Department of Communication Science, VU University Amsterdam
The day after:Islsmic Immigrants,
economic recovery or cuts in government expenditures:
the Dutch election campaign 2010
Jan KleinnijenhuisJanet Takens
Anita van HoofWouter van Atteveldt
Politicologenetmaal 2010, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Mai 27-28 Workshop “The Postmodern Election Campaign: the Role of Parties and the Media”
Semantic Network Analysis 2 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Vraag voor de campagne: wat wordt HET thema
o Islamitische immigranten (culturele dimensie – conservatieve kant)
o Economisch herstel (consensusissues - regeringspartijen)o Bezuinigingen overheidsuitgaven (links-rechts-dimensie –
rechtse kant)
2
Semantic Network Analysis 3 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Kengetallen 2010
• Grote volatiliteit34 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 stemmenentropie in NE, perplexiteit = 7.7 gelijke partijen
Semantic Network Analysis 4 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Waarom de Stemwijzer CDA-kiezers alle kanten opstuurt
Semantic Network Analysis 5 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Waarom Kieskompas CDA-kiezers wegjaagt
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 6 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
IntomartGfk poll 7th – 8th Mai
6
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 7 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
IntomartGfk poll
7
PvdA verreweg de grootste op 34; PVV op 20
Semantic Network Analysis 8 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
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 FailureMediating variables: propensity to vote, trust or striking features and striking events ?
Semantic Network Analysis 9 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
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 10 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)
47% 49% 51% 49% 45% 41%
Success & Failure (horse race)
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 11 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
retrospective voting: terrifying real-world conditions in 2010
11
Table 2: Real world developments according to the media
2010 2006 2003 2002 1998
% aandacht (all new s
types)
% aandacht (real w orld
only) Richting % aandacht Richting % aandacht Richting % aandacht Richting % aandacht Richting
rechtse issues, overheidsfinanciën28% 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 erk4% 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
terreurbestrijding 0.20% 2% -0,12 1 -0,16
internationale interventie 6% 4% -0.30 1% -0,21 3 -0,22
overige issues 10% 11% 24% 12 18 36
Totaal n=8616 n=1306 -0.21 n=3073 -0,03 n=2610 -0,24 n=2775 -0,22 n=2378 -0,02
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 12 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Issue Positions 2010: what happened with leftist issues?
12
Table 3: Issue positions of parties in 2010 election campaign according to the media, weighted by media attention
PvdD GroenLinks CDA CU SGP SP D66 PvdA VVD TON PVV
Natuur en milieu 18.73 24.47 23.67 6.91 0.72 2.99 4.63 22.45 -2.04 -1.02 -2.3Linkse issues, soc zek 0 4.52 -0.74 9.82 . 2.74 0.38 21.94 -10.78 0 -8.93Gezondheidszorg 0.73 4.42 6.85 4.34 0.94 16.12 1.89 -4.54 -0.52 -0.73 -1.48Ontwikkelingshulp . . 0.63 4.74 . -0.81 . 1.67 -3.24 -1.13 -2.4Normen en waarden . 0.78 19.57 9.83 0.25 1.64 1.87 31.23 -2.3 -3.46 -0.29Onderwijs . -1.15 6.62 0.3 0 -7.03 12.18 1.24 2.45 -1.13 -1.55Europese samenwerking . . 8.77 . . . -0.93 . 5.04 -3.67 -6.74Inzet Nederlandse militairen in het buitenland-1.13 15.87 7.6 12.93 -0.13 -3.28 16.18 -3.8 0.6 . -2.85Werkgelegenheid . 6.44 5.45 4.19 -0.84 3.14 8.03 22.47 10.49 . 0.51Infrastructuur, Bereikbaarheid en mobiliteit. -1.07 59.75 1.6 . -2.93 1.69 5.41 18.16 . 1.84Rechtse issues, bezuinigingen, belastingen en overheidsfinanciën0.15 -7.42 81.01 -3.98 -1.26 -27.29 14.3 1.08 83.24 14.82 11.02Bestuurlijke vernieuwing 4.47 10.5 9.19 1.59 1.59 6 30.56 25.2 10.08 2.71 4.56Criminaliteit en onveiligheid . 15.96 12.56 2.29 1.85 -3.11 2.82 7.06 20.31 . 25.95Asielzoekers en immigranten . 2.15 13.22 -0.04 -1.02 1.13 1.85 17.24 -5.07 -1.96 -35.52Terreurbestrijding . 1.89 0.17 . . . 1.89 1.89 1.89 . 0.34
Issue positions of parties in 2010 election campaign according to the media, weighted by media attention
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 13 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Issue ownership: issue reputations March (n=1804)
13
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 14 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?
14
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
Feb 19th – April 11th
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 15 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?
15
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
April 26th – May 9th
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 16 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?
16
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
May 10h – May 23trd
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 17 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?
17
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 18 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?
18
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 19 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Conflict & Coop between and within: wie krijgt er smoel ?
19
Table 4: Issue ownership in the eyes of Dutch voters, March 2010
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 20 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Voter flows: June 7th-8th as compared to 2006 elections
20
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 21 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?
21
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 22 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?
22
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 23 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?
23
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 24 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Wie valt aan de kiezers positief of negatief op?
