tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/primary-election-25361/articlesPrimary election – The Conversation2022-09-13T12:22:56Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1901872022-09-13T12:22:56Z2022-09-13T12:22:56ZShould you vote early in the 2022 midterm elections? 3 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483520/original/file-20220908-9292-6v006w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=2372%2C203%2C3279%2C3550&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A voter fills out his ballot at an early voting location in Massachusetts.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/voter-fills-out-his-ballot-at-the-early-voting-location-at-news-photo/1242803355?adppopup=true">Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As political campaigning for the midterm elections is ramping up, millions of voters are considering how they should cast their ballots on Nov. 8, 2022. In addition to the traditional way of voting at their local precinct on Election Day, many have the option to vote earlier by mail.</p>
<p>With the exception of Alabama, Connecticut, Mississippi and New Hampshire, early voting is <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Early_voting#Early_voting_by_state">allowed in 46 states</a> and is offered in different forms such as drop boxes, mail or early voting in person. </p>
<p>It’s important to check with your state’s election office, because different states have different deadlines and options available. </p>
<p>In Montana, for instance, early voting is allowed for about four weeks between Oct. 11 and Nov. 7. But in Texas, the early-voting period is only the 10 weekdays between Oct. 24 and Nov. 4. </p>
<p>The Conversation U.S. has published several articles looking at not only the integrity of early voting but also the larger question of turning out the vote. </p>
<h2>1. The long, long history of early voting</h2>
<p>Early voting periods are as old as presidential elections in the U.S.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/presidential-election-of-1789/">first presidential election occurred in 1789</a> and started on Dec. 15, 1788. It ended almost a month later, on Jan. 10, 1789, with the election of George Washington. </p>
<p>It wasn’t until 1845 that Congress adopted the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the national Election Day.</p>
<p>Given the long history, <a href="https://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/person/terri-bimes">Terri Bimes</a>, an associate teaching professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley, raises an interesting point on the impact of early voting on turnout. </p>
<p>“While some scholars contend that early in-person voting periods potentially can decrease voter turnout,” Bimes writes, “studies that focus on vote-by-mail, a form of early voting, generally show an increase in voter turnout.”</p>
<p>Regardless of overall turnout, more and more voters are choosing nontraditional ways of casting their ballots. In <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/record-high-turnout-in-2020-general-election.html">the 2020 election</a>, for instance, 69% of voters nationwide voted by mail or through another means earlier than Election Day. That number was 40% in 2016.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-nothing-unusual-about-early-voting-its-been-done-since-the-founding-of-the-republic-146889">There's nothing unusual about early voting – it's been done since the founding of the republic</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>2. Is early voting safe?</h2>
<p>Election fraud is rare. </p>
<p>And <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-voter-fraud-facts-explai/explainer-despite-trump-claims-voter-fraud-is-extremely-rare-here-is-how-u-s-states-keep-it-that-way-idUSKBN2601HG">mail-in ballot fraud</a> is even rarer. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.heritage.org/article/about-the-election-fraud-database">conservative Heritage Foundation</a> conducted a survey in 2020 and found 1,200 “proven instances of voter fraud” since 2000, with 1,100 criminal convictions over those two decades. </p>
<p>Only 204 allegations, and 143 convictions, involved mail-in ballots – even with more <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/494189-lets-put-the-vote-by-mail-fraud-myth-to-rest/">than 250 million mail-in ballots cast since 2000</a>. </p>
<p>Edie Goldenberg is a University of Michigan political scientist who belongs to a <a href="https://napawash.org/grand-challenges-blog/election-2020-protect-electoral-integrity-and-enhance-voter-participation">National Academy of Public Administration working group</a> that offered recommendations to ensure voter participation and public confidence during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. </p>
<p>Goldenberg writes: “The evidence we reviewed finds that voting by mail is rarely subject to fraud, does not give an advantage to one political party over another and can in fact inspire public confidence in the voting process, if done properly.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-way-to-get-out-the-vote-in-a-pandemic-146523">What's the best way to get out the vote in a pandemic?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>3. Voting turnout is key to democracy</h2>
<p>More people voted in the 2020 presidential election than in any election in the past 120 years, even as nearly one-third of eligible voters sat it out. That means <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/494189-lets-put-the-vote-by-mail-fraud-myth-to-rest/">nearly 80 million Americans</a> did not vote. </p>
<p>Among <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/945031391/poll-despite-record-turnout-80-million-americans-didnt-vote-heres-why">the reasons nonvoters gave were</a> not being registered, not being interested or not believing their vote made a difference. Despite such apathy, about 155 million voters – that’s 67% of Americans over 18 – did vote in 2020. </p>
<p>Part of the problem of reducing the percentage of nonvoters at the street level can be getting people to answer their doors to strangers or answering a telephone call placed by a campaign volunteer from an unrecognized number. Before the pandemic, an effective door-to-door campaign could increase turnout by almost 10%; a well-run phone campaign could add an additional 5%. </p>
<p>When University of California, Berkeley’s Vice Provost for Graduate Studies <a href="https://bse.berkeley.edu/lisa-garc%C3%ADa-bedolla">Lisa García Bedolla</a> began studying voter mobilization in 2005, it was common for door-to-door campaigns to reach half of the people they tried to contact. By 2018, that number had dropped to about 18%.</p>
<p>To close the gap, campaigns moved toward asking people to contact people they knew and help turn out those supporters and social networks. Text messages, especially reminder texts, became the virtual door knock. </p>
<p>“These friend-to-friend approaches are seen as a way to cut through the noise,” Bedolla writes.</p>
