BLOG
August 20, 2010 by David
Yesterday, I reported on the Conservative Party’s national transferring behaviour to local candidates. Today, I look at the Liberal Party.
In thinking about the literature on political parties in Canada and the political environment during the three elections, I expected parties to:
- Support candidates who cannot or did not raise their own money.
- Support candidates in ridings where party support is higher, but not too high (like in safe seats).
- Support candidates in regions where party support has traditionally been low but the prospect for growth is good (like Conservative and NDP prospects in Quebec).
- Support high-quality candidates.
Liberal Party Transfers
The Liberal Party’s transferring pattern to local candidates did not match my expectations as well as that of the Conservative Party.
First, the Liberal Party was more likely to transfer money into constituencies where the candidate had a chance to win. For every one-point increase in the margin of victory/defeat of the previous Liberal candidate, national party transfers would increase by $70.09. This means that a candidate running in a constituency where the previous candidate won the election by 10 percentage points will raise $1,401.70 more than a candidate running where the previous candidate lost by 10 points.
Second, like the Conservative Party, there was a regional aspect to Liberal Party transfers to candidates. Candidates running in the Prairies and in British Columbia were more likely to receive party transfers than candidates running in Ontario (Prairies +$3,670; BC +$1,880).
Third, the party transfers were significantly lower in 2006 and 2008 than in 2004 most likely the result of weaker national fundraising. A Liberal candidate running in 2008 received $2,600 less, all else being equal, than a Liberal candidate in 2004.
Fourth, the Liberal Party was more likely to transfer funds to female candidates than male candidates, all else being equal. Female candidates running for the Liberal Party received, on average, about $1,200 more in national party transfers than male candidates. This is most likely the effect of the Judy LaMarsh fund and efforts by the party to recruit and support more female candidates. In contrast, there was no gender difference in party transfers for the Conservative Party.
Finally, the Liberal Party was not more likely to transfer money to quality candidates and the relationship between candidate fundraising. Moreover, the party was less likely to support candidates who could not raise their own money than with the Conservative Party. For every dollar a candidate raised on their own, Liberal transfers decreased by $0.013. In other words, with the limited resources it had, the Liberal Party was more likely than the Conservative Party to support candidates who already had money but that the quality of the candidate had little effect on party transfers.
August 19, 2010 by David
We know that quality candidates and incumbents (political experienced and those in high profile occupations) raise more money money than non-quality challengers. But is there any logic in how national parties transfer money to their candidates?
Are quality challengers more likely to receive party transfers than other candidates?
Does money flow primarily to competitive elections?
First, how much money did national parties transfer to candidates over the past three years?
Conservative: $6,120,046
Liberal: $3,460,263
NDP: $2,512,754
BQ: $2,167,403
Looking at the same data set I used from my Hill Times article this week, and using multivariate regression, I modeled party transfers (dependent variable) with a number of predictors:
- Candidate political experience (dummy variables)
- Candidate occupation (dummy variables)
- Previous margin of victory/defeat
- Candidate fundraising
- Election year (dummy variables)
- Region (dummy variables)
In thinking about the literature on political parties in Canada and the political environment during the three elections, I expected parties to:
- Support candidates who cannot or did not raise their own money.
- Support candidates in ridings where party support is higher, but not too high (like in safe seats).
- Support candidates in regions where party support has traditionally been low but the prospect for growth is good (like Conservative and NDP prospects in Quebec).
- Support high-quality candidates.
Today I report the findings for Conservative Party Candidates.
Conservative Party Transfers
The Conservative Party not only transferred the most money to its candidates but were also more likely to do so according to what we may expect.
First, the Conservative Party was more likely to transfer money to candidates who could not raise money on their own (this is different from the Liberal and New Democratic parties). For every one dollar increase in candidate fundraising, party transfers would decrease by $0.10. In other words, all else being equal, a candidate who raised $50,000 of their own money received $4,040 less from the national party than a candidate who could only raise $10,000. The Conservative Party used transfers as a way to support candidates who did not raise their own money.
Note – it is difficult to untangle the relationship. Some candidates who received money from the party may not have worked hard to raise their own funds. All we know from the data is that the party transferred funds to candidates with lower fundraising totals.
Second, Conservative candidates running in Quebec were the primary beneficiaries of national transfers. Quebec candidates received, on average and all else being equal, $11,032 more than Conservative candidates in Ontario over the last three elections. Clearly, the national party supplemented the weaker Quebec organization with funds to help support its fledgling support in the province.
Third, the Conservative Party was more likely to support candidates running in constituencies with higher Conservative support in the previous election. For every one percentage point increase in the party’s previous margin of victory/defeat (scale from 100 to -100), party transfers increased by $52. In other words, a Conservative candidate running in a constituency where the previous Conservative candidate lost by 5 percentage points, received, all else being equal, $780 than a candidate running in a riding where the margin of defeat was 20 percentage points.
