Download Mashup 2008-03

Politicologenetmaal 2010, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Mai 27-28 Workshop “The Postmodern Election Campaign: the Role of Parties and the Media”
The day after:
Islsmic Immigrants,
economic recovery or
cuts in government expenditures:
the Dutch election campaign 2010
Jan Kleinnijenhuis
Janet Takens
Anita van Hoof
[email protected]
Wouter
van Atteveldt
Department of Communication Science,
VU University Amsterdam
Vraag voor de campagne: wat wordt HET thema
o
o
o
Islamitische immigranten (culturele dimensie – conservatieve kant)
Economisch herstel (consensusissues - regeringspartijen)
Bezuinigingen overheidsuitgaven (links-rechts-dimensie – rechtse kant)
Semantic Network Analysis 2
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
2
Kengetallen 2010
•
Grote volatiliteit
34 zetels verschoven tussen partijen
(evenals in 1994, geringer dan in 2002)
•
Grote fragmentatie dan ooit,
grootste partij slechts 31 zetels, slechts 1/5 van de stemmen
entropie in NE, perplexiteit = 7.7 gelijke partijen
Semantic Network Analysis 3
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
Waarom de Stemwijzer CDA-kiezers alle kanten opstuurt
Semantic Network Analysis 4
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
Waarom Kieskompas CDA-kiezers wegjaagt
Semantic Network Analysis 5
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
IntomartGfk poll 7th – 8th Mai
June 7th – June 8th
Correct: PvdD, CDA, SGP,D66,VVD;
1 zetel fout PvdA, GroenLinks, D66
echt fout: SP en CU te hoog, PVV te laag
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 6
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
6
IntomartGfk poll
PvdA verreweg de grootste op 34; PVV op 20
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 7
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
7
Four theories to explain short term shifts in election campaigns
o Retrospective voting and news about real-world
developments
o Prospective issue voting and news about the issue
positions of parties
o Game theory and news on Cooperation and Conflict,
Support and Criticism
o Momentum, bandwagon/underdog effects, herding
effect, and news on Success and Failure
Mediating variables: propensity to vote, trust or
striking features and striking events ?
Semantic Network Analysis 8
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
Methode
o Daily Content Analysis (Nieuwsmonitor)
o Weekly Panel Survey data (IntomartGfk, 10 waves,
(first wave early April n=1804, 10th wave 7-8th June n=1200)
o reconstruction of personal, exponentially decaying,
information sets
o Operationalisation of mediating News Consumer
Variables
o Exploratory Data Analysis: logistic model
Semantic Network Analysis 9
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
Noteworthy: campaign 2010 until April 23rd issue-oriented
Table 1: The relative amount of attention for issue positions, support & criticism and success & failure per election year
1994
1998
2002
2003
2006
2010 (until April 23)
Issue positions
34%
35%
28%
32%
38%
45%
Support &
Criticism (attack
news)
Success & Failure
(horse race)
47%
49%
51%
49%
45%
41%
19%
16%
21%
19%
17%
14%
*For reasons of comparability between election years the table excludes news in which parties do not play a role (the table
does not include news about real world developments either).
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 10
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
Table 2: Real world developments according to the media
retrospective voting: terrifying real-world conditions in 2010
2010
2006
% aandacht % aandacht
(all new s (real w orld
types)
only)
2003
2002
1998
Richting
% aandacht
Richting
% aandacht
Richting
% aandacht
Richting
% aandacht
Richting
rechtse issues, overheidsfinanciën
28%
21%
-0.20
12%
0,02
16
-0,08
12
-0,24
8
0,01
criminaliteitsbestrijding
11%
14%
-0.02
11%
-0,05
16
-0,26
23
-0,22
8
-0,30
onderw ijs
6%
5%
-0.55
9%
-0,24
6
-0,35
5
-0,05
3
-0,08
integratie immigranten
5%
5%
-0.04
9%
-0,16
8
-0,27
9
-0,36
8
-0,17
gezondheidszorg
6%
9%
-0.26
8%
-0,08
5
0,03
7
-0,17
8
-0,25
linkse issues, sociale ekerheid 5%
5%
-0.47
7%
0,04
12
-0,32
6
-0,28
7
-0,01
consensusissues, ec.groei, w erk
4%
4%
-0.10
7%
0,42
9
-0,46
4
-0,36
7
0,58
infrastructuur
11%
11%
-0.29
6%
-0,04
7
-0,35
8
-0,41
11
0,04
milieu
8%
10%
-0.16
5%
0,05
6
-0,20
8
0,16
4
0,15
2%
-0,12
1
-0,16
1%
-0,21
3
-0,22
terreurbestrijding
0.20%
internationale interventie
6%
4%
overige issues
10%
11%
n=8616
n=1306
T otaal
-0.30
24%
-0.21
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 11
n=3073
12
-0,03
n=2610
18
-0,24
n=2775
36
-0,22
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
n=2378
-0,02
11
Table 3: Issue positions of parties in 2010 election campaign according to the media, weighted by media attention
Issue Positions 2010: what happened with leftist issues?
PvdD
GroenLinks
CDA
CU
Natuur en milieu
18.73
24.47
23.67
6.91
Linkse issues, soc zek
0
4.52
-0.74
9.82
Gezondheidszorg
0.73
4.42
6.85
4.34
Ontwikkelingshulp
.
.
0.63
4.74
Normen en waarden
.
0.78
19.57
9.83
Onderwijs
.
-1.15
6.62
0.3
Europese samenwerking
.
.
8.77
.
Inzet Nederlandse militairen in het
-1.13
buitenland
15.87
7.6
12.93
Werkgelegenheid
.
6.44
5.45
4.19
Infrastructuur, Bereikbaarheid en mobiliteit
.
-1.07
59.75
1.6
Rechtse issues, bezuinigingen, belastingen
0.15
en
-7.42
overheidsfinanciën
81.01
-3.98
Bestuurlijke vernieuwing
4.47
10.5
9.19
1.59
Criminaliteit en onveiligheid
.
15.96
12.56
2.29
Asielzoekers en immigranten
.
2.15
13.22
-0.04
Terreurbestrijding
.
1.89
0.17
.
SGP
SP
D66
PvdA
VVD
TON
PVV
0.72
.
0.94
.
0.25
0
.
-0.13
-0.84
.
-1.26
1.59
1.85
-1.02
.
2.99
2.74
16.12
-0.81
1.64
-7.03
.
-3.28
3.14
-2.93
-27.29
6
-3.11
1.13
.
4.63
0.38
1.89
.
1.87
12.18
-0.93
16.18
8.03
1.69
14.3
30.56
2.82
1.85
1.89
22.45
21.94
-4.54
1.67
31.23
1.24
.
-3.8
22.47
5.41
1.08
25.2
7.06
17.24
1.89
-2.04
-10.78
-0.52
-3.24
-2.3
2.45
5.04
0.6
10.49
18.16
83.24
10.08
20.31
-5.07
1.89
-1.02
0
-0.73
-1.13
-3.46
-1.13
-3.67
.
.
.
14.82
2.71
.
-1.96
.
-2.3
-8.93
-1.48
-2.4
-0.29
-1.55
-6.74
-2.85
0.51
1.84
11.02
4.56
25.95
-35.52
0.34
Issue positions of parties in 2010 election campaign according to the media,
weighted by media attention
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 12
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
12