<p>These personal approaches can also create a sense of accountability.</p>
<p>Knowing that someone is paying attention to your vote, however it is cast, might make a difference in a local, state or federal election. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-way-to-get-out-the-vote-in-a-pandemic-146523">What's the best way to get out the vote in a pandemic?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190187/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The balance of US political power is at stake in the 2022 midterm elections. Voters have several ways to cast their ballots – and the majority of Americans are choosing one of them.Matt Williams, Senior International EditorHoward Manly, Race + Equity Editor, The Conversation USLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1231402019-09-13T04:58:13Z2019-09-13T04:58:13ZWhy won’t Democrats say they want government to solve problems?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292354/original/file-20190913-35611-1p9p64q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=52%2C389%2C4933%2C2298&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">They didn't come out and say what they really mean.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/APTOPIX-Election-2020-Debate/d51c0807505447628752e778f7ebd809/6/0">AP Photo/Eric Gay</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>All 10 Democratic candidates in the Houston debate Sept. 13 spoke about investing public money – taxpayer dollars – in education, health care and economic opportunity for Americans. Those ideas depend on an underlying point none of them came out and said directly: Government can help citizens live better lives and achieve their dreams. </p>
<p>Why won’t Democrats come out and say that government is, or at least can be, good?</p>
<h2>Crisis of distrust</h2>
<p>The 2020 presidential campaign is happening in an America facing a historic crisis of public trust in political leaders, branches of government and each other. Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur seeking the Democratic nomination, <a href="https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/13/transcript-third-democratic-debate/">said it directly</a> on the stage: “We don’t trust our institutions anymore.”</p>
<p>According to a Pew Research Center report, only <a href="https://www.people-press.org/2019/04/11/public-trust-in-government-1958-2019/">17% of Americans today trust the government</a> in Washington to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time” – down from 77% who trusted the government in 1964.</p>
<p>Likewise, Gallup has tracked the <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/Confidence-Institutions.aspx">precipitous decline in confidence in American institutions</a>. Americans’ confidence in the Supreme Court has declined from 49% in 1975 to 38% today. Confidence in Congress has declined from 40% in 1975 to 11% today. Confidence in the presidency has declined from 52% in 1975 to 38% today. </p>
<p><iframe id="pq5AH" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/pq5AH/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>What’s worse, Pew says that in 2019 <a href="https://www.people-press.org/2019/04/11/little-public-support-for-reductions-in-federal-spending/pp_2019-04-11_federal-spending_0-05/">only 39% of Americans have a very great or good deal of trust</a> and confidence in “the wisdom of the American people in making political decisions.” </p>
<h2>History of ‘government is the problem’</h2>
<p>Americans haven’t always been distrustful of government. </p>
<p>In fact, at least since the presidencies of James Monroe and John Quincy Adams, presidents have made the case for the power and authority of the federal government to solve the nation’s problems. For Monroe and Adams the immediate issues were “<a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-house-representatives-containing-the-views-the-president-the-united">internal improvements</a>” like building canals, but the bigger question of the proper role and scope of government was the same as today. </p>
<p>Perhaps President Franklin Delano Roosevelt most forcefully advocated for a strong and active government. For example, in a 1938 <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fireside-chat-15">Fireside Chat</a> he justified the newly enlarged power of the federal government because “history proves that dictatorships do not grow out of strong and successful governments, but out of weak and helpless ones.” Government was the solution, not the problem.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292357/original/file-20190913-35615-1hubnle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292357/original/file-20190913-35615-1hubnle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292357/original/file-20190913-35615-1hubnle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292357/original/file-20190913-35615-1hubnle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292357/original/file-20190913-35615-1hubnle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292357/original/file-20190913-35615-1hubnle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=641&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292357/original/file-20190913-35615-1hubnle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=641&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292357/original/file-20190913-35615-1hubnle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=641&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In his Fireside Chats, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt often made the case that government was intended to help people.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FDR-September-6-1936.jpg">Harris & Ewing, photographer/Library of Congress via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But, by 1981 President Ronald Reagan famously declared in his first inaugural address, “In this present crisis, <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/inaugural-address-11">government is not the solution to our problem</a>; government is the problem.” </p>
<p>Reagan used his presidency to push policies of deregulation – to “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/23/us/reagan-s-effort-to-change-course-of-government.html">get the government off the backs of the people</a>,” he said. His successors mostly did more of the same, with very few politicians of either party making a case for why a strong government is a good thing in the post-Reagan era.</p>
<h2>A change of heart</h2>
<p>Recently, though, the Reagan consensus about the value of government and deregulation has fractured. It’s fractured in part because deregulation has a vocal and polarizing new champion.</p>
