-Oriented Teens/Facebook.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://makeamericameme.com/">As experts on political memes</a>, we’re well aware of the ways memes and meme groups can influence politics on the sly. </p>
<p>Though they might seem like humorous, pithy or even nonsensical digital artifacts, memes, <a href="https://www.peterlang.com/view/title/68980">as our research has shown</a>, wield the power to unite, divide, persuade and provoke voters. They’ve become an increasingly important – even indispensable – communication tool in politics, helping <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=SPwlDQAAQBAJ">ordinary voters</a> shape political debates and <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2013.11821790">hone arguments</a> from their phones.</p>
<p>It’s a radical departure from just a decade ago, when donors and legacy media outlets <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.6.2016.0129">largely set the tone</a>, defined the parameters and dictated the topics of debate.</p>
<p>With social media now a battleground for political debate, memes have become a key way for regular supporters of a candidate or party to unite around certain issues, generate talking points and crystallize policy platforms – regardless of what The New York Times, Fox News or The Washington Post has to say about it. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/732590680233889/?sorting_setting=CHRONOLOGICAL">New Urbanist Memes for Transit-Oriented Teens</a> is a large, diverse meme group on Facebook. Created in 2017, the page attracts those who share an interest in urban planning, housing justice, transportation infrastructure and climate change.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/312133/original/file-20200127-81357-1o772ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/312133/original/file-20200127-81357-1o772ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/312133/original/file-20200127-81357-1o772ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=732&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312133/original/file-20200127-81357-1o772ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=732&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312133/original/file-20200127-81357-1o772ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=732&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312133/original/file-20200127-81357-1o772ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312133/original/file-20200127-81357-1o772ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312133/original/file-20200127-81357-1o772ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Public transit and climate are two issues of primary importance to the group’s members.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">New Urbanist Memes for Transit-Oriented Teens/Facebook.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On Facebook, thousands of NUMTOTs engage in robust democratic debate; it just so happens that much of this debate often comes in the form of Pokemon or Winnie the Pooh memes. In the past few days, NUMTOTs have debated renters’ rights, fair housing policies, flood management for densely populated areas, public transit, income inequality and shelters for LGBTQ+ youth. </p>
<p>But with the 2020 presidential race well underway, the group has also been discussing the candidates and their policies. </p>
<p>The page has an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/05/meet-the-numtots-the-millennials-who-find-fixing-public-transit-sexy-urbanist-memes">outsized ability</a> – on Facebook, at least – to communicate members’ political positions. Endorsing Bernie could prove particularly effective for mobilizing young voters, since 90% of NUMTOT’s members <a href="https://www.citylab.com/life/2020/01/bernie-sanders-endorsements-2020-numtot-memes-youth-vote/605086/">are under 34 years old</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/312128/original/file-20200127-81416-h6j3i9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/312128/original/file-20200127-81416-h6j3i9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312128/original/file-20200127-81416-h6j3i9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312128/original/file-20200127-81416-h6j3i9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312128/original/file-20200127-81416-h6j3i9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=721&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312128/original/file-20200127-81416-h6j3i9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=721&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/312128/original/file-20200127-81416-h6j3i9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=721&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A meme highlights differences in Bernie Sanders’ and Elizabeth Warren’s political styles to explain the group’s endorsement of Sanders.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">New Urbanist Memes for Transit-Oriented Teens/Facebook.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One NUMTOT member pointed out recently that this group boasts the size – and, more importantly, people power – of a small city. </p>
<p>Research has already demonstrated how memes shaped the 2016 election. <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Make_America_Meme_Again/NNyhvAEACAAJ?hl=en">As we note in our book</a>, memes from far-right Trump supporters effectively framed media conversations about the election, with ethno-nationalist talking points taking center stage in traditional media outlets. That may not have been the Trump campaign’s plan, but there’s no doubt that these memes funneled attention in Trump’s direction. </p>
<p>For his part, Trump – perhaps intuitively understanding their power – retweeted some of these viral memes, even though the meme’s creators had little or no connection to his official campaign.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"653856168402681856"}"></div></p>