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
Issue ownership: issue reputations March (n=1804)
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 13
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
13
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?
Feb 19th – April 11th
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 14
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
14
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?
April 26th – May 9th
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 15
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
15
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?
May 10h – May 23trd
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 16
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
16
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 17
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
17
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 18
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
18
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 19
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
19
Voter flows: June 7th-8th as compared to 2006 elections
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 20
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
20
Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 21
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
21
Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 22
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
22
Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 23
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
23
Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 24
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
24
Voter flows:June 7th-8th as compared to 2010 mun.el.March
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 25
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
25
Voter flows
May 17th- May 23rd
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 26
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
26
Voter flows
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 27
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
27
Voter flows
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 28
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
28
Attribution of success and failure late March: all PvdA
March 15th - March 28th
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 29
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
29
Early april: VVD more success than PvdA
March 29th - April 11th
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 30
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
30
Attribution of success and failure in May: all VVD
Mai 10h – Mai 23th
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 31
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
31
Logistic model to explain whether one votes for a party in a given week
variable type
voter predispositions
variable
B
S.E.
Wald
Sig.
Last week's preference for party
6.26
0.06
12385
subjective media performance party
2.02
0.17
143
media performance party leader
1.05
0.17
39
content of one's media success and failure
0.05
0.01
12
(IP=issue position party)support from other parties
-0.03
0.01
5
IP administrative reforms, efficiency
0.21
0.08
8
IP rightist issues, gov.cuts
0.06
0.02
6
IP EU, euro
0.29
0.12
6
IP (Christian) norms and values
0.16
0.07
5
IP immigrants and crime
-0.13
0.07
3
IP employment, valence issues
-0.07
0.05
2
IP environment
-0.06
0.07
1
support from societal actors
0.02
0.03
0
IP leftist issues, social security, health, educ 0.02
0.05
0
IP Dutch military interventions
-0.02
0.04
0
support from the media
0.00
0.03
0
Constant
-4.62
0.04
11901
n=90909 nested party-voter-waves units; -2LL=11860; % correct = 99.0%; R2=0.75
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 32
Exp(B)
0.00 523.78
0.00
7.53
0.00
2.85
0.00
1.05
0.02
0.97
0.01
1.23
0.01
1.06
0.02
1.33
0.03
1.17
0.06
0.88
ns
0.94
ns
0.95
ns
1.02
ns
1.02
ns
0.99
ns
1.00
0.00
0.01
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
32
Logistic model per party
o Christian Democrats (CDA)
o strong impact of the (negative) media performance of the party on the
voters (leadership of Balkenende, extramarital affair of family man De
Vries).
o Impact of news on struggles within (doubts about Balkenende, De Vries)
o positive impact with their issue positions, for example with a strong
position against crime.
o The Socialist Party (SP)
o Until May 23rd unable in 2010 to make impressions on the voters with
issue positions.
o Strong recovery after 2nd television debate; the come back of leftist
issues
Semantic Network Analysis 33
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
33
Logistic model per party
o The Labour Party (PvdA)
o did not succeed in making an impact with its issue positions in addition
to the effects of subjective media performance until late April
o Shifts of voters to, or from the party can be explained best by news on
successes and failures (e.g. by the great successes attributed to the major
of Amsterdam in his political honeymoon month) and by news about
the support for (praise, positive remarks, rather than criticisms on!) the
new leader of the Labour Party in the early weeks of the election
campaign
o VVD
o strong impact due to its issue positions on rightist issues
(cuts in government expenditures, tax cuts), government
efficiency, norms and values.
Semantic Network Analysis 34
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
34
Evaluation of the campaign
o Highlights
o Respect of party leaders for each other
o Issues, although not always the most relevant issues (not:
EU, Afghanistan, climate)
o Sense of shame
o Fragmented television debates  fragmented political
landscape
o lack of clarity with regard to social effects of party
programmes (e.g. de Volkskrant – Nyfer)
o NOS journaal Mai 1st: internal dissent news about
anonymous CDA-leaders who did not trust Balkenende
Semantic Network Analysis 35
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
35
Summary / Discussion Dutch Elections 2010
o It’s cuts in government expenditures,
o It’s only the right side of the left-right axis
o It’s the VVD
Semantic Network Analysis 36
Department of Communication Science
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
DIM
DIM_2

