DOCSLIB.ORG

Executive Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Focus 2018: Campaign Evaluations in West Virginia, Illinois, and Nevada DATE PRESENTED TO: PRESENTED BY: May 14, 2019 Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation The Public Affairs and Media Research Department and The Social Data Collaboratory NORC | IN FOCUS 2018: CAMPAIGN EVALUATIONS IN WEST VIRGINIA, ILLINOIS, AND NEVADA Table of Contents Overview of Study Objectives and Approach ......................................................................... 4 Campaign Monitoring and Survey Research ....................................................................... 5 Twitter Analysis ................................................................................................................... 6 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................. 7 Survey and Campaign Monitoring: Summary of Findings ..................................................... 9 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................... 10 Similarities across states ....................................................................................10 Differences across states ...................................................................................11 West Virginia ..............................................................................................11 Illinois .........................................................................................................11 Nevada .......................................................................................................12 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................... 12 Similarities across states ....................................................................................12 Differences across states ...................................................................................15 West Virginia ..............................................................................................15 Illinois .........................................................................................................16 Nevada .......................................................................................................16 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................... 16 Similarities across states ....................................................................................16 Differences across states ...................................................................................17 West Virginia ..............................................................................................17 Illinois .........................................................................................................17 Nevada .......................................................................................................17 Research Question 4 ............................................................................................... 18 Twitter: Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ 19 Twitter: West Virginia Findings .......................................................................................... 19 Twitter: Illinois Findings ..................................................................................................... 20 Twitter: Nevada Findings .................................................................................................. 21 Twitter: Overall Abortion Narrative .................................................................................... 21 Overview of Twitter Data – Abortion Topic – Illinois, Nevada, West Virginia...................... 22 Characterizing Message Source .............................................................................. 25 Amount of Tweets by Source ................................................................................... 25 Average Twitter Activity by Source .......................................................................... 26 Engagement Overall and by State .................................................................................... 27 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | I NORC | IN FOCUS 2018: CAMPAIGN EVALUATIONS IN WEST VIRGINIA, ILLINOIS, AND NEVADA Twitter Messaging Source: Takeaways .................................................................... 27 Twitter: Characterizing Message Sentiment ............................................................. 27 Twitter Message Sentiment: Takeaways .................................................................. 28 Twitter: Sentiment over time ............................................................................................. 28 Twitter Message Sentiment over Time: Takeaways ................................................. 29 Twitter: State-level Trends in Pro-choice Versus Pro-life Sentiment ........................ 30 Twitter Message Sentiment by State over Time: Takeaways ................................... 31 Twitter: Top National Hashtags ................................................................................ 32 Methodology............................................................................................................................ 34 Qualitative Campaign Monitoring ...................................................................................... 34 Collection and Analysis Processes .......................................................................... 34 Campaign and relevant organizations’ websites and Facebook pages ...............35 Campaign and relevant organizations’ emails ....................................................35 Debate transcripts ..............................................................................................36 Political advertisements .....................................................................................36 Campaign, candidate and relevant organization tweets .....................................36 Media coverage .................................................................................................37 Campaign contributions .....................................................................................37 Twitter Analysis ................................................................................................................. 38 Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 38 Comprehensiveness of the keywords.................................................................40 Twitter: Sentiment Classification .............................................................................. 