<p>Four years later, the politics of memes have evolved. NUMTOT’s endorsement actually represents an organized political decision that, in turn, has been acknowledged and celebrated by a candidate. </p>
<p>Not only can memes seed talking points to campaigns, but they also give candidates a window into the issues that are important to subsets of voters. Memes have become a way for political groups to coordinate and act collectively, <a href="https://www.salon.com/2018/02/24/how-memes-are-being-weaponized-for-political-propaganda/">and guerrilla imagery</a> has become a key component of electioneering.</p>
<p>May the best memers win.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130174/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Much was made of The New York Times’ dual endorsement of Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. But four days prior, a hugely popular Facebook meme group threw its support behind Bernie Sanders.Heather Woods, Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Technology, Kansas State UniversityLeslie Hahner, Associate Professor of Communication, Baylor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/637972016-10-26T03:23:33Z2016-10-26T03:23:33ZWhat’s at risk if scientists don’t think strategically before talking politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143171/original/image-20161025-4714-137isv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scientists have a lot to contribute – and a lot to lose. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=146113088">Mic image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Earlier this fall, the nonpartisan nonprofit <a href="http://sciencedebate.org/20answers">ScienceDebate.org</a> released Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s responses to a set of questions about science policy. Shortly after, a group of 375 scientists wrote an <a href="http://responsiblescientists.org/">open letter</a> focused specifically on the United States honoring commitments around climate change. Seventy Nobel laureates then penned a more general Clinton endorsement; <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/70-nobel-laureates-endorse-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0">President Obama had garnered similar numbers</a> of Nobel winners’ support in the previous election cycles.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"788469224456978432"}"></div></p>
<p>As someone who both studies science communication and thinks of himself as a part of the scientific community, I applaud scientists’ desire to engage with our broader society. The scientific community has substantial expertise to share and a responsibility to share it. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I worry that doing things like asking candidates to weigh in on scientific questions in the context of a “debate” may have unintended consequences that need to be thought through as a community. </p>
<p>None of the below should be taken as a rebuke. Rather, the point is to honestly consider whether the scientific community is making strategic communication choices when it comes to this election. Poor choices could give the dangerous impression that scientific questions can be debated like policy choices – while also cutting into the public’s overall trust in science. </p>
<h2>What happens when scientists engage politically</h2>
<p>I’m very hesitant to suggest that scientists bite their tongues about things such as the threat of a political candidate who doesn’t believe in climate change. But I also worry that the scientific community’s tendency to respond to many Republicans’ unhelpful views about science policy with continued feigned surprise, and occasional <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/09/13/trumps-no-einstein-but-his-ignorant-illiterate-answers-to-the-campaign-science-quiz-reflect-a-non-stupid-strategy/">derision</a>, might have negative consequences for the continued strong place of science in society.</p>
<p>As might have been predicted, the ScienceDebate.org efforts, for example, showed that one of the major party candidates has limited interest in reassuring the scientific community that its <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/">views are respected</a>. The climate change open letter similarly reiterates that our best scientists know the Republican candidate for president doesn’t care what they think and find it (understandably) disheartening.</p>
<p>It would be one thing if there was an opportunity for a real debate – in the sense of a meaningful exchange of ideas – between the candidates or parties about how to best use scientific evidence or best support science. And it’s not that political leaders don’t need to know about science; it seems clear that our top leaders should know a lot about many things, science included.</p>
<p>But did people really learn anything they didn’t already know about the candidates from recent, prominent science communication efforts? Many partisans used these releases to <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/09/14/presidential_candidates_including_clinton_and_trump_answer_science_questions.html">further</a> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-clinton-science-debate_us_57d71cd0e4b0fbd4b7baff78">deride</a> the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/13/media-call-out-trump-dodging-key-science-questions/213045">Republican presidential nominee</a> about his views on science. </p>
<p>On the flip side, there’s no evidence a meaningful number of people who aren’t already broadly supportive of science pay much attention to open letters or were influenced by them.</p>
<p>If few people learned anything that would increase their support for science, then any benefits of scientists entering into the political debate aren’t obvious. But thinking of risks isn’t hard.</p>
<h2>Scientists currently enjoy good social standing</h2>
