This is a special guest post by Kal Munis, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Virginia. Kal is a lifelong Montanan, and is an alum of both Montana State and the University of Montana. I expect to feature his work often here.
With the 2018
midterm elections just a little over seven months away, candidates have begun
to ramp up efforts to distinguish themselves from one another. In addition to
the various typical dimensions on which we might expect those aspiring to
represent us to stress their unique qualifications—such as prior political
experience, policy positions and past accomplishments—there is another
conspicuous characteristic upon which political candidates in Montana attempt
to out-maneuver one another: successfully conveying that they possess an
authentic Montanan identity.
Typically, candidates try to signal to voters that
they share with them various attachments to the customs, values, and lived
experiences particular to their geographical constituency. They do so in
numerous ways including in video advertisements, mailers, press releases,
emails, social media postings and other campaign media. It should be noted that
these activities don’t stop at election day—indeed, many politicians will
continue to cultivate their image of place-based authenticity as a component of
what political scientists refer to as their “home-style.”
Candidates in
Montana and elsewhere clearly engage in this behavior cycle after cycle due a
belief in the campaign community that it is an effective practice. In a content
analysis of all video based advertisements that were paid for by campaigns
during the 2012 and 2014 U.S. Senate elections, I found that these types of ads
are widespread throughout the country, with the highest level of usage being
clustered in Western states such as Montana. Despite their seeming ubiquitousness,
it remains unknown whether campaigns' decisions to deploy these appeals are
evidence based or the product of folk-wisdom based inertia.
Irrespective of their effectiveness, however,
some pundits (and voters—see
the comments on this
ad)
have remarked that excessive hand-wringing over which candidate is the most Montanan borders on xenophobic,
particularly when such concerns are tied to place of birth. At the same time,
however, it seems widely accepted that the success of many candidates in
Montana, particularly Democrats Senator Jon Tester and Governor Steve Bullock
(as well as former Governor Brian Schweitzer), has been largely predicated on
their ability to connect with voters on the basis of place.
In large part, the
mechanism through which this connection has been fostered in Montana, as well
as that upon which many campaign appeals based on place identity are made, is the
candidate's birthplace. For successful Democratic candidates in Montana, it
seems that part of the litmus test has been whether they’re a native of the
state. For a recent example, look no further than Governor Bullock’s successful
2016 reelection bid against then Republican gubernatorial candidate and current
U.S. Representative Greg Gianforte. In that race, the Bullock campaign was able
to successfully paint Gianforte as an outsider with deep connections to
California and New Jersey. So out of touch with Montana was Gianforte,
according to Bullock’s campaign, that he was willing to try to run roughshod
over that which many Montanans hold to be most sacred: public lands. The
narrative was simple: Bullock, a native Montanan, respects and maintains
Montana values, whereas Gianforte—a Californian multi-millionaire by way of New
Jersey—does not. The result, meanwhile, was shocking, as returns revealed that
Bullock defeated Gianforte by 4 points, all while Gianforte’s co-partisan in
the presidential race, Donald Trump, crushed his Democratic foe by a staggering
22 points.
As part of the
2018 midterm elections, Tester will defend his Senate seat and multiple
Republicans are competing in their party’s primary to challenge him. Currently,
most observers regard Matt Rosendale as being the front runner among these
challengers. And, if recent advertisements are any indication, it would seem
that several left-aligned groups, including the Montana Democratic Party, consider
him to be the front-runner as well.
In a recent
advertisement,
the MTDP makes an overtly place identity charged indictment of “Maryland Matt” Rosendale,
namely that he is an outsider who “doesn’t share our Montana values.” In the
ad, the MTDP takes a ‘don’t just take our word for it’ strategy by relying
mostly upon statements made by (or on behalf of) prominent Montana Republicans,
as well as upon a compilation of footage of Rosendale himself butchering the
pronunciation of the state he is running to represent in Washington. The statements
(which are attributed variously to current U.S. Senate primary opponent Russ
Fagg, former U.S. House primary opponent and current Secretary of State Cory
Stapleton, and to a PAC that supported Ryan Zinke in the 2014 Republican
primary for the U.S. House of Representatives) all suggest that Rosendale’s
non-native born status should be viewed as a deficiency in the eyes of voters. Of
these statements, Stapleton’s makes the case against Rosendale’s non-native status
most powerfully, stating “we don’t need that East Coast value here in Montana,
we don’t need somebody from the East Coast representing us in Montana, we need a
Montanan representing us on the East Coast.”
This theme, though
in decidedly less antagonistic tone, was on display yet again a few weeks ago in
Bozeman at the Republican U.S. Senate candidate
forum
(not a debate!) put on by the College Republicans at Montana State University.
The forum, which featured Rosendale and his three opponents, Troy Downing (a
fellow non-native from California), Albert Olszewski, and Russel Fagg, saw all
candidates take pains to stress their connections to Montana and demonstrate
their embrace of Montana values. Rosendale and Downing (the non-native
candidates) did so in decidedly apologetic fashion, with the following
statement by Downing being emblematic of the tone: “I’ve always been a
Montanan, it just took me 31 years to get here.” Fagg and Olszewski (the native
candidates), meanwhile made their born and raised Montanan bonafides front and
center from the outset, with Fagg, for example, noting that he “has the Montana
roots, the Montana endorsements, (and) the Montana donations.”
It was a portion
of Fagg’s closing statement as well as Rosendale’s that followed, however, that
really drew my attention. In his last appeal to the crowd in Bozeman that
night, Fagg made his case that his native Montana roots would be critical to
defeating native Jon Tester in 2018. “I’m a fourth generation Montanan…and (my
family) has live and loved Montana since before Montana was a state,” he said “[…]
and the reason that’s important, I appreciate everyone that has moved to
Montana because they love Montana, but the Democrats are going to unmercifully
beat up two of my opponents because they moved here nine years ago (Downing)
and fifteen years ago (Rosendale). It may not be fair, but it’s the truth. If
you put me on that ticket, that takes that argument away from Senator Tester.” Fagg
then went on to note that he has to date collected the lion’s share of
endorsements from prominent Montana Republicans from well-known names such as
Marc Racicot and Denny Rehberg (Rosendale, meanwhile, has the support of
prominent national Republicans such U.S. Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee)
before passing the mic to Rosendale.
Fagg’s point was
brought into stark relief just moments later when Rosendale mispronounced
“Montana” so badly that even I, a social scientist who studies the role of
place-based identities in politics, couldn’t help but to find it grating. In my
defense, it was the contrast of Rosendale’s mispronunciation and Fagg’s ominous
message regarding the importance of Montana roots in eyes of Montana voters
that made the moment so powerful. And, apparently I wasn’t the only one to
notice—the MTDP released the “Maryland Matt” ad just a few days later and
appeared to indirectly reference the forum in a short blurb accompanying the
ad’s posting.
Do voters care
about where candidates were born? To begin to investigate this question, I draw
upon data from three different surveys that I have fielded (one in Autumn 2015,
one in Spring 2017, and another in early fall 2017) utilizing Mechanical Turk
samples. All respondents in these surveys reside in the United States. Within
each survey, I included a question asking whether and how important respondents
thought it was that candidates running for Congress in their state had been
born there. In the most recent two surveys, an additional question was asked
regarding whether respondents felt that candidates born in their state were
more likely to understand the values and needs of people in their state.
Table 1: How important do you think it is
for candidates running for Congress
in your state to have been born in your
state?
|
|
Fall 2015
|
Spring 2017
|
Fall 2017
|
|
Extremely Important
|
25
(5%)
|
200
(11%)
|
130
(11%)
|
|
Very Important
|
117
(25%)
|
368
(20%)
|
255
(22%)
|
|
Moderately Important
|
136
(29%)
|
496
(28%)
|
300
(26%)
|
|
Slightly Important
|
87
(18%)
|
320
(18%)
|
232
(18%)
|
|
Not at all important
|
111
(23%)
|
423
(23%)
|
229
(23%)
|
|
N
|
476
|
1,807
|
1,146
|
Results for the
first question are remarkably stable across all three samples, as can be seen
in Table 1. In the most recent sample, one third of respondents indicated that
they felt candidate place of birth to be highly important (including both the
“extremely important” and “highly important” categories). A little over a
quarter of respondents indicated candidate place of birth to be moderately important.
