Political science professors with areas of expertise ranging from minority politics to political advertising offered their expertise on the 2012 presidential campaign prior to the start of the election season.
Assistant professor Michael Minta offered his expertise on African-American and Latino politics by discussing the importance of the minority vote.
“Since the ’64 Civil Rights Act, many whites, particularly Southern whites, moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party, no Democratic candidate has won the majority of the white vote,” Minta said.
Employment will be most important to African-American and Latino voters during this election, Minta said.
“Unemployment is high amongst all Americans, but along racial lines there is a disparity between blacks and Latinos, who have higher unemployment rates than whites,” he said.
The Democratic Party needs minorities to turn out in large numbers in swing states such as Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida, Minta said. He also discussed how parties try to mobilize groups in states such as Missouri where they might not necessarily win the presidential vote, but can win other elections with the help of the national candidate.
“Right now in Missouri, the odds of Obama winning Missouri — well, he’s not going to win Missouri,” Minta said. “He still comes to Missouri because it would really help Senator McCaskill if he mobilized voters in urban areas such as black voters in Kansas City or St. Louis. Turn out will be huge in Missouri, not for the presidential election, but for the race for the Senate.”
The Republican Party might not get the minority vote, but if it can take a small percentage, things would be more difficult for the Democrats, Minta said.
Professor Marvin Overby, whose area of expertise pertains to political advertisement, explained the influence political action committees have on voters.
“I think the impact of PACs on public opinion and voting is usually exaggerated,” Overby said in an email. “Historically, individual donors have been far more important than PACs. Looking at the Congress, House candidates get only about 1/3 of their money from PACs, while Senate candidates get roughly 1/5. In the 2008 presidential cycle, all candidates raised (about) $1.3 billion from individuals and only roughly $5 million from PACs.”
Associate professor William Horner, whose expertise covers the media’s influence on politics, explained how voters select their news sources of choice.
“The studies are all over the place on this,” Horner said in an email. “I think that what really happens is that people seek out news sources that they perceive to be in line with their own predispositions. So, for instance, it is no coincidence that Daily Show and Colbert Report viewers tend to be younger and more politically liberal, while Rush Limbaugh listeners and Fox News viewers tend to be more conservative. It is a stretch to say that they got that way from watching those sources. It is more accurate to say that they watch those sources because it reinforces their views.”