<p>At present, the <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report/chapter-7/public-attitudes-about-s-t-in-general">scientific community is unique</a> in experiencing both consistent and high levels of public confidence. In 2014, only 8 percent of Americans said they had “hardly any” confidence in the scientific community. “Confidence” in this regard should be understood as a measure of trust.</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-tAn6N" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/tAn6N/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="534"></iframe>
<p>In recent years the public has reported higher levels of “confidence” in the military than scientists, but that’s fluctuated over time. The medical community used to enjoy the highest average level of confidence but has seen declines. Politicians and the media have long elicited less confidence than scientists, and have seen their standing further diminish over the years.</p>
<p>However, looking at the overall standing of the scientific community does hide the reality that conservatives appear to have gone from a group with <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225">relatively high to relatively low confidence</a> in what researchers are up to. There are also efforts by <a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/frontpage/products/the-black-book-of-the-american-left-volume-v-culture-wars">some conservatives</a> to make an issue of academics’ political leanings (alongside a warning that scholars need to recognize the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/opinion/academias-rejection-of-diversity.html">dangerous position</a> we’re in as academia becomes more liberal).</p>
<p>Unfortunately the best available, over-time measure of confidence in the scientific community relies on a single survey question that doesn’t clearly differentiate between the idea of trust as perceived warmth versus trust as competence. On this set of metrics, there is some evidence that scientists come off as <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111">competent, but cold</a>. Other studies have also found, however, that most Americans believe scientists have their <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7s3.htm#s3">motives in the right place</a>.</p>
<p>So, if we accept that scientists are already held in high regard, do they run the risk of tarnishing their current strong reputation by engaging in electoral politics when there are limited potential benefits? Even well-meaning reports like the one ScienceDebate.org produced could seem to suggest that relying on scientific evidence is up for debate and that scientists are political actors.</p>
<h2>What is the risk of political engagement?</h2>
<p>It seems important to differentiate between various kinds of public engagement. On the one hand, scientists may engage with the public around issues that have policy relevance in nonpartisan contexts. For instance, based on their expertise they might advise communities or policymakers, or talk about their work in public forums. Alternatively, they might get directly involved in the electoral process through endorsements and pushing candidates to take positions.</p>
<p>My particular worry is that by being too vocal about specific issues and candidates at election time, the science community might increase the risk of communicating to conservatives, in particular, that only a small proportion of scientists share conservative views.</p>
<p>In both 2009 and 2014, 64 percent of Americans said they <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/09/majority-of-americans-say-scientists-dont-have-an-ideological-slant/">didn’t think of scientists as politically liberal or conservative</a>. </p>
<p>In reality, the available evidence suggests that most scientists do lean toward the liberal end of the spectrum. In 2009, the Pew Research Center reported that 55 percent of the scientists they surveyed from a prominent scientific society <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/">identified as Democrats</a> with another 26 percent leaning toward the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>We don’t really know what the effect would be if more people began to see science as something that politicians seek to shape and use selectively. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft044">It doesn’t seem like it would help</a>. The limited available evidence, for example, seems to suggest that framing a topic such as nuclear energy as a political issue decreases support for that technology. </p>
<p>More generally, can we really expect conservatives to come back to science by further pointing out, and sometimes belittling, their candidate’s rejection of science? </p>
<p>The risk of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547">pushing conservatives away</a> seems larger than most potential benefits. There’s a well-known tendency to process information in ways that support one’s existing views, known as motivated reasoning. It seems doubtful there are swing voters or center-leaning conservatives that could be “science shamed” into voting for a political candidate.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate scientist James Hansen speaks out before Congress about the political ramifications of his research.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:James_Hansen.jpg">NASA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We’ve seen what happened when climate change became politicized; do we want to head down that road with science in its entirety? It’s unlikely to aid science’s cause if there are more issues (like evolution) for which people tend to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067">use their political ideology</a>, rather than their overall positive views about science and scientists, to <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/americans-politics-and-science-issues/">decide their stance</a>. </p>