<p>No previous president has been as against government as President Donald Trump has been, which has caused <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/trump-administration-staff-vacancies-leave-career-civil-servants-in-place/">quite a bit of controversy</a>. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and presidency has been <a href="https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/177779">unusually vehement</a> in opposition to the government’s power to <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/tracking-deregulation-in-the-trump-era/">enact regulations</a>. </p>
<p>In one of his first acts as president, Trump issued an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-reducing-regulation-controlling-regulatory-costs/">executive order</a> to reduce regulation by requiring agencies to “identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed” for each new regulation proposed. </p>
<p>To take just one area of deregulation as an example, Trump has reversed at least 85 <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html">environmental regulations</a>. Trump has been accused of “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/08/trump-environment-rules-roll-back-dangerous-attacks-climate-change">attacking the environment</a>” by the climate scientists, conservationists and average citizens who worry about the catastrophic effects of climate change. </p>
<p>Trump’s war on regulations looks like it will continue, should he win a second term. On June 18, Vice President Mike Pence kicked off Trump’s re-election campaign by declaring that the 2020 election would be a choice between “<a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-announcing-candidacy-for-the-republican-presidential-nomination-2020">a future of more freedom or a future of more government</a>.”</p>
<h2>What happened at the debate</h2>
<p>The Democratic Party of 2019 seems to have a view of an active and energetic government that can solve the nation’s problems. Candidate after candidate at the Houston debate invoked their plans – Sen. Kamala Harris opened by <a href="https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/13/transcript-third-democratic-debate/">explaining</a> that she planned “on spending tonight talking with you about my plans to address the problems that keep you up at night.” Former Vice President Joe Biden had a “bold plan to deal with making sure we triple the money for at-risk schools.” Former Housing Secretary Julián Castro said he was proud of his “plan to disarm hate.” </p>
<p>So many plans flew across the stage that South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg at one point exclaimed, “My plan, your plan. Look, we all have different visions for what is better” for the country. Congressman Beto O'Rourke tweeted out a meme merging his assault rifle buyback plan with Warren’s “I’ve got a plan for that” tagline. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1172325580622032899"}"></div></p>
<p>A recent Pew report found that “<a href="https://www.people-press.org/2019/04/11/little-public-support-for-reductions-in-federal-spending/pp_2019-04-11_federal-spending_0-01/">majorities favor increased spending</a> for education, veterans, infrastructure and other government programs.” The Democrats running for president in Houston have plans for that, but first they have to convince a doubting public that the government is capable of solving problems, not creating them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123140/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Mercieca 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>Americans want government to serve them, but don’t have confidence that it actually can.Jennifer Mercieca, Associate Professor of Communication, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1195712019-07-30T12:37:56Z2019-07-30T12:37:56ZHow did the US presidential campaign get to be so long?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545384/original/file-20230829-9973-huoio9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=121%2C363%2C4932%2C3530&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley holds a town hall in South Carolina on Aug. 28, 2023.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/following-a-strong-performance-in-the-first-republican-news-photo/1629838244?adppopup=true">Peter Zay/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Four hundred and forty-four days prior to the 2024 presidential election, millions of Americans tuned into the first Republican primary debate. If this seems like a long time to contemplate the candidates, it is. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/21/450238156/canadas-11-week-campaign-reminds-us-that-american-elections-are-much-longer">By comparison</a>, Canadian election campaigns average just 50 days. In France, candidates have just two weeks to campaign, while Japanese law restricts campaigns to a meager 12 days. </p>
<p>Those countries all give more power than the United States does to the legislative branch, which might explain the limited attention to the selection of the chief executive. But Mexico – which, like the US, has a <a href="https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/presidential-system/">presidential system</a> – only allows 90 days for its presidential campaigns, with a 60-day “pre-season,” the equivalent of the US nomination campaign. </p>
<p>So by all accounts, the United States has exceptionally long elections – and they just keep getting longer. <a href="https://www.drake.edu/polsci/facultystaff/rachelpainecaufield/">As a political scientist living in Iowa</a>, I’m acutely aware of how long the modern American presidential campaign has become.</p>
<p>It wasn’t always this way. The seemingly interminable presidential campaign is <a href="https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/01/22/as-length-of-presidential-campaigns-increases-2020-might-follow-suit/">a modern phenomenon</a>. It originated out of widespread frustration with the control that national parties used to wield over the selection of candidates. But changes to election procedures, along with <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2960400?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">media coverage</a> that started to depict the election as a horse race, <a href="https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/01/22/as-length-of-presidential-campaigns-increases-2020-might-follow-suit/">have also contributed to the trend</a>.</p>
<h2>Wresting power from party elites</h2>
<p>For most of American history, party elites determined who would be best suited to compete in the general election. It was a process that took little time and required virtually no public campaigning by candidates. </p>
<p>But beginning in the early 20th century, populists and progressives <a href="https://conventions.cps.neu.edu/history/the-progressive-era-reforms-and-the-birth-of-the-primaries-1890-1960/">fought for greater public control over the selection of their party’s candidates</a>. They introduced the modern presidential primary and advocated for a more inclusive selection process of convention delegates. As candidates sought support from a wider range of people, they began to employ modern campaign tactics, like advertising. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, becoming the nominee didn’t require a protracted campaign.</p>