41 Source Coding ...................................................................................................42 Source Sample ..................................................................................................43 Bot Filter ............................................................................................................43 Top terms and hashtags by source ....................................................................44 Identifying West Virginia Amendment 1 Predictive Terms ........................................ 44 State-Level Surveys .......................................................................................................... 44 AmeriSpeak Sample ................................................................................................ 44 TargetSmart Sample ................................................................................................ 44 Field Period, Respondent Screening and Weighting ................................................ 47 Analysis ................................................................................................................... 49 Voter Validation ....................................................................................................... 49 Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 50 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | II NORC | IN FOCUS 2018: CAMPAIGN EVALUATIONS IN WEST VIRGINIA, ILLINOIS, AND NEVADA List of Exhibits Percentage of candidates’ campaign content that was related to abortion .................................. 9 Considerable inconsistency among voters in party identification and abortion attitudes ............ 10 Republican pro-choice voters were more likely to cross party lines than Democratic pro-life voters ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Abortion ranked lower on the issue priority list and was more important for Democrats in Nevada and Illinois .................................................................................................................... 13 Almost no difference between pro-choice and pro-life voters in candidate personality traits they value ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Abortion was a higher priority for pro-life than pro-choice voters in West Virginia and Illinois .... 15 No difference between pro-choice and pro-life voters in campaign engagement ....................... 18 Weekly volume of abortion-related tweets in the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Libertarian Party of Nevada Hosted "Speed Dating" Events Over 2 Days at Different Venues in Las Vegas
    Endorsement Committee This year, we formed an Endorsement Committee comprised of 18 members plus additional Libertarian leadership; the “Committee.” The Committee members conducted their own independent research on each of the candidates and asked them questions at our events. The Committee members took notes and made recommendations on grades and endorsements. Endorsement Committee Chair: Jason Weinman Committee Members: Jason G Smith Jim Duensing Jason Nellis Lesley Chan John McCormack JD Smith Lou Pombo Brady Bowyer Scott Lafata Tim Hagan Brett H. Pojunis Brandon Ellyson Debra Dedmon Nick Klein Andrew Lea Ross Williams Tarina Dark Steve Brown Format - Why "Speed Dating?" The Libertarian Party of Nevada hosted "Speed Dating" events over 2 days at different venues in Las Vegas. The goal was to meet as many candidates as possible in a format similar to speed dating. LPNevada endorsed Candidates in non‐partisan races and graded Candidates in partisan races for the 2014 General Elections. Most organizations do not get one‐on‐one interaction with the candidates; we felt this is important. Endorsements and Grading Non‐Partisan candidates received either a positive (thumbs up) or negative (thumbs down) endorsement from the Committee. Partisan Candidates received a grade of 1 to 5 stars. Candidates who received 1 star were not very Libertarian and candidates who received 5 stars were very good in regards to their position on issues important to Libertarians. The Libertarian Party of Nevada has the following 15 Candidate on the 2014 Ballot. Adam Sanacore, Assembly District 21 Lou Pombo, Assembly District 37 Chris Dailey, White Pine County Commission Louis Gabriel, Assembly District 32 Donald W.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135Th Anniversary
    107th Congress, 2d Session Document No. 13 Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135th Anniversary 1867–2002 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2002 ‘‘The legislative control of the purse is the central pil- lar—the central pillar—upon which the constitutional temple of checks and balances and separation of powers rests, and if that pillar is shaken, the temple will fall. It is...central to the fundamental liberty of the Amer- ican people.’’ Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman Senate Appropriations Committee United States Senate Committee on Appropriations ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, TED STEVENS, Alaska, Ranking Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ANIEL NOUYE Hawaii D K. I , ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RNEST OLLINGS South Carolina E F. H , PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ATRICK EAHY Vermont P J. L , CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri OM ARKIN Iowa T H , MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky ARBARA IKULSKI Maryland B A. M , CONRAD BURNS, Montana ARRY EID Nevada H R , RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama ERB OHL Wisconsin H K , JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ATTY URRAY Washington P M , ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah YRON ORGAN North Dakota B L. D , BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado IANNE EINSTEIN California D F , LARRY CRAIG, Idaho ICHARD URBIN Illinois R J. D , KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas IM OHNSON South Dakota T J , MIKE DEWINE, Ohio MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JACK REED, Rhode Island TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Staff Director CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director V Subcommittee Membership, One Hundred Seventh Congress Senator Byrd, as chairman of the Committee, and Senator Stevens, as ranking minority member of the Committee, are ex officio members of all subcommit- tees of which they are not regular members.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Barack Obama, 2016 Remarks to an Overflow Crowd at a Campaign Rally for Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillar
    Administration of Barack Obama, 2016 Remarks to an Overflow Crowd at a Campaign Rally for Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and Democratic Senatorial Candidate Catherine Cortez Masto in North Las Vegas, Nevada October 23, 2016 The President. Hello, Las Vegas! How is everybody doing? Good? So I'm sorry that it's a little crowded up in there. But I just wanted to let you guys know how much I appreciate you. I would not be President if it weren't for all the work that so many of you did back in 2008, back in 2012. But if we're going to continue all the progress that we've made, then we are going to have to make sure that we vote this time out. So I need everybody here to not just vote yourselves, but you've got to get your friends, your neighbors, your cousins. If you're not 18 and you can't vote, make sure your parents vote and your cousins vote. Because that's the only way we're going to be able to continue the progress that we've made. If you care about putting people back to work, then you want Hillary Clinton as President of the United States. If you want to make sure that immigration reform gets passed, we've got to have Catherine Cortez Masto in the United States Senate. If you want to make sure that we continue to make progress on education and making college affordable, then we've got to have more Democratic Members of Congress in the House of Representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE of DELEGATES, Petitioner, V
    No. 18-____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, Petitioner, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel. MARGARET L. WORKMAN, MITCH CARMICHAEL, President of the West Virginia Senate; DONNA J. BOLEY, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; RYAN FERNS, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; LEE CASSIS, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the WEST VIRGINIA SENATE, Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— MARK A. CARTER Counsel of Record DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 707 Virginia Street, East Chase Tower, Suite 1300 Charleston, WV 25301 (304) 357-0900 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner January 8, 2019 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s decision in this case violates the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution. 2. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia properly denied the Motion to Intervene of the Petitioner, the West Virginia House of Delegates. (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Respondents are Margaret L. Workman; Mitch Carmichael, President of the West Virginia Senate; Donna J. Boley, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; Ryan Ferns, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; Lee Cassis, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the West Virginia Senate. Petitioner is the West Virginia House of Delegates as an indispensable and materially affected party who was wrongfully denied intervenor status.
    [Show full text]
  • Newly Elected Representatives in the 114Th Congress
    Newly Elected Representatives in the 114th Congress Contents Representative Gary Palmer (Alabama-6) ....................................................................................................... 3 Representative Ruben Gallego (Arizona-7) ...................................................................................................... 4 Representative J. French Hill (Arkansas-2) ...................................................................................................... 5 Representative Bruce Westerman (Arkansas-4) .............................................................................................. 6 Representative Mark DeSaulnier (California-11) ............................................................................................. 7 Representative Steve Knight (California-25) .................................................................................................... 8 Representative Peter Aguilar (California-31) ................................................................................................... 9 Representative Ted Lieu (California-33) ........................................................................................................ 10 Representative Norma Torres (California-35) ................................................................................................ 11 Representative Mimi Walters (California-45) ................................................................................................ 12 Representative Ken Buck (Colorado-4) .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prayer Practices
    Floor Action 5-145 Prayer Practices Legislatures operate with a certain element of pomp, ceremony and procedure that flavor the institution with a unique air of tradition and theatre. The mystique of the opening ceremonies and rituals help to bring order and dignity to the proceedings. One of these opening ceremonies is the offering of a prayer. Use of legislative prayer. The practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer is long- standing. The custom draws its roots from both houses of the British Parliament, which, according to noted parliamentarian Luther Cushing, from time ”immemorial” began each day with a “reading of the prayers.” In the United States, this custom has continued without interruption at the federal level since the first Congress under the Constitution (1789) and for more than a century in many states. Almost all state legislatures still use an opening prayer as part of their tradition and procedure (see table 02-5.50). In the Massachusetts Senate, a prayer is offered at the beginning of floor sessions for special occasions. Although the use of an opening prayer is standard practice, the timing of when the prayer occurs varies (see table 02-5.51). In the majority of legislative bodies, the prayer is offered after the floor session is called to order, but before the opening roll call is taken. Prayers sometimes are given before floor sessions are officially called to order; this is true in the Colorado House, Nebraska Senate and Ohio House. Many chambers vary on who delivers the prayer. Forty-seven chambers allow people other than the designated legislative chaplain or a visiting chaplain to offer the opening prayer (see table 02-5.52).