<p>And how researchers choose to communicate their work and views matters. Colleagues and I recently found in a set of experiments that in nonelection contexts, a scientist who <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1223159">aggressively attacks those with whom he disagrees</a> – for example, on either genetically modified food or nuclear energy – received lower ratings of writing quality and likability. The aggressive tone seemed to violate subjects’ expectations for how a scientist should communicate, contributing to negative perceptions.</p>
<p>On the positive side, in previous surveys that other colleagues and I have done around the issue of genetically modified crops, for example, we’ve found that people can still <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.006">accept as legitimate</a> science-related outcomes they disagree with if they believe the decision-makers listened to and treated others with respect.</p>
<h2>Considering the goal</h2>
<p>Open letters and requests for science debates are a long way from aggressiveness. But the point is that our communication choices matter. The challenge is figuring out how to communicate strategically on behalf of science.</p>
<p>Being strategic means figuring out what you want to achieve through communication and what, realistically, you can expect to accomplish through the channels and resources available. It means not just saying or doing what feels right in the moment but thinking through, <a href="http://www.thevictorylab.com/">even testing</a>, expected cause and effect.</p>
<p>None of this is to suggest that members of the scientific community shouldn’t speak their conscience or that recent efforts such as those by ScienceDebate.org were ill-considered. The point is only to encourage all of us who may sometimes want to communicate on behalf of science to systematically think through whether what we’re doing might help.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63797/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Besley has received funding to study goal setting in the context of science communication from the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 14241214). He also receives funding from the NSF through a contract with SRI International to help write a biennial Science and Engineering Indicators chapter on public opinion about science on behalf of the National Science Board that is cited in the article. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or the NSB.</span></em></p>The scientific community enjoys one of the highest levels of trust among American institutions. But engaging in the political arena during a contentious election season comes with dangers.John C. Besley, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/664732016-10-17T01:05:46Z2016-10-17T01:05:46ZWhy newspaper endorsements might matter more in this election<p>What do <a href="http://www.chron.com/opinion/recommendations/article/For-Hillary-Clinton-8650345.php">The Houston Chronicle</a>, <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2016/09/07/recommend-hillary-clinton-us-president">The Dallas Morning News</a>, <a href="http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/09/23/enquirer-endorses-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/90728344/">The Cincinnati Enquirer</a> and <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2016/10/09/1-editorial-for-president-trump-unfit-clinton-is-qualified.html">The Columbus Dispatch</a> have in common? </p>
<p>They’ve all broken from their tradition of endorsing Republican nominees and have endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. </p>
<p>On the same note, The Chicago Tribune, USA Today and The Atlantic have also done something new this cycle: <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-gary-johnson-president-endorsement-edit-1002-20160930-story.html">The Tribune</a> endorsed the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson (the paper usually endorses the Republican nominee, except for Barack Obama in 2008). The latter two usually don’t make endorsements but have written editorials urging voters to either not vote for Republican candidate Donald Trump (<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/">USA Today</a>) or vote for Hillary Clinton (<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/">The Atlantic</a>). </p>
<p>In fact, <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/tv/donald-trump-makes-history-zero-major-newspaper-endorsements-000943174.html">none of the top 50 newspapers</a> has endorsed Trump so far – <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/clinton-trump-newspaper-endorsements">a stark difference from the 2012 race</a>, when GOP candidate Mitt Romney garnered a number of endorsements. </p>
<p>This avalanche of surprise endorsements has raised an important question: Do newspapers endorsements even matter? And, if so, do some matter more than others? </p>
<h2>Going to the betting markets</h2>
<p>In 2008, we were living in Chicago when The Chicago Tribune decided to endorse, for the first time in its history, a Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama. It was big news. </p>
<p>As economists born outside of the United States, we were curious about this phenomenon. Around the world, newspaper endorsements for political candidates aren’t the norm; they certainly don’t take place in our home countries (Argentina, France and Portugal). So we decided to investigate the impact of newspaper endorsements. </p>
<p>We’re not the first to do so; <a href="http://restud.oxfordjournals.org/content/78/3/795">in an influential paper</a>, economists Chun-Fang Chiang and Brian Knight found that newspapers endorsements are likely to influence readers’ decisions, especially those of more moderate voters. </p>
<p>Building upon this research, we wanted to address a different issue: To what extent can newspaper endorsements influence the daily odds of each candidate winning? </p>
<p>Winning candidates will often receive a good chunk of endorsements. But it’s difficult to tell whether the endorsements helped get him or her the votes, or whether they earned votes simply due to the fact that they were good candidates. It’s the common dilemma of “causation or correlation.”</p>