<p>Consider 1952, when <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower/campaigns-and-elections">Dwight Eisenhower</a> publicly announced that he was a Republican just 10 months before the general election and indicated that he was willing to run for president. Even then, he remained overseas as NATO commander until June, when he resigned to campaign full time. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286096/original/file-20190729-43145-6bapdc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286096/original/file-20190729-43145-6bapdc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286096/original/file-20190729-43145-6bapdc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286096/original/file-20190729-43145-6bapdc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286096/original/file-20190729-43145-6bapdc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=581&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286096/original/file-20190729-43145-6bapdc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=581&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286096/original/file-20190729-43145-6bapdc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=581&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Harry S. Truman points to Adlai E. Stevenson, as he introduces him at the 1952 Democratic convention in Chicago.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-CVN-IL-USA-APHS420172-DNC-Stevenson-/7a7a2497ac6648e1a05f9bd8914ba958/11/0">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On the Democratic side, despite encouragement from President Harry Truman, <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-07-26-9701150606-story.html">Adlai Stevenson</a> repeatedly rejected efforts to draft him for the nomination, until his welcoming address at the national convention in July 1952 – just a few months before the general election. His speech excited the delegates so much that they put his name in the running, and he became the nominee. </p>
<p>And in 1960, even though <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/kennedys-nomination-was-a-big-moment-for-the-primary-system/">John F. Kennedy</a> appeared on the ballot in only 10 of the party’s 16 state primaries, he was still able to use his win in heavily Protestant West Virginia to convince party leaders that he could attract support, despite his Catholicism.</p>
<h2>A shift to primaries</h2>
<p>The contentious <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/1960s/1968-democratic-convention">1968 Democratic convention</a> in Chicago, however, led to a series of reforms. </p>
<p>That convention had pitted young anti-war activists supporting Eugene McCarthy against older establishment supporters of Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Thousands of protesters rioted in the streets as Humphrey was nominated. It revealed deep divisions within the party, with many members convinced that party elites had operated against their wishes. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/20452374?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">The resulting changes to the nomination process</a> – dubbed the McGovern-Fraser reforms – were explicitly designed to allow rank-and-file party voters to participate in the nomination of a presidential candidate.</p>
<p>States increasingly <a href="http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-modern-history-of-the-democratic-presidential-primary-1972-2008/?upm_export=print">shifted</a> to public primaries rather than party caucuses. In a party <a href="https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/caucus-system-us-presidential-nominating-process">caucus system</a> – like that used in Iowa – voters meet at a designated time and place to discuss candidates and issues in person. By design, a caucus tends to attract activists deeply engaged in party politics. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-presidential-primary-works/?utm_term=.eb8b072ce77c">Primaries</a>, on the other hand, are conducted by the state government and require only that a voter show up for a few moments to cast their ballot. </p>
<p>As political scientist Elaine Kamarck <a href="https://www.npr.org/books/titles/471571510/primary-politics-everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-america-nominates-its-pre">has noted</a>, in 1968, only 15 states held primaries; by 1980, 37 states held primaries. For the 2024 election, only Iowa, Nevada, Idaho, North Dakota, Utah and Hawaii <a href="https://www.270towin.com/2024-presidential-election-calendar/">have confirmed that they’ll hold caucuses</a>; the remaining U.S. states and territories will likely hold primaries.</p>
<p>The growing number of primaries meant that candidates were encouraged to use any tool at their disposal to reach as many voters as possible. Candidates became more entrepreneurial, name recognition and media attention became more important, and campaigns became more media savvy – and expensive. </p>
<p>This shift marked the beginning of what political scientists call the “<a href="https://newbooksnetwork.com/brian-arbour-candidate-centered-campaigns-political-messages-winning-personalities-and-personal-appeals-palgrave-macmillan-2014/">candidate-centered campaign</a>.” </p>
<h2>The early bird gets the worm</h2>
<p>In 1974, as he concluded his term as Governor of Georgia, just <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=4XKu7rZVG1AC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=jimmy+carter+name+recognition+1974&source=bl&ots=8jlO6tdIuz&sig=ACfU3U3TgTIDwPyhGezopzRq5_uG05YxcQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1wayNldvjAhWKZ80KHUC1C0w4FBDoATAJegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=jimmy%20carter%20name%20recognition%201974&f=false">2% of voters</a> recognized the name of Democrat Jimmy Carter. He had virtually no money. </p>
<p>But Carter theorized that he could build momentum by proving himself in states that held early primaries and caucuses. So on Dec. 12, 1974 – 691 days before the general election – <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/13/archives/georgias-gov-carter-enters-democratic-race-for-president-governor.html">Carter announced his presidential campaign</a>. Over the course of 1975, he spent much of his time in Iowa, talking to voters and building a campaign operation in the state. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286095/original/file-20190729-43118-1bf5wv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286095/original/file-20190729-43118-1bf5wv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286095/original/file-20190729-43118-1bf5wv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286095/original/file-20190729-43118-1bf5wv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286095/original/file-20190729-43118-1bf5wv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286095/original/file-20190729-43118-1bf5wv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286095/original/file-20190729-43118-1bf5wv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286095/original/file-20190729-43118-1bf5wv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jimmy Carter speaks to a crowd of supporters at a farm in Des Moines, Iowa.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/Search?query=jimmy+carter+iowa&ss=10&st=kw&entitysearch=&toItem=18&orderBy=Newest&searchMediaType=allmedia">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By October 1975, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1975/10/27/archives/carter-appears-to-hold-a-solid-lead-in-iowa-as-the-campaigns-first.html">The New York Times was heralding Carter’s popularity in Iowa</a>, pointing to his folksy style, agricultural roots and political prowess. Carter came in second in that caucus – “uncommitted” won – but he yielded more votes than any other named candidate. Carter’s campaign was widely accepted as the runaway victor, boosting his prominence, name recognition and fundraising. </p>
