measures of non-traditional media consumption during the 2008 presidential campaign mapor, chicago...
TRANSCRIPT
Measures of Non-Traditional Media Consumption During the
2008 Presidential Campaign
MAPOR, Chicago
1:30pm – 3:00pm, November 21, 2009
Authors:
J. Michael Dennis, Knowledge Networks
Trevor Tompson, The Associated Press
Mike Henderson, Harvard University
Yelena Kruse, Knowledge Networks
Research Questions
Who are the consumers of non-traditional media during the 2008 general election?
What were their candidate preferences?
Who did they vote for?
Also: Who are the online donors to campaigns?
Data Source: AP-Yahoo! Longitudinal Election Panel
Field period: Nov. 2007 to Dec. 2008 – 11-wave longitudinal design
Wave1 baseline obtained 2,735 interviews
Compressed schedule: ~ 4 weeks between waves
Wave 7 field period 9/5 to 10/12/08 – source of independent var data
1,086 respondents completed all 11 waves
Sample Source: KnowledgePanel
Waves W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11Samples
Longitudinal XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
Cross-sect. X X X
Data Collected in the Month After Labor Day
Independent variable: Self-reported usage of Internet in the last month to do any of these 12 things:
Read political news stories from a news website Visited candidates web sites Participated in message boards, chat rooms, or discussion groups about politics Gotten information about candidates issue positions Gotten information about when or where to vote Contributed money to a candidate or political cause Looked for more information about candidates positions on the issues Found out how the candidates were doing in public opinion polls Checked the accuracy of claims made by or about the candidates Watched video clips of a candidates television ads Emailed an election official Received email about a political candidate
Data Sources
Respondents grouped according to number of self-reported uses of the net for politics/election in last month:
“Net Haters” 0 types used n=914 or 48%
“Net Friendly” 1 to 4 types used n=662 or 34%
“Net Hypers” 5 or more types used n=347 or 18%
Use of Nontraditional Media Related to…
Measured in the weeks after 2008 Labor Day: Candidate Preference Certainty of Candidate Preference Party ID Political ideology Age Pet ownership!
Measured immediately after the election: Presidential vote choice
Results
Data from Post Labor Day Wave 7 Survey
Field Period 9/5/08 to 10/12/2008
Most Interviews Obtained between 9/5 and 9/12
All data are weighted using poststratification weights
Candidate Preference – Or Lack Thereof
• 22% of Obama supporters are Net Hypers compared to gen pop percentage of 18%; Undecideds mostly Net Haters – only one in 20
• chi-square p-value < .01
42
36
22
45
36
19
68
27
5
Obama McCain Undecided
Net Hypers
Net Friendly
Net Haters
Certainty of Candidate Preference
• Net Hypers slightly more likely to be certain to vote for their favorite candidate – consistent with expectation that Net Hypers are engaged in politics – however, many still persuadable voters!
• chi-square p-value < .05
43
36
21
50
34
16
Certain to support Might change mind
Net Hypers
Net Friendly
Net Haters
Party ID: Giving New Meaning to “Net Neutrality”
• Dems and Rep equally likely to be Net Hypers; undecideds less likely to be such
• chi-square p-value < .01
48
33
19
41
40
19
54
32
14
Democrat Republican Independent
Net Hypers
Net Friendly
Net Haters
Party ID: Similar Online Donation Rates
• About one in 10 Dems and Reps gave online in past year – about the same
Contributed Money Online in Past Year to a Candidate or Political Cause
109
5
Democrat Republican Independent
Political Ideology: A Result!
• Most powerful result in the analyses: 42% of “Extreme Liberals” are Net Hypers!
• “Extreme Conservatives” also more likely to be Net Hypers, compared to gen pop mean of 18%
• chi-square p-value < .01
29
29
42
59
30
11
46
28
26
Extremely Liberal Moderate ExtremelyConservative
Net Hypers
Net Friendly
Net Haters
“Liberals” Donated More Frequently Online
• Extreme liberals almost three times more likely to report donating online in past year. Moderates hardly do so at all.
chi-square p-value < .01
Contributed Money Online in Past Year to a Candidate or Political Cause
23
58
Extremely Liberal Moderate Extremely Conservative
Age…Surprisingly Not a Factor
• For all the talk about young adults being turned on by the web….not a strong measured impact
• chi-square p-value > .1
47
33
20
49
34
18
47
34
19
48
37
16
18-29 30-44 45-59 60 & over
Net Hypers
Net Friendly
Net Haters
And Pet Ownership Doesn’t Matter Either!
• So much for pet-based political segmentations!
• chi-square p-value > .1
47
37
16
51
31
18
45
37
18
Cat Dog Fish
Net Hypers
Net Friendly
Net Haters
Results: Actual Vote Choice
Measured on the Same Sample in the
week after the General Election
Obama Wins (Again): VOTE by Net Type
• Obama voters significantly more likely to be Net Hypers – slightly stronger effect than seen in October candidate preference measure
• chi-square p-value < 0.1
46
31
24
48
33
19
53
38
9
76
17
7
Voted forObama
Voted forMcCain
Voted forSomeone else
Did not vote
Net Hypers
Net Friendly
Net Haters
More Obama Voters Donated Online
• 11% of Obama voters donated online, as measured in the Sept-Oct 2008 wave -- slightly more likely to have donated online
• chi-square p-value < 0.1
Contributed Money Online in Past Year to a Candidate or Political Cause
11
9
43
Voted for Obama Voted for McCain Voted for Someone else Did not vote
Final Thoughts
Insights
• Hyper Net users, as consumers of nontraditional media, represent a significant segment of the electorate
• Supporters of both parties report similar levels of use of nontraditional media and online donation
• Extreme liberals and conservative both report high levels of use of nontraditional media, with liberals actively donating money online
• Undecideds during the campaign and nonvoters less likely to use nontraditional media
• Obama turned-out voters slightly more likely to be Net Hypers and online donors, consistent with popular wisdom of his campaign