One of the area's newer political science professors, University of Memphis assistant professor Eric Groenendyk, helped us out with a story earlier this week giving a preview to the Nov. 2 midterm elections. His field of study aligns with some of the themes emerging from this election cycle -- political psychology and specifically the role emotion and especially anger plays in motivating voters.
Groenendyk, who received his PhD at the University of Michigan, says, "Anger seems to be a very consistent predictor of political participation."
Historically, presidents usually see their parties suffer huge casualties in midterm elections, for various reasons. One reason -- a new president often helps the party win close races in districts that are essentially coin tosses that then go the other way in two years time. Winning an election, Groenendyk points out, also means making lots of promises and creating expectations that you'll make changes for the better. And even if a president succeeds in making changes, that often is to the president's detriment -- the opposition now can take aim at a record (think of President Obama on healthcare reform, the stimulus, foreign policy).
"You get anger when you have someone to blame and the president is an easy person to blame," Groenendyk said.
And that is consistent, historically, no matter the party of the sitting president. One exception to the rule was George w. Bush in 2002, when the public was approving of his handling of 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and tax cuts had raised individual incomes. Of course, Bush is blamed even by Republicans for the losses in 2006 and 2008. Which, again, is tied to anger. Although Obama's approval ratings are now in the low 40s, they are still higher than Bill Clinton's or Ronald Reagan's at the same point in their presidencies.
As Frank Newport, editor in chief for Gallup pointed out recently, "This is not all that unusual for the second year of the presidency."
Gallup polling, by the way, showed that 51 percent of "conservative" Republicans were "very enthusiastic" about voting in the midterm elections, compared to 29 percent for "liberal" Democrats and 24 percent for "moderate" Republicans.
Groenendyk, who received his PhD at the University of Michigan, says, "Anger seems to be a very consistent predictor of political participation."
Historically, presidents usually see their parties suffer huge casualties in midterm elections, for various reasons. One reason -- a new president often helps the party win close races in districts that are essentially coin tosses that then go the other way in two years time. Winning an election, Groenendyk points out, also means making lots of promises and creating expectations that you'll make changes for the better. And even if a president succeeds in making changes, that often is to the president's detriment -- the opposition now can take aim at a record (think of President Obama on healthcare reform, the stimulus, foreign policy).
"You get anger when you have someone to blame and the president is an easy person to blame," Groenendyk said.
And that is consistent, historically, no matter the party of the sitting president. One exception to the rule was George w. Bush in 2002, when the public was approving of his handling of 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and tax cuts had raised individual incomes. Of course, Bush is blamed even by Republicans for the losses in 2006 and 2008. Which, again, is tied to anger. Although Obama's approval ratings are now in the low 40s, they are still higher than Bill Clinton's or Ronald Reagan's at the same point in their presidencies.
As Frank Newport, editor in chief for Gallup pointed out recently, "This is not all that unusual for the second year of the presidency."
Gallup polling, by the way, showed that 51 percent of "conservative" Republicans were "very enthusiastic" about voting in the midterm elections, compared to 29 percent for "liberal" Democrats and 24 percent for "moderate" Republicans.








Print