<p>Carter would go on to win the nomination and the election.</p>
<p>His successful campaign became <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/jimmy-carter-iowa-caucuses/426729/">the stuff of political legend</a>. Generations of political candidates and organizers have since adopted the early start, hoping that a better-than-expected showing in Iowa or New Hampshire will similarly propel them to the White House. </p>
<h2>Other states crave the spotlight</h2>
<p>As candidates tried to <a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/jimmy-carter-is-emerging-as-a-role-model-in-2020-primaries.html">repeat Carter’s success</a>, other states tried to steal some of Iowa’s political prominence by pushing their contests earlier and earlier in the nomination process, a trend called “<a href="https://www.uakron.edu/bliss/docs/state-of-the-parties-documents/Wattier.pdf">frontloading</a>.” </p>
<p>In 1976, when Carter ran, <a href="https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=polisci_pubs">just 10% of national convention delegates were selected by March 2</a>. By 2008, 70% of delegates were selected by March 2.</p>
<p>When state primaries and caucuses were spread out in the calendar, candidates could compete in one state, then move their campaign operation to the next state, raise some money and spend time getting to know the activists, issues and voters before the next primary or caucus. A frontloaded system, in contrast, requires candidates to run a campaign in dozens of states at the same time. </p>
<p>To be competitive in so many states at the same time, campaigns rely on extensive <a href="https://www.thecampaignworkshop.com/paid-media-vs-earned-media-how-do-they-fit-campaign-budget">paid and earned</a> media exposure and a robust campaign staff, all of which require substantial name recognition and campaign cash before the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. </p>
<p>The parties exacerbated these trends in 2016 and 2020, using the number of donors and public polls to determine who is eligible for early debates. For example, <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rnc-debate-rules_n_647a532ae4b091b09c32a9b9">to earn a place on the stage</a> of the first Republican debate in August 2023, candidates had to accumulate at least 40,000 donors and at least 1% support in three national polls.</p>
<p>So that’s how the U.S. got to where it is today.</p>
<p>A century ago, Warren Harding announced his successful candidacy 321 days before the 1920 election. </p>
<p>In the 2020 race, Democratic Congressman John Delaney announced his White House bid a record 1,194 days before election.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an article originally published on July 30, 2019.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119571/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Paine Caufield 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>While other countries set strict limits on the length of campaigns, American presidential races have become drawn-out, yearslong affairs. It wasn’t always this way.Rachel Paine Caufield, Professor of Political Science, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1009432018-10-23T10:45:22Z2018-10-23T10:45:22ZGeorgia’s gubernatorial race could be a bellwether for Democrats nationally<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241742/original/file-20181022-105761-18sdbw7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Georgia gubernatorial candidates Stacey Abrams, left, and Brian Kemp.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Polling-Places-Proposed-Closures/29479c584c8f4e91b39d8c648e090d29/2/0">AP Photos/John Amis, File</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Democrats haven’t won a major statewide office in Georgia since 2000, but this year’s gubernatorial race in the state is a tossup.</p>
<p>As a political scientist who studies elections and lives in Georgia, I’ve been watching this race closely. </p>
<p>Polls have the Republican candidate, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, and the Democratic candidate, former State House of Representatives Minority Leader Stacey Abrams, in a <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=f6212db4-ce30-4fb3-8dbc-ec1399a602b4">virtual dead heat</a>. Political forecasters at FiveThirtyEight <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/governor/">estimate</a> this is the closest statewide race in the nation.</p>
<p>The 2018 gubernatorial election is Democrats’ best chance in decades to pick up a Georgia win.</p>
<h2>Running uphill</h2>
<p>From the outside, Georgia appears to be a solidly red state, but underneath the surface it’s pretty closely divided. There have been 10 races in Georgia for major statewide offices – that includes senator and governor – since 2000. Democrats have lost all of those races, but based on data I’ve compiled the Democratic candidate has won 45 percent of the vote five times, and 47 percent of the vote three times. Republicans have won an average of 52.9 percent of the vote. This is a very low average margin of victory for a state in which one party wins so consistently.</p>
<p>Each candidate in this year’s gubernatorial race has a significant electoral weakness.</p>
<p>Kemp is a far-right conservative who won the primary election with a campaign grounded in anti-immigrant and pro-gun messages, and <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-endorses-brian-kemp-georgia-745110/">Donald Trump’s endorsement</a>. He’s facing a strong national Democratic tide brought on by President Trump’s <a href="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/trump-job-approval">lagging popularity</a> and high levels of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/upshot/midterms-democrats-turnout-enthusiasm.html">enthusiasm</a> among Democratic voters. </p>
<p>Abrams is an African-American woman running for office, and even in 2018, minority and women candidates have a harder time winning elections.</p>