<p>Therefore, our main challenge was creating a situation in which the quality of the candidate could remain constant, but the vote share could move. </p>
<p>To do this, we used data from online prediction markets – specifically, INTRADE, a now-defunct online platform that included a prediction exchange that would allow people to take positions (called “contracts”) on the probability of practically any event taking place. Contracts might include “England to win the 2010 Soccer World Cup,” “Jennifer Lawrence to win the Oscar for Best Actress” or, in our case, “Obama to win US Presidential Election” in 2008 and 2012. The price of a contract depends on the probability of the event taking place. For example, after England tied with the United States 1-1 in its first World Cup soccer match against South Africa, the corresponding contract for England winning the World Cup saw its price dramatically go down. </p>
<p>As such, the contract price reflects the average probability of a candidate winning the election, as estimated by market participants. For example, say the price of an “Obama winning the election” contract was US$5.25 on a given day. This meant that Obama had a 52.5 percent probability of winning at the time of purchase. If you bought a contract on that day – and if Obama ended up winning – you’d earn $10, for a net gain of $4.75. If he lost, the owner would lose his initial bet. Some researchers prefer these measures to polls because, rather than asking for a voter’s preferences, prediction markets make people “put their money where their mouth is.” </p>
<p>Following this tradition, we collected the data of the 2008 and 2012 elections, and used the price on the Obama contract to show his daily probability of winning. We then looked at how a day with a number of endorsements supporting one or the other candidate influenced this probability (measured at the end of the day). </p>
<p>But not every newspaper endorsement is equal, and it’s important to factor this into the analysis as well. Some have more readers than others. Some tend to support Republican candidates, while others tend to support Democratic candidates.</p>
<p>For this reason, we classified newspapers according to their political leaning along two dimensions already measured in the literature: (1) the media slant (<a href="http://web.stanford.edu/%7Egentzkow/research/biasmeas.pdf">a measure created in the influential work</a> of economists Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro) and (2) their propensity to endorse the Democratic candidate, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/100.00000009">data that come from the work</a> of political scientists Stephen Ansolabehere, Rebecca Lessem and James M. Snyder. </p>
<p>The media slant measure – which examines the ideology of the newspaper and the language used in covering polarizing matters such as abortion, illegal immigrants and stem-cell research – is used to determine whether or not an endorsement is a surprise.</p>
<p>We then estimated the impact of such endorsements on Obama’s probability of winning. </p>
<h2>The results, and what they mean in 2016</h2>
<p>Our first findings built nicely upon previous research. We found, perhaps not surprisingly, that endorsements from high-circulation newspapers have a larger effect on the probability of winning.</p>
<p>More interestingly, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecin.12317/abstract">our results</a> suggested that endorsements that were a surprise (given the editorial board choices in previous elections) – but were still consistent with the traditional style and rhetoric of the newspaper – seemed to matter the most. For instance, The Chicago Tribune’s endorsement for Obama in 2008 seemed to have a significant effect. The paper had never endorsed a Democrat candidate before, but it also maintained its traditional center-right style and tone.</p>
<p>Overall, we found that on days with at least one endorsement, the endorsed candidate experiences higher odds of winning. There’s some evidence that this effect increases the more endorsements a candidate receives on a given day. However, this should be taken with a grain of salt; with each additional endorsement, the marginal effect decreases. </p>
<p>Among the many strange events of this election cycle are the huge share of surprise endorsements. Because one candidate, Donald Trump, has distanced himself from the traditional ideology of his party, he’s also distanced himself from the traditional ideology of some editorial boards. The combination of these two anomalies have brought newspaper endorsements into the spotlight more than ever before. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A chart compares newspaper endorsements from 2012 and 2016.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Extrapolating our results to the current election, this means that USA Today’s mandate to not elect Trump could have a significant effect, since it’s one of the top U.S. newspapers in terms of circulation. </p>
<p>And what about Hillary’s endorsements from right-leaning publications that endorsed Romney in 2012, like The Cincinnati Enquirer? Using our data from previous election cycles, if Clinton had a 50 percent chance of winning on the day of the endorsement, it would have likely increased her odds of winning the election by a couple of percentage points.</p>
<p>Putting our economists’ hats on, we know our results should be interpreted with caution, as they speak to short-run effects on the perceived probability of a candidate winning the elections. Those effects may fade as we get closer to election date or as long as other events take place during the campaign. Naturally, new information could emerge about a candidate that influences the final outcome. The most conservative interpretation of our results is that newspaper endorsements can help to create momentum that the receiving candidate can build upon. </p>