    [Show full text]
  • The Revival of the Nevada Democratic Party
    CASE STUDY The Revival of the Nevada Democratic Party When a state political party’s electoral performance falters, how should political actors change its fortunes for the better— concentrate on the needs of individual candidates, bolster allied outside groups, or invest in the formal party itself? Sam Rosenfeld Daniel Schlozman August 2021 SNF Agora Case Studies The SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University offers a series of case studies that show how civic and political actors navigated real-life challenges related to democracy. Practitioners, teachers, organizational leaders, and trainers working with civic and political leaders, students, and trainees can use our case studies to deepen their skills, to develop insights about how to approach strategic choices and dilemmas, and to get to know each other better and work more effectively. How to Use the Case Unlike many case studies, ours do not focus on individual leaders or other decision-makers. Instead, the SNF Agora case studies are about choices that groups make collectively. Therefore, these cases work well as prompts for group discussions. The basic question in each case is: “What would we do?” After reading a case, some groups role-play the people who were actually involved in the situation, treating the discussion as a simulation. In other groups, the participants speak as themselves, discussing the strategies that they would advocate for the group described in the case. The person who assigns or organizes your discussion may want you to use the case in one of those ways. When studying and discussing the choices made by real-life decision-makers (often under intense pressure), it is appropriate to exhibit some humility.
    [Show full text]
  • Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees
    UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES PUBLIC 1. Name: State full name (include any forn1er names used). Evan Jonathan Wallach 2. Position: State the position for which you have been nominated. United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit 3. Address: List current office address. If city and state of residence differs from your place of employment, please list the city and state where you currently reside. United States Court of lnternational Trade One Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 4. Birthplace: State year and place of birth. 1949; Superior, Arizona 5. Education: List in reverse chronological order each college, law school, or any other institution of higher education attended and indicate for each the dates of attendance, whether a degree was received, and the date each degree was received. 1990 - 1992, United States Anny Judge Advocate General School, Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Course; Diploma, 1992 1980 - 1981, University of Cambridge Law School; L.L.B., 1981 1973 - 1976, University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law; J.D., 1976 1971 - 1973, University of Arizona, School of Journalism; B.A., 1973 1967 - 1968, Diablo Valley Junior College; No degree received 6. Employment Record: List in reverse chronological order all governmental agencies, business or professional corporations, companies, firms, or other enterprises, partnerships, institutions or organizations, non-profit or otherwise, with which you have been affiliated as an officer, director, partner, proprietor, or employee since graduation from college, whether or not you received payment for your services. Include the name and address of the employer and job title or description.
    [Show full text]
  • State Education Policies
    State Education Policy Tracking We compile information on education policies from We have been researching education legislation for more than 25 years. Summaries early childhood through of enacted and vetoed legislation — from early postsecondary education learning through postsecondary education and from the early 1990s through 2016 — are and workforce, so state accessible on our website. policymakers can make Our one-of-a-kind State STATE EDUCATION POLICY TRACKING informed decisions. Education Policy Tracking 15,580 resource, launched in 2017, allows users to search 1,680 enacted and vetoed legislation across more than 45 education issues and 275 sub-issues. Search results BILLS PAGE SUMMARIZED VIEWS can be filtered by state and/ or issue and sub-issue, or by keywords found in the bill titles. In 2018, our staff summarized 1,680 bills for this resource. The State Education Policy Tracking resource received more than 15,580 pageviews in 2018. In 2018 we began closely STATE EDUCATION POLICY WATCH LIST monitoring policy action 3,930 in a few issue areas and updating a new resource, 850 the State Education Policy Watch List, with pending, enacted and vetoed bills. We BILLS PAGE tracked about 850 bills from TRACKED VIEWS introduction related to need- and merit-based financial aid, postsecondary governance, career and technical education, dual enrollment, and teacher certification and licensure. The State Education Policy Watch List resource received more than 3,930 pageviews in 2018. 2 www.ecs.org | @EdCommission 50-State Comparisons State Information Requests Our issue-specific50-State Comparisons allow One of the most unique and valued ways we policymakers to compare their states' laws assist state education leaders is by responding against other states on topics such as teacher to State Information Requests with personalized license reciprocity, open enrollment, statewide research, typically within 24 hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Grace Austin 221 Chestnut St • Cambridge, MA 02139 • Grace [email protected] • 617-230-5812