ER
RODINA
LDPR
KPRF
DS
DSS
SPO


SRS
SPS
BE
UK

YABLOKO


 


SKDU
OKS
SMK


 LU
KDH
SDA
Smer
HZDS
SDL'


SNS

KSS
RPS




  LDS
SDS
NSi
 SMS
ZLSD
SLS
DeSUS

SNS

NP

ON
NU

JTZYU
SDPU-o

SPU
KPU


ALP
AD
GRN
OVP

FPO

Gru
SPO

Cross-national proximity scaling of party-issue-landscape
0.500
0.250
0.000
-0.250
-0.500




VLD
MR

CD&V

VBN-VA
  SPSp
CDH

Gro!
PS
Eco
FN
0.500
0.250
0.000
-0.250
-0.500

LD
SNP
ConLab
PCy
GR
FDP
CDU/CSU


GRÜ

SPD
Schil   PDS

 Rep
DVU
NPD DKP
ND


PASOK
SYN

DIM_2
0.500
0.250
0.000
-0.250
-0.500


MLP
SE

M
X-B

X-N

X-U
VVD  D66
LPF
CDA


PvdA
SGP
CU  GL
SP
CH

FP
KD

C
SAP MP
V
-0.500 0.250
-0.250
0.500
0.000
LPS
FDP
CVPGPS
SPS
EVP PdA
 
SVP
 EDU
SD
-0.500
0.250
-0.250 0.500
0.000

-0.500 0.250
-0.250 0.500
0.000
DIM_1
DIM_1 37
Semantic
Network Analysis
US

ANAP

 AKP
 DEHAP
DYP
 CHP

DSP
 GP
MHP
DIM_1
Pann
FI
LNUDC
SDI
Marg
DS
It.Val.
Green
PDCI
AN
RC


H
V
FrP
 DNA
  SV
KrF
SpRV


PSD

PS
CDS/PP
Rep
Dem
-0.500
0.250
-0.250
0.500
0.000

MSFT

JCP
DPSDP
NCP
LDP
Kom.
 
-0.500 0.250
-0.250 0.500
0.000
Department
of Communication Science
DIM_1
DIM_1
The Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam
DP
CSV

LSAP

G
ADR  DL
ES


JP



PT

SDLP
APNI
NIW
C

  PUP
SF
 UUP
DUP
FN
MPF
RPF  PS
 
PCF
 
V
RPR
UEM
UDF
LU


   



NO


TR





NI



IT
Shin
Lik Lab

 Bala
Merz
Raam
Hada


 YhT
Shas
 NRP AE
IHUD
PD
FG
FF LB

GR

SF
ACT

UF

NP

NZLP

NZFP GPA
PC
Allc
KOK

 SFP

SDP
VIHR



 KD
KESK VAS
PS
IL

FR

V
KF

CD
FrP
  SD RV
KrF  SF

Enh
DF

NZ

 





KKE
NL
NP

AD


X-D

 X-F
X-S
FI

DISI
EDI
ADIK
EDEK
NEO
DIKO
KOP

AKEL
IE


DK
 
 
 
IS


CY
CA


BQ
PC


LPC NDP
GPC

 
MT
0.500
0.250
0.000
-0.250
-0.500
CA

DE
DIM_2
DIM_2
0.250
0.000
-0.250
-0.500
BE
PEV
PCP
PP
 CiU
PNV

PSOE

IU