Up to this point we have measured ideological positions using the LEO model for specific individual presidential candidates’ express campaigns in the 2004 season. However, one may also apply this model to the same political actor to reveal changes in ideological orientation over time, in order to discern how closely one tends to adhere to a single ideological preference. Conducting this kind of observation on candidates such as John Kerry and George W. Bush can reveal much about the reasons behind critiques of these actors, both by their supporters and their opponents.
Part I. Theory
Part II. Critique
Part III: Application
- Applying the Model
- Measuring Liberty, Equality, and Order in the 2004 Presidential Election
- Deeper Scrutiny
- Case Study: John Kerry
- Case Study: George W. Bush
- George W. Bush: An Update
- Ideology and Partisanship: The RNC
- On Andrew Sullivan
- Santorum and Clinton
- Judicial Decisions, Part 1
- Judicial Decisions, Part 2
- Chuck Hagel
Recent Posts
Other Models
- Kosmix Political Search Engine
- Ideological Vosem Chart
- Eugene Miller
- Jerry Pournelle's Axes
- Bishin's Critique (.pdf)
- Poole & Rosenthal
- The Nolan Quiz
- Print Version of Kamber and O'Leary
- The Student Center Network
- Quizilla Political Spectrum
- The Poltical Typology Test
- Lib or Con Quiz
- The Turn Left Quiz
- Kamber and O'Leary
- The Netwalk Self-Quiz
- Kelley Ross
- Lilie and Maddox
- Mike Hersh's Commentary
- Politopia - The Land of Custom-Made Government
- The Political Compass
- Are you a liberal, moderate, or conservative?
- Anne E. Kornblut's Red or Blue—Which Are You?
- Free Republic commentary
« Measuring Liberty, Equality, and Order in the 2004 Presidential Election | Main | Case Study: John Kerry »
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
The next part may be delayed; I am trying to find ways to make the graphs legible.
Posted by: jonathon | July 08, 2005 at 07:24 AM
There--that should do it. I've included redundancies to maximize access, using the photo album to upload graphs and linking them to the page, just in case the pop-ups fail.
Posted by: jonathon | July 09, 2005 at 09:12 AM
It seems to me that the best way to test your methodology would be to examine a political decision that might have surprised people and see if your test predicted the outcome, or at least was not surprised by the outcome.
Have you done that sort of thing?
The one example I can think of is W's foreign policy. I remember being disapointed during the 2000 presidential debate concerning foreign policy because I did not see a discernable difference between Gore and Bush. I was clearly wrong on that point.
It seems to me that if you wanted to look at changes in orientation, that might be a place to start. What do you think?
Posted by: Mark Zuniga | July 13, 2005 at 09:52 AM
Sounds reasonable. I have used the model so far to explain Bush's Second Inaugural Address, especially since it made so many do a proverbial 'double-take'. Conservative Republicans dismissed Bush's Inaugural Address as 'too idealistic' while Liberal Democrats were just confused, and resumed their navel-gazing.
The language of Bush v. Gore's foreign policy platform is what should reveal the difference. I'll have to see if I can find foreign policy campaign literature from both the Bush and Gore campaigns. You wouldn't happen to have any, would you? It would certainly make my job easier. :)
Posted by: jonathon | July 13, 2005 at 11:47 AM
I have tried to remove all thoughts of the 2000 election out of my mind. It's where I got the nickname Zunigore.
Posted by: Mark Zuniga | July 13, 2005 at 06:16 PM
Zunigore? And who came up with _that_ little...umm...gem?
Posted by: jonathon | July 14, 2005 at 04:14 PM