<p>In our paper, we explain in detail why the interpretation of our results should be taken as causal, and not casual. (That is, our identification strategy implies that the probability of winning increases due to the endorsements and not other events that may have taken place the same day.)</p>
<p>In sum, do endorsements matter? Definitely. They can help create momentum for the candidate and slightly shift the odds. But will they define the outcome on Election Day? Unlikely.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66473/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yarine Fawaz receives funding from ECO2013-46516-C4-1-R (Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia) and SGR2014-1279 (Generalitat de Catalunya). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Agustin Casas and André Trindade do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>People tend to assume that most papers have an inherent bias, so a group of economists looked at what happens when there’s a surprise pick.Agustin Casas, Assistant Professor of Organization and Business Management, CUNEFAndré Trindade, Assistant Professor of Economics, Getulio Vargas FoundationYarine Fawaz, Research Fellow, Center for Monetary and Financial StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/517942015-12-08T02:58:38Z2015-12-08T02:58:38ZTrump is running last in one key race<p>Donald Trump holds a commanding lead in Republican presidential polls. The most recent <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/04/cnnorc12042015gopprimarypoll.pdf">CNN</a> poll shows Trump with a 20-point lead over his GOP challengers. </p>
<p>The CNN poll is not an aberration. The <a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us12022015_U45hkpp.pdf">Quinnipiac</a>, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/11/20/fox-news-poll-2016-matchups-syrian-refugees/">Fox News</a> and <a href="http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1173a22016Election.pdf">Washington Post</a> polls also show Trump with a double-digit lead.</p>
<p>But Trump is in last place when it comes to a crucial measure of presidential viability: endorsements by major officeholders. Thus far, no <a href="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/">incumbent governor or current member of Congress</a> has endorsed the New York billionaire. </p>
<p>To be sure, Trump seems much more interested in poll results than political endorsements. At a recent campaign rally he boasted that he was “<a href="http://www.whdh.com/story/30623400/trump-boasts-about-killing-opponents-in-polls-during-florida-rally">killing everybody</a>” in both national and state polls. </p>
<p>However, a growing body of evidence from recent elections shows that polls are an <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-29/flaws-in-polling-data-exposed-as-u-s-campaign-season-heats-up">increasingly unreliable measure</a> of public opinion. Instead, candidate <a href="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/">endorsements</a> offer a more <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/political-newspaper-endorsements-history-and-outcome/?_r=0">accurate forecast</a> of election outcomes, a fact that is bad news for Trump but good news for Hillary Clinton. </p>
<h2>Unreliable polls</h2>
<p>Despite the media’s obsessive coverage of polling data, history shows that polls have a bad track record of predicting election outcomes. For example, the polls predicted that <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/05/elec04.poll.democrats.poll/">Howard Dean</a> would win the Democratic nomination in 2004, <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/103348/giuliani-leads-gop-race-huckabee-others-tie-second.aspx">Rudy Giuliani</a> would win the Republican nomination in 2008 and <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/151355/gingrich-romney-among-gop-voters-nationwide.aspx">Newt Gingrich</a> would win the GOP nomination in 2012. </p>
<p>But the polls were wrong. None of those candidates caught fire with the voters and each dropped out long before the party conventions. </p>
<p>The problem of flawed polling data is only getting worse. Statisticians warn that the rise of cellphones and the sharp decline in participation rates have rendered polls so <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/21/the-challenges-of-polling-when-fewer-people-are-available-to-be-polled/">unreliable</a> that the <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-future-of-polling-may-depend-on-donald-trumps-fate/">fate of the polling industry</a> itself is now in doubt.</p>
<h2>The key to the White House</h2>
<p>A more dependable measure of a candidate’s strength is found in endorsements by political officeholders, prominent interest groups and major newspapers. Indeed, endorsements have a surprisingly accurate track record of forecasting presidential elections. </p>
<p>For example, a 2012 study by the <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/2012_newspaper_endorsements.php">American Presidency Project</a> found that Barack Obama was endorsed by more major newspapers than Mitt Romney, an overlooked metric that accurately reflected the election’s ultimate outcome. The accuracy of the 2012 newspaper endorsements was not a fluke. A 2011 study by <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/political-newspaper-endorsements-history-and-outcome/?_r=0">Editor & Publisher magazine</a> found that between 1972 and 2008, the candidate that garnered the most endorsements from large-circulation newspapers won the presidency in seven out of 10 elections.</p>
<p>Political endorsements provide an even more accurate election forecast. For example, a 2008 study by the political scientists <a href="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/">Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel and John Zaller</a> found that endorsements by state and federal officeholders and key interest groups served as a powerful predictor of which candidates ultimately won their parties’ nominations.</p>
<h2>Clinton monopolizing Democratic endorsements</h2>
<p>The critical importance of political endorsements is not lost on Hillary Clinton. </p>