Finally, the Conservative Party was more likely to transfer money to candidates with previous political experience. Candidates with municipal experience received the largest boast, receiving $4,530 more in transfers from the Conservative Party than candidates without political experience or in high-profile occupations, all else being equal. Former MPs, political aides, and candidates in professional occupations were also more likely to receive national party transfers than non-quality candidates.
Conclusion
The Conservative Party’s transferring behaviour fit the expected model. Party transfers increased as a candidate’s own fundraising decreased and flowed into constituencies where the party’s candidate had a better chance to win. Regions where the party had growth potential but weak organization were also more likely to see transfers as were the campaigns of high-quality candidates, all else being equal.
August 18, 2010 by Abacus
For those of us fascinated by what is happening with the mid-term election, here is an update on some of the latest polling results for some of the key races.
Nevada (Senate)
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is facing his toughest re-election test yet against former State Senator and tea partier, Sharon Angle.
The latest poll numbers from Rasmussen Reports has the race tied up at 47% a piece. When leaners (those who say they are undecided but prompted to say if they are leaning towards a candidate) are included, the race is 50% Angle, 48% Reid.
Florida (Senate)
With Gov. Charlie Crist running as an independent, Florida is shaping up to be one of the most interesting senate races of ’10. The latest Mason-Dixon poll (Aug 9-11) of 625 likely voters finds:
Crist (I) 39%
Rubio (R) 38%
Greene (D) 12%
Undecided 11%
Kentucky (Senate)
Former GOP and Libertarian presidential candidate and U.S. Representative Ron Paul’s son Rand won the GOP nomination in Kentucky with the support of the tea party movement and faces off against state Attorney General Jack Conway. The latest Reuters poll (Aug 9-11) of 435 likely voters finds:
Paul (R) 45%
Conway (D) 40%
Undecided 15%
Among registered voters, the race is tied at 40% each.
Pennsylvania (Senate)
In 2009, then Republican Senator Arlen Spector crossed the floor and joined with the Democrats. A year later and he was defeated in the Democratic primary by Representative Joe Sestak. Sestak faces a tough challenge from former Rep. Pat Toomey. The latest Public Policy Polling survey (Aug 14-16) of 585 likely voters finds:
Toomey (R) 45% (+4 from June)
Sestak (D) 36% (-4)
Undecided 20%
August 17, 2010 by Alex
Sort of a cliché question, but one that I think is very relevant to current Canadian politics. With three federal elections in less than six years, and the seemingly ever-present threat of a fourth, the Hill has been in a state of flux since 2004.
Over the last few years, the federal Liberal Party has had difficulty gaining traction with a successful leader, yet despite this weakness, the Conservatives have failed to fully capitalize on this opportunity and secure a majority government. In a short briefing note I wrote recently, I looked at the prevalence and impact of vote switchers (those who voted one way in a given election, and another way in the next) to see what, if any, effect they had on the respective status of the major federal parties. (Read it here)
While not revolutionary, the results of the study were quite interesting. For the period I studied, the data suggests that Conservative switchers tend to switch for policy reasons or disagreement with party choices, while those who switched away from a Liberal vote did so largely because of an apparent lack of confidence in party leadership.
But what does this mean for political leadership within Canada? Simply put, that a strong leader cannot ‘get away’ with a controversial policy agenda. Similarly, a strong, developed party, with a long history can be brought down by the perception of weak leadership. Common sense, right?
August 17, 2010 by David
Yesterday, my op-ed on candidate fundraising appeared in The Hill Times. Due to space constraints I was limited in what I could summarize from my dissertation research. So over the next few days I’ll post some additional analysis on findings I think are particularly interesting.
Today I look at one specific question:
What is the relationship between a constituency’s competitiveness and a candidate’s fundraising?
Obviously, we should expect a strong relationship. And the data from the last three elections clearly points to that conclusion.
A simple scatter plot between candidate fundraising ($) and the margin of victory/defeat for the candidate’s party in the previous election shows a strong, almost linear relationship. As the competitiveness of party in the previous election increases (move left to right on the chart), so too does fundraising.
When the quadratic line is added into the chart though we do see a small curve develop when the margin of victory passes the 25% mark. This is expected and will become more clear when I discuss outliers later in the week. As the probability of defeat decreases for a candidate, the incentive to raise and spend money also decreases. Hence, the curvilinear relationship between previous party performance and fundraising.
But is competitiveness important when we control for other variables?
The answer is absolutely! The performance of the party in the previous election is the strongest predictor of candidate fundraising. The model predicts, all else being equal, that a candidate running in a constituency where the previous party’s candidate was 10 percentage points behind the winner will raise $3,349 less money than a candidate who’s party was within 1 percentage point of the winner.
Page 12 of 13« First«...910111213»
