ABSTRACT
We illuminate the dynamics of primary campaigns by looking at how individuals changed their candidate support, favorability and viability within a crucial state in the 2020 primary. Via a multi-wave