<p>When it comes to receiving the public support of influential party leaders, no candidate even comes close to her. Clinton has thus far received <a href="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/">192</a> endorsements by governors and members of Congress, while Bernie Sanders has received only two endorsements and Martin O’Malley has just one. </p>
<p>Also noteworthy is the fact that Clinton recently received the endorsements of <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/clinton-nea-teachers-union-endorsement-214402">major labor unions</a>, a key Democratic Party <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/23/us-usa-election-union-idUSKCN0SH24520151023">constituency</a>. </p>
<p>If history is any guide, Clinton may have already effectively won the Democratic nomination by dominating the endorsement race.</p>
<h2>GOP endorsement race still undecided</h2>
<p>In contrast, the hunt for Republican endorsements has barely even begun. The overwhelming majority of GOP <a href="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/">governors, senators and representatives</a> have thus far not endorsed any of the presidential candidates.</p>
<p>But recent trends indicate that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are beginning to build some endorsement momentum. In November, Cruz won the critical endorsement of <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/steve-king-endorses-ted-cruz-2016-election-215925">Steve King</a>, an arch-conservative congressman with enormous influence among Iowa caucus voters. Since receiving King’s endorsement, Cruz has moved into the top two in the <a href="http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/de240398-df23-47b6-8470-91977d38b749.pdf">latest</a> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-iowa-poll/index.html">Iowa polls</a>. Meanwhile, Rubio has received <a href="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/">18 endorsements since September</a>, more than any other Republican candidate this fall.</p>
<p>And last month the <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-the-new-hampshire-union-leaders-endorsement-help-chris-christie/">Union Leader</a>, an influential conservative newspaper in New Hampshire, endorsed Chris Christie. Although the Union Leader has not always correctly predicted the winner of the New Hampshire primary, the candidate receiving the newspaper’s endorsement has usually experienced a <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-the-new-hampshire-union-leaders-endorsement-help-chris-christie/">significant boost</a> at the ballot box on primary day.</p>
<h2>Will Republican leaders endorse Trump?</h2>
<p>By mid-December, Trump had received only <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/12/10/us/ap-us-gop-2016-trump.html">one important endorsement</a> - from the New England Police Benevolent Association. </p>
<p>That’s not surprising. After all, Trump has based his campaign on exploiting the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-maintains-lead-in-gop-presidential-race-carson-second/2015/10/20/6e96eaf6-7733-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html">intense anti-establishment mood</a> among rank-and-file Republicans by making <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/">false</a>, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/donald-trump-doubles-down-on-registering-muslims/416973/">outrageous</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/?emc=edit_na_20151207&nlid=69180613&ref=cta&_r=0">bigoted</a> and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-donald-trump/story?id=34706902">divisive</a> statements that appall the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/us/politics/wary-of-donald-trump-gop-leaders-are-caught-in-a-standoff.html?_r=0">GOP leadership</a>. </p>
<p>He has also made clear his disdain for party leaders. In an <a href="http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/11/22/trump-im-leading-because-politicians-are-incompetent/">ABC interview</a> last month Trump declared: “I’m leading because people are sick and tired of stupid and incompetent people leading our nation.”</p>
<p>But to win a presidential election, you need a nationwide organization to mobilize voters. Mitt Romney learned that fact the hard way in 2012. The Obama campaign’s <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/victory_lab/2012/11/obama_s_get_out_the_vote_effort_why_it_s_better_than_romney_s.html">get-out-the-vote</a> efforts <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/21/the-obama-campaign-won-gotv-gold-in-the-2012-campaign-games/">far surpassed</a> those of the Romney campaign, an organizational advantage that proved decisive on election day.</p>
<p>That is why endorsements are so important. They demonstrate that a candidate has built the campaign infrastructure necessary to win a national election. </p>
<p>Party leaders are key to the success of such organizational efforts. At some point, therefore, Trump must start wooing Republican governors, senators and representatives. Although an anti-establishment mood grips the GOP, the <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/12/04/beating-the-establishment-and-losing-anyway-in-the-2016-race?emailed=1&src=usn_thereport">party’s organizational leadership</a> is critical to get-out-the-vote efforts on election day. </p>
<p>Thus, despite the media’s intense focus on polling data, endorsements remain indispensable to successful presidential campaigns. Trump ignores that fact at his peril.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This article was updated on Dec. 11, 2015 to report Trump’s first major endorsement.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51794/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony J Gaughan is a registered independent</span></em></p>Trump is up – way up – in the polls, but he’s losing the endorsement game.Anthony J. Gaughan, Associate Professor of Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.