24
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 25 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Voter flows:June 7th-8th as compared to 2010 mun.el.March
25
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 26 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Voter flows
26
May 17th- May 23rd
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 27 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Voter flows
27
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 28 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Voter flows
28
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 29 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Attribution of success and failure late March: all PvdA
29
March 15th - March 28th
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 30 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Early april: VVD more success than PvdA
30
March 29th - April 11th
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 31 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Attribution of success and failure in May: all VVD
31
Mai 10h – Mai 23th
Dutch Election Campaign 2010 32 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Logistic model to explain whether one votes for a party in a given week
32
variable type variable B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B)voter predispositions Last week's preference for party 6.26 0.06 12385 0.00 523.78
subjective media performance party 2.02 0.17 143 0.00 7.53media performance party leader 1.05 0.17 39 0.00 2.85
content of one's media success and failure 0.05 0.01 12 0.00 1.05 (IP=issue position party)support from other parties -0.03 0.01 5 0.02 0.97
IP administrative reforms, efficiency 0.21 0.08 8 0.01 1.23IP rightist issues, gov.cuts 0.06 0.02 6 0.01 1.06IP EU, euro 0.29 0.12 6 0.02 1.33IP (Christian) norms and values 0.16 0.07 5 0.03 1.17IP immigrants and crime -0.13 0.07 3 0.06 0.88IP employment, valence issues -0.07 0.05 2 ns 0.94IP environment -0.06 0.07 1 ns 0.95support from societal actors 0.02 0.03 0 ns 1.02IP leftist issues, social security, health, educ 0.02 0.05 0 ns 1.02IP Dutch military interventions -0.02 0.04 0 ns 0.99support from the media 0.00 0.03 0 ns 1.00Constant -4.62 0.04 11901 0.00 0.01
n=90909 nested party-voter-waves units; -2LL=11860; % correct = 99.0%; R2=0.75
Semantic Network Analysis 33 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
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
33
Semantic Network Analysis 34 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
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 VVDo strong impact due to its issue positions on rightist
issues (cuts in government expenditures, tax cuts), government efficiency, norms and values.
34
Semantic Network Analysis 35 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Evaluation of the campaign
o Highlightso Respect of party leaders for each othero 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
35
Semantic Network Analysis 36 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
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 37 Department of Communication Science The Network Institute, VU University
Amsterdam
Cross-national proximity scaling of party-issue-landscape
-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500
DIM_2
PDPBDNJPLL PADPDrPR PSDPS
AL BY BA BG HR CZ EE
HU LV LT MK MD PL RO
RU SR SK SI UA AU AT
BE UK CA CY DK FI FR
DE GR IS IE IL IT LU
MT NL NZ NI NO PT ES
SE CH TR US JP
APBBPFBSDHBSDP-NH
KPBCCP-BPF
LP
LDPBPKB
UCPWP
HDZSBiHPDPSDASNSDSDS
SDPSPRS
BZNSBBB
BKPBSP
BNDPBSDPDPSNDSTGODSVMRO
HBHDZHSS
HNS
HSPHSLSDC
IDSLSLIBRASDP
SNKKDUODS
KSCMCSSD
USSZ
MDS
NKL
SZJRMS
KeskEKRP
Ref
ESDTPRLEÜRP
IsamMõõdResP
-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500
DIM_2
SZDSZCENTRUM
FIDESZMDFMIÉP
MSZP
FKGPMUNKÁS
TB/LNNKPCTVLZZSLPPJL
TSPTP
TSLDPLKDLSDPNS/SLLiCS
LKDSVNDPS
DAVMRO-DPMNEDPADSDUILDPLPPDP SDSMSPM
UCMPPCDPDAMPDMPCRM
PSD-PASLMNPSDM
SLDPOUW
UPPiSLPRPSLS
AWSUPR
PNTCDPD
PRMPURPNLUDMRPSD
-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500
DIM_2
KPRFLDPRRODINA
SPS
ERYABLOKO
DSDSSSRSSPS
SPO
RPS
KDHOKSHZDS
ANO
SmerSDL'SMKLU
KSS
SKDU
SNSSDA
DeSUS
LDSNSiSLSSNS
SDSSMSZLSD
KPUZYUJTSPUSDPU-oNU
ADGRNALPLPANPON
OVPSPOFPO Gru
-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500
DIM_2
CD&V
EcoVB
VLD
Gro!CDHFN
N-VAMRSPSpPS
ConLabLDPCySNP
BQCA
GPCLPC NDPPC
ADIKAKEL
DIKODISIEDIKOPEDEKNEO
CD
DF EnhFrP
KFKrF
RVSD SF
V
KOK
PSKESKKDSDPSFP
VASVIHR
UEM
FN
VMPF
PCFPSRPFRPRUDF
-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500
DIM_2
CDU/CSUFDP
DKPDVUGRÜ
NPDSchil PDSRep
SPD
KKE
NDPASOKSYN
X-B
X-FX-N
X-SX-D
X-U
FFFGGR
LBPD
SF
BalaAEHada
IHUD
LabLikMerz
NRPShas
Shin
RaamYhT
ANDSGreen
FIMargLN
PannIt.Val.
MSFTPDCIRC
SDIUDC
ADRCSVDP
LSAPGDL
-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500
DIM_2
ADMLP
NP
CDACU
D66GL
LPF PvdASP
SGPVVD
ACT
AllcGPAPCNZFPNZLPNP UF
APNI
DUP
NIWCPUP SFSDLP
UUP
DNAFrPH
KrFRVSpSVV
PEVBECDS/PPPCP
PSDPS
CiUIU
PNVPPPSOE
-0.500-0.250
0.000
0.2500.500
DIM_1
-0.500-0.2500.0000.2500.500
DIM_2
C
FPKD
MP
M
SAPV
-0.500-0.250
0.000
0.2500.500
DIM_1
CVP
EDUEVPFDP
GPSLPS
PdASD
SVPSPS
-0.500-0.250
0.000
0.2500.500
DIM_1
AKPANAP
CHPDEHAP
DSPDYPGPMHP
-0.500-0.250
0.000
0.2500.500
DIM_1
DemRep
-0.500-0.250
0.000
0.2500.500
DIM_1
DPJCPKom.LDPNCPSDP