<p>In both cases, these qualities may hurt the candidate in the general election by dampening voter enthusiasm.</p>
<h2>Kemp the ideologue</h2>
<p>Kemp made national headlines in April and May during the Republican primary with a campaign designed to win over the most conservative voters in Georgia. </p>
<p>Kemp released an ad in which he had a conversation with a teenage boy while <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQBENgYJxgs">pointing a gun</a> at him as an illustration of how committed he is to upholding the Second Amendment. In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q1cfjh6VfE">another ad</a> he boasted about “round[ing] up criminal illegal aliens” in his own pickup truck.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241744/original/file-20181022-105757-uw7abk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241744/original/file-20181022-105757-uw7abk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241744/original/file-20181022-105757-uw7abk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241744/original/file-20181022-105757-uw7abk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241744/original/file-20181022-105757-uw7abk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241744/original/file-20181022-105757-uw7abk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241744/original/file-20181022-105757-uw7abk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241744/original/file-20181022-105757-uw7abk.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">A supporter of Georgia gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp stands outside a state Republican Party unity rally.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Georgia-Governor/ba344e4c820940dc9d2631b8349e16e9/1/0">AP Photo/John Amis</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This conservative rhetoric is well-designed to win a Republican primary, because the people who vote in primary elections tend to prefer <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3162/036298007X201994">strongly</a> <a href="http://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Hall_Snyder_Ideology.pdf">ideological</a> candidates. Kemp easily defeated his more moderate opponent, Casey Cagel, who lamented that the primary had devolved into a contest over “who had the biggest gun, who had the biggest truck, and who could be <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/gop-candidate-cagle-admits-primary-about-whos-craziest.html">the craziest</a>.”</p>
<p>A significant body of research suggests that the conservative image Kemp built up in the primary will not serve him well in the general election. People who vote in general elections tend to be <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3162/036298007X201994">more ideologically moderate</a> than primary voters.</p>
<p>And even though voters have grown <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1017/S0022381608080493">more polarized</a> over recent years, they remain <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/leapfrog-representation-and-extremism-a-study-of-american-voters-and-their-members-in-congress/7F30201FBE6E3092D705FC06C6777DB9">more</a> <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/440269?casa_token=OnJFsU7xSjMAAAAA:dtdnYO0b7gQaWQNZaYi7-qOjSOSq_JSEeNs-YcsNLIF8LF6xuRzD9Txi2-usGnBU3vlLU7WsIKVu7knFc5IEI_i5f_m0ZORQGaIN9sY20ubqv7qnsnE&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">centrist</a> than party activists or elected officials. General election swing voters – true <a href="https://theconversation.com/partisanship-runs-deep-in-america-even-among-independents-104884">partisan “independents”</a> – aren’t looking for strong ideologues. They <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00517.x">tend to prefer</a> moderate candidates who appear bipartisan.</p>
<p>All of this means that in general elections, moderates have an advantage. In those contests, ideologically extreme party nominees <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3117814">win</a> a <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/what-happens-when-extremists-win-primaries/ECAC69648AE0DF91D93103E18342B9D2">significantly</a> <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00449.x">smaller</a> <a href="https://faculty.polisci.wisc.edu/bcburden/bjps2004.pdf">share</a> of the vote than moderate nominees.</p>
<p>Candidates who win a primary with a strong ideological campaign might try to moderate their stances for the general election, but that usually <a href="https://web.stanford.edu/%7Etomz/working/TomzVanHouweling-2014-08-15.pdf">doesn’t work very well</a>. Voters may not believe the switch in tone is genuine, or the candidate may have already alienated core voters in the primary. </p>
<h2>Abrams, race and gender</h2>
<p>In contrast to Kemp’s efforts to position himself as a strong conservative, Stacey Abrams tends to focus on traditional Democratic issues such as <a href="https://www.ajc.com/news/state-regional-education/abrams-has-expansive-and-expensive-education-plan/imsIgeP9uROKzn9Btowe3K/">education</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/20/health/medicaid-georgia-abrams-midterms.html">health care</a>. However, she faces a different set of challenges in the race. </p>
<p>Abrams is trying to become the first female African-American governor of any state. Unfortunately, both Abrams’ race and her gender will play a role in how voters perceive her, even in 2018. And neither of those factors will play to her favor.</p>
<p>African-American candidates have a harder time winning elections than white candidates. Research shows that voters – in particular white voters – assume that black candidates are predisposed to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111765?casa_token=gKjssWTo-WsAAAAA:I-jJ0eU-PhQLJ7T5cQJ8EzSpKzvVLBSr4jp1pLiEYXPFsgP1rAmw5Qc33zBvRsJleW19tEI2AGTL62IPW6kjTC-fktlVDh1xcd-XQ5slOc-af4ItSPA&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">favor</a> <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591299805100403">minority</a> <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591299805100403">groups</a> in society. Voters also tend to view black candidates and officeholders as being <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591299805100403">more liberal</a> than white candidates, which can hurt black candidates in a general election. </p>
<p>More directly, some white voters are influenced by negative <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2111708.pdf?casa_token=Nh9ox8GtJycAAAAA:xTuEM5O5dCBakMumJEEZiEJV4z7WwUmS6zn-RvZyaSZMGcgWLCUVEVOSzXJbeg6yK-e_SbEBeS2MpSQ-xz6m7BENACfNcbIywXCllmZIiZZCMKhQzHg">stereotypes</a> about African-Americans. As a result, white voters evaluate black candidates and officeholders <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3088429?casa_token=XFJ6pk9MCEUAAAAA:DHuU3YL4xyC-WK88pL7gWnMFNONd0yE9HI6BVEE7Uqp-NxrdO9FY0YHALBWtdbAJuC21c3peS4T0qNh_AJ1Uo7dQHI4VbkpBkgCDuHz2WLCUhDvAxTc&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">less</a> <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111542?casa_token=ukurz1FkwcMAAAAA:_GFFHzKut__NlT-k2cHhc4l163_Yvz-0q1Eax6NmMS8bOgVWjr0pU7JjUNnEGu65zBe-faL_ujw28WnPnxYNMU3MX3OoqCkn_tKrVE0Q-PFu_8KXT7U&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">favorably</a>, and are <a href="https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/121/3/973/1917898">less</a> <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/effect-of-black-congressional-representation-on-political-participation/190781EE49AC4E2B4F6A62ED92BBE00A">likely</a> to vote for African-Americans. </p>
