Here, I focus on the relationship between political context—that is, political advantage and disadvantage derived from national presidential election results—and media demand in the form of local partisan newspaper circulations from 1932 to 2004. I argue that a sense of advantage and disadvantage in the national electoral context can significantly affect relative partisan media consumption. My main analyzes then focus on the change in demand for all local partisan newspapers in the US.
To understand how the political context affects news demand, Figure 1 depicts the bivariate relationship between the electoral context and relative changes in the newspapers' circulations. 40 0.80 Note: The dependent variables in Columns 1-5 are a relative measure of the changes in the two papers. 1938 0.50 Note: Columns 1-5 use a dependent variable that is a relative measure of the changes in the two types of papers.
1938 0.50 Note: Columns 1–6 use the dependent variable, which is a relative measure of changes in the two types of papers. My work represents one approach to this by examining how advantage and disadvantage in the political environment affect relative partisan demand for news. The first was collected in the weeks leading up to the 2014 midterm elections and determines the overall effects of strengths and weaknesses on news consumption.
Verba et al. 1995; Burns et al. 2001), factors in the macropolitical environment can meaningfully influence citizens' demand for partisan media.
Breaking Down Effects by Emotions
My results also show that there is a slightly positive advantage effect on the consumption of politically unfriendly news in the form of negative party coverage. The enthusiasm text, however, did not convince Democrats that they had a better chance of winning than Democrats in the control group (b=0.04, p=0.43). While the anxiety and anger treatment effects were not statistically different from the control groups, those in the excitement condition were significantly less willing to learn more about the 2016 presidential election compared to those in the control group (b = -0.04, p =0.06 one-tailed).
Taken together, these results suggest that subjects told about their party's electoral advantage become less willing to learn more about politics—and presumably more complacent—than those in the other conditions. The results here indicate that while those in the anger and enthusiasm treatment did not differ significantly from their counterparts in the control group, assignment to the anxiety treatment was positively correlated with a willingness to read political news on social media (b=0.29, p= 0.04 one sided). First, generating a sense of political advantage suppresses engagement in the form of willingness to learn more about politics.
Similar – although more muted – patterns emerged regarding the consumption of politically unfriendly news, as those in the enthusiasm treatment were less willing to open up to opposition news compared to the anger and control groups57. Finally, disadvantage in the form of anxiety was positively related to information seeking on social media. After the information questions, individuals were asked about their willingness to vote in the upcoming elections and about the party they were likely to support in November.
Differences in the coefficient for the anger treatment compared to the other two treatments were also significant: the anger condition minus the anxiety condition has a difference of 0.45, p=0.01 one-tailed; anger minus excitement is 0.31, p=0.06 one-tailed. Subjects in the anger state appear to redouble their support for their party at the polling booth, which serves as a form of strengthening or defending the party in response to a worse electoral position. 58 Mean levels of this variable ranged from 0.84 in the anger treatment group to 0.88 in the anxiety treatment group.
It is worth noting that a one-tailed test of the coefficient for the anger treatment is actually insignificant (p because the effect is in the opposite direction than what was originally expected. Although this differs slightly from the positive relationship between benefit and willingness to read negative stories about one's own partner in Study 1, such discrepancies may be due to differences in the operationalization of the dependent variables and treatments. Further analyzes suggest that there is also some evidence that those in the anger treatment may be more likely to trust on their own part, another form of defense of the in-group61.
Predicted Probabilities by Treatment
That is, I isolate the effect of predicting that Clinton would win (vs. lose) among Clinton voters, and I isolate the effect of predicting that Trump would win (vs. lose) among Trump voters. Early analyzes show that they were sometimes more interested in the campaign than Trump voters who thought he would lose, but less interested than Trump voters who thought he would win. It could also be that Clinton voters who thought she would lose still knew that in the back of their minds.
70 In fact, Trump voters who predicted he would lose were sometimes even less interested in the campaign than Clinton voters who thought she would lose. In November, Clinton voters who thought she would lose were slightly less interested in the campaign than Trump voters who thought he would lose. Here, Trump voters showed a slightly higher tendency to be “very interested” in the campaign compared to Clinton voters.
Again, I find that Trump voters who thought he would win were more willing to say they were paying attention than Trump voters who thought he would lose. The predicted values for Trump voters who thought he would win and lose were 0.89 and 0.77, respectively. Thus, once again we find evidence that Trump voters who had thought he would win the election were more excited after the election than Trump voters who.
However, both are greater than the predicted probabilities for Trump voters who thought he would win (24%) and Trump voters who thought he would lose (13%). There was also some evidence that Trump voters who thought he would win were more engaged than discouraged Trump voters who thought he would lose ahead of the election. Advantage in terms of believing Trump would win increased Trump supporters' interest in the campaign relative to disadvantage among Trump voters who thought he would lose.
Conversely, Clinton voters who thought she would win were at times less interested in the campaign than Clinton voters who thought she would lose (and even Trump voters who thought he would win). Through these analyses, Trump voters who thought he would lose were often less engaged than Trump voters who thought he would win. Before the election, advantage among Trump supporters (ie, Trump voters who thought he would win) actually increased their interest in the campaign relative to disadvantaged Trump voters who thought he would lose.
Before the election, Trump voters who thought he would win actually had higher levels of campaign interest compared to Trump voters who thought he would lose. And even after the election, Trump voters who initially thought he would lose were less engaged than Trump voters who thought he would win.
Percentage Change in Median Prime−Time Cable News Viewers
Note: DV represents the percentage of negative opposition stories clicked out of all stories clicked. Polls, pundits and other experts agree that Democrats are likely to retain control of the Senate beyond this year's midterm elections. Current polls show Democrats holding on to about 45 Senate seats and could win many of the nine most competitive Senate seats.
Party members believe they will do well in the midterm elections and that a Democrat will take the presidency in 2016. The Democratic Party will gain seats in the midterm elections and stay in the White House in 2016," Taylor Morrison, a Democratic Party official noted.
Text: Republican Advantage
86 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp immigration-reform-advocates-praise- house-gop-principles/. 95 http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-republicans-future-demographic-challenge- 20140921-story.html. 107 http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/nation/article/Democrats-more-satisfied-with-party- on-5776007.php.
115 http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rand-paul-blisters-obama-and-clinton-calls-for-gop-diversity-20140920-story.html. 118 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/9/white-house-mum-on-cost-of-obamas-campaign-trips/. 127 http://www.eonline.com/news/585951/michael-phelps-suspended-from-usa-swimming-following-dui-arrest-get-the-details.
130 http://www.nytimes.com sports/basketball/espn-will-stream-out-of-market-games-on-web-as- part-of-nba-deal-.html?ref=sports.