    Grace Austin 221 Chestnut St • Cambridge, MA 02139 • [email protected] • 617-230-5812 EDUCATION Brown University Providence, RI Intended Majors: Environmental Studies, Public Policy. GPA: 4.0. Expected Graduation Year: 2023 Cambridge Rindge and Latin School Cambridge, MA Student Body President Graduation Year: 2019 WORK EXPERIENCE Fellow, Nevada Democratic Party Cambridge, MA— Fall 2020 • Support field organizers on virtual phonebanks by answering volunteers’ questions and leading debriefs • Recruit volunteers and check in with veteran volunteers to increase retention • Energize voters to elect Democrats in state and national elections • Participate in training to effectively communicate with voters Tutor, Project Matriarchs Cambridge, MA— Fall 2020 • Connect working mothers with undergraduate students who can virtually tutor and care for children • Research childhood development milestones to create effective, engaging curriculum • Create weekly childcare and tutoring plans with parents Research Intern, Global Center for Climate Justice (GCCJ) Boston, MA— Summer 2020 • Assisted in the creation of the GCCJ which aims to provide an accessible, educational, and connective platform for communities to address climate justice on local, national, and global levels • Researched emerging alliances between environmental organizations and unions, specifically examining historic struggles and current coalitions such as Renew New England • Collected research for a voter suppression report and the Boston Green New Deal report • Created a database
    [Show full text]
  • Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
    No. ________ In the Supreme Court of the United States MITCH CARMICHAEL, President of the West Virginia Senate, DONNA J. BOLEY, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate, TOM TAKUBO, West Virginia Senate Majority Leader, LEE CASSIS, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate, and the WEST VIRGINIA SENATE, Petitioners, v. West Virginia ex. rel. MARGARET L. WORKMAN, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI PATRICK MORRISEY LINDSAY S. SEE Attorney General Solicitor General OFFICE OF THE Counsel of Record WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL ZACHARY A. VIGLIANCO State Capitol Complex Assistant Attorney Building 1, Room E-26 General Charleston, WV 25305 [email protected] (304) 558-2021 Counsel for Petitioners QUESTIONS PRESENTED In a decision that brought pending state impeachment proceedings to a halt, a panel of acting justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia inserted itself into both the substance and procedure of a process that the West Virginia Constitution entrusts exclusively to the Legislative Branch. In its opinion, the court refused to grant relief under the “Guarantee Clause” of Article IV, § 4 of the United States Constitution, which promises that “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” because it deemed Guarantee Clause challenges to be nonjusticiable political questions. The questions presented are: 1) Whether Guarantee Clause claims are judicially cognizable? 2) Whether a state judiciary’s intrusion into the impeachment process represents so grave a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers as to undermine the essential components of a republican form of government? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Defendant FEC's Motion for Summary
    Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 41 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 131 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ) LOUISIANA, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civ. No. 15-1241 (CRC-SS-TSC) ) v. ) ) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT Defendant. ) ) DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) respectfully moves this Court for an order (1) granting summary judgment to the Commission pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 7(h), and (2) denying plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion (Docket No. 33). In support of this motion, the Commission is filing a Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, a Statement of Material Facts and accompanying Exhibits, and a Proposed Order. Pursuant to the protective order entered in this case, the Commission is separately submitting under seal unredacted versions of its Statement of Material Facts and Exhibits that plaintiffs have designated as confidential. Respectfully submitted, Daniel A. Petalas (D.C. Bar No. 467908) Seth Nesin Acting General Counsel Attorney [email protected] [email protected] Lisa J. Stevenson (D.C. Bar No. 457628) Greg J. Mueller (D.C. Bar No. 462840) Deputy General Counsel — Law Attorney [email protected] [email protected] Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 41 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 131 Kevin Deeley /s/ Charles Kitcher Acting Associate General Counsel Charles Kitcher (D.C. Bar No. 986226) [email protected] Attorney [email protected] Harry J.
    [Show full text]