<p>Abrams is counting to make up some of these electoral losses by focusing her efforts on <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/23/17384024/stacey-abrams-georgia-black-women-midterm-2018">stimulating turnout</a> among Georgia’s nearly 2 million black voters in November, but there is <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00229.x">little</a> <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12172">evidence</a> that minority candidates, in and of themselves, stimulate minority turnout. Nonetheless, <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/darrensands/stacey-abrams-andrew-gillum-young-black-voters-turnout">some call</a> Abrams’ efforts, along with those of other African-American candidates pursuing a similar strategy in other states, a model for the democratic party to follow nationally.</p>
<p>Female candidates are subject to similar types of scrutiny on the campaign trail. When voters evaluate candidates for office, their opinions are strongly influenced by gender <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111526?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">stereotypes</a>. Women are perceived as being more <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Democrats-Republicans-Politics-Womens-Place/dp/0472030205">warm</a> and <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591290405700312">compassionate</a>, while men are perceived as being more assertive and competent. In general, the traits many people tend to associate with <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.">good leaders</a> are traits voters also associate with men and masculinity. </p>
<p>As a result, many voters – both male and female – implicitly assume men in general are <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-016-9357-5">more</a> <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111526?casa_token=_KvQZXY7XWwAAAAA:gy89AunZN0MsdSSw8IxdRTHB5xzydmrSqnK9poW7wxaxeKY1TgJZQYVS1evZeqsNat1HdaDFpse5n5lYCpl6NO-QWt-MAfOAgRdczW48Cd9TzV0vT7s&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">competent</a> than women are. These stereotypes <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3088412?casa_token=teO3PLxzdFQAAAAA:rlh1eGXRPKAKhZPFJfCi6sbz6IQtCmqxy9YqU0LN-rTMULS32DhZ-VfUhgS51e4Bav20Br4CBl5xDRwNi4YEYZz8KeN6Q7ExOZW0-AvKDpbgfNhDjT0&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">can</a> <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1065912908322416">directly</a> <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-009-9090-4">influence</a> who voters vote for, as voters tend to prefer candidates who <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591299304600304">display</a> <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3088412?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">male</a> <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-013-9232-6">traits</a>. </p>
<p>Despite these disadvantages, female candidates tend to win elections at about the same rate as male candidates for office. But that’s only true because, on average, female candidates for office tend to have <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-gender/article/what-it-takes-to-win-questioning-gender-neutral-outcomes-in-us-house-elections/83267D037A804CE682D5A640DA7B27E0">more political experience</a> than men do on average, are <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912911401419">more strategic</a> about running in districts where they have a good chance of winning, and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00512.x">work</a> <a href="https://www.press.umich.edu/9718645/gendered_vulnerability">harder</a> than men at winning elections. If these disparities existed in an even playing field, we’d expect to see women win more often.</p>
<p>Black women have to deal with both sets of stereotypes, which creates an <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1554477X.2015.1019273">even</a> <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00236.x">higher</a> <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912912467851">bar</a> to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1554477X.2015.1019273">clear</a> for women of color who run for office.</p>
<h2>Who will win?</h2>
<p>This fall, the Georgia election is likely to come down to which candidate can best overcome these significant electoral disadvantages. </p>
<p>Will Kemp be able – or even try – to expand his appeal beyond the most conservative elements of the Republican Party? Will Abrams be able to appeal to moderate whites who might never have voted for an African-American before? Whichever candidate can better address their specific challenge is likely to be the next governor of Georgia.</p>
<p>The election may have national consequences as well. Right now Georgia isn’t a true swing state – Republicans have a small but very reliable edge here. If Abrams can break through and win the state, it might signal a strong showing for Democrats nationally on Election Day. It might also be a bad sign for Republicans in future elections, as one of their more reliable states could be put into play.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100943/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeffrey Lazarus 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>Beneath the surface, this traditionally conservative state is closely divided.Jeffrey Lazarus, Associate Professor of Political Science, Georgia State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/544512016-03-02T11:21:06Z2016-03-02T11:21:06ZVoters who oppose politicians are the most active<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113469/original/image-20160301-12111-1n2xnyb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Opposing a candidate is more confidence-building, and action-driving, than supporting one. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/perspective/19587772601/in/photolist-vQUsng-asdpjT-asdseF-asdpKv-bAS7uC-oaJPbb-nTkaa9-oax1nH-asdtya-asg287-C3NwYc-asdqua-vw8hXw-asdAtn-vNV35Z-asg5Dh-asdryp-asgfvA-asg91N-asfTRd-asg5mQ-asdtU8-asg78q-vRcq6Z-vykKJR-vNfiR1-CZ7Jbm-nTkZ22-6q23iQ-oaw9CH-6WnVQ4-uTLYJC-vLcQPw-vMWj3L-vQCYHt-vNCdu4-vMRdHh-vycRvL-nTjZfG-nTkLzE-nTkL4j-uTf7fw-AZJrTr-AXxww9-CZBaPf-uTeQaA-vN5moS-kSeo-Ch5T7Z-C5vMC6">Elvert Barnes/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>“My opponent is a liar. And, he can’t be trusted.”</em></p>