Meanwhile, a minority of respondents (41%) indicated that candidate place of
birth is only slightly important or not important at all to them.
Table 1: In general, do you think that
candidates born in your state are better
at understanding the values and needs of
people in your state?
|
|
Spring 2017
|
Fall 2017
|
|
Yes
|
853
(47%)
|
554
(48%)
|
|
No
|
287
(16%)
|
144
(13%)
|
|
Unsure
|
667
(37%)
|
450
(39%)
|
|
N
|
1,807
|
1,146
|
As
for respondents’ perceptions regarding whether native born candidates are more
likely to better understand the values and needs of their constituency, a large
plurality in both samples (an average of 47.5%) indicated that they felt this
was the case, with a small minority (an average of 14%) of respondents saying
this wasn’t likely to be the case. A large number of respondents in both
samples indicated that they were unsure regarding this question (38%). These
results are presented in Table 2.
To
further explore responses to these questions, I use various methods (including
ANOVA, OLS, and logistic regression) to model the relationship between
responses to these questions and respondents’ partisanship.[1] First, I estimate the
association between how important respondents rated candidate birthplace and respondents’
partisanship while controlling for the influence of other background
characteristics. Results show that, on average, the place of birth of political
candidates is significantly more important to Republicans (by about 25%) than
it is for Democrats even after controlling for the influence of respondents'
level of educational attainment, gender, self-reported recent voting history,
and whether the respondent lived in a rural area. Moreover, further analysis
reveals that Republicans’ average importance rating of candidate place of birth
is significantly higher than that of independents as well, though Democrats and
independents do not differ significantly from one another in this respect. Finally,
I model the association between partisanship and perceptions of whether being
born in state imparts upon candidates a special constituency related knowledge
(all while again controlling for a number of other related factors). Results
indicate that Republicans are 4.5 times more likely on average to indicate that
candidates born in their state typically better understand the values and
problems associated with that state.
Taken
together, these results suggest that many Americans see candidate place of
birth as being an important attribute of political candidates. More
specifically, a majority of people in my sample indicated that it is at least
moderately important that candidates be born in the state that they seek to
represent in Congress, with a full third indicating that they feel it is highly
important. Moreover, a plurality of respondents indicated that they believe
that candidates born in the state they are running in are more likely to
understand the needs and values of their constituency. Results also indicate a
significant association between these considerations and partisanship, with
Republicans endorsing both to a greater extent than non-Republicans on average.
All of this is especially noteworthy considering that these results are derived
from a sample comprising survey respondents from all across the United States.
And, in terms of demographic characteristics, the sample skews slightly younger,
more liberal, and more educated than the American population as a whole—as well
as Montana. So, if anything, I would expect the patterns and statistical
associations described above to increase in magnitude if the sample were one
perfectly representative of Montana.
Finally,
in relating all of this back to Montana politics, the results presented here
seem to lend some credence to Republican
candidate Russ Fagg’s (as well as many others) warning to Republican primary
voters that (in)congruence between where candidates are born and the district
they hope to represent is important to voters—and, at least in this sample,
especially amongst self-identified Republicans. And, since Tester will almost
certainly have to win over a considerable percentage of voters who recently
voted for our Republican president, these results suggest that one fruitful
path for him to do so would be to continue to appeal to voters on the basis of shared
Montana values and identity (as Bullock did in his successful 2016 reelection
bid). Whether and to what degree he is able to do so could very well be
moderated by whether a native-born Republican, such as Fagg or Olszewski, is at
the top of the Republican ticket.
B.
Kal Munis is, amongst other things, a 6th generation Montana native
and alumnus of both Montana State University and the University of Montana. He
is currently a PhD candidate in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics at
the University of Virginia. You can follow him on Twitter @KalMunis.
[1] If you want more specifics on the
data and my analyses, please send me an email or leave a comment below.
No comments:
Post a Comment