<p>Did you ever wonder why there are so many political attack ads? Of course, politicians have the obvious desire to tear down the opposition in the hopes of building up their own position. </p>
<p>But there is another dynamic at work: candidates and campaigns are seeking to exploit the lesser-known psychological advantage that opposing the other candidate has over supporting one’s own.</p>
<p>On candidates and issues alike, people can think of themselves as a supporter or as an opposer. If we assume the current front-runners become the presidential nominees, this is the difference between “I support Hillary Clinton” and “I oppose Donald Trump.” Both positions would likely result in the same voting intentions, but one is more likely to inspire action, such as participating in a demonstration, contributing funds or actually casting a ballot. </p>
<p>Our research into the question of how voters think of themselves has discovered that opposition inspires more confidence in one’s position than support. Confidence helps to turn judgments into actions. This helps explain why political attack ads are a crucial tool in politicians’ arsenals – and why voters are bombarded by negative messages on the way to the voting booths.</p>
<h2>Perspective leads to confidence, and then to action</h2>
<p>It is not that opposers are different kinds of people (negative Nellies or pessimists) than supporters (Pollyannas or optimists). Nor is it that opposers necessarily have different reasons behind their views than supporters. For example, those who oppose discrimination may not have had more personal experience with the issue than those who support equality, nor are they necessarily more emotional about the issue. Yet, being anti-discrimination is more confidence-inducing than being pro-equality. </p>
<p>Our research shows that if a person merely changes her view of her position, from saying she supports something to saying she is against its opposite, her likelihood of behavior changes. The perspective shift increases the confidence she has in her position. Our research also shows that people are more likely to act on their attitudes when they are held with confidence. For example, if two people like a new car to the same extent, the person who is more sure of that feeling is more likely to buy the car.</p>
<p>As a test of this hypothesis in the context of a real election, we conducted a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/227671791_Exploring_the_ValenceFraming_Effect_Negative_Framing_Enhances_Attitude_Strength/links/02bfe50d05b168a61a000000.pdf">study</a> during gubernatorial campaigns in two East Coast states. In preelection surveys, a representative sample of potential voters was randomly asked about support or opposition to either the Republican or the Democratic candidate.</p>
<p>Typically, when Democratic voters were asked about the Democratic candidate, they would reply that they “supported” him, but if they were asked about the Republican candidate, they would reply that they “opposed” him. The inverse situation was typical for Republican voters. </p>
<p>Our survey questions were designed to get voters to momentarily think about their position as either supporting their preferred candidate or opposing the disfavored candidate. This simple framing did not affect how much people liked their preferred candidate. But, it did influence how confident they were in that view and their intended behaviors. Voters who focused on how much they <em>opposed</em> the other candidate were generally more confident in their preference than voters who were asked about how much they <em>supported</em> their candidate.</p>
<p>Even more importantly, thinking about their opposition to the other candidate made voters report being more likely to engage in favorable behaviors toward their own candidate such as volunteering for him, advocating to others and going out to vote for him. That is, when we got voters to focus on the candidate they opposed, the voters appeared to have deeper conviction and reported a greater willingness to be politically active.</p>
<p>Our finding that being an opposer is more powerful than being a supporter fits with other psychological research showing that negative traits and information are <a href="http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71516.pdf">typically weighed more heavily</a> in judgments than positive traits and with the <a href="http://pages.uoregon.edu/harbaugh/Readings/GBE/Risk/Kahneman%201979%20E,%20Prospect%20Theory.pdf">prospect theory</a> notion that losses loom larger than gains.</p>
<h2>Anger is stronger than fear</h2>
<p>But what if you are competing in a primary rather than a general election? In that scenario, it’s often more difficult to get voters of your party to actively oppose other candidates from the same party, though as this election cycle shows, it can happen! Is there a way to enhance the confidence voters have in your candidacy?</p>
<p>Our research indicates that the reasons people support you can influence their confidence and tendencies to act on your behalf. For example, if people support you because they are angry at the establishment, or government, or immigrants, this <a href="https://repositorio.uam.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10486/666275/emotion_petty_ce_2015_ps.pdf?sequence=1">anger can fuel them to feel confident</a> about supporting you.</p>
<p>Although both anger and fear can influence what particular positions people take on issues, anger is a confident action-oriented emotion, whereas fear is more passive and doubt-oriented. Voters who support a candidate because they are angry at something are more likely to be confident and take action than voters who are frightened. </p>
<p>According to one <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-nevada-republican-caucuses-entrance-poll-analysis/story?id=37145367">recent poll</a>, six in 10 Nevada caucus-goers this year described themselves as angry. Voter anger may be one reason why turnout in many of the primaries so far has <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-the-voting-turnout-numbers-say-about-the-2016-presidential-race/">set records</a>.</p>
<p>In sum, our recent research has demonstrated that knowing how much voters like particular candidates, though important, is not the whole story. It also matters how confident people are in their preferences, because confidence is what turns attitudes into action. Knowing whether candidate preferences are driven by support or opposition, and by anger or fear, can help more accurately determine who is likely to donate money, show up for caucuses and ultimately vote for the chosen candidate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54451/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Petty receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>Opposition inspires more confidence in one’s position than support and also helps to turn judgments into actions. This helps explain why attack ads are a crucial tool in politicians’ arsenals.Richard Petty, Professor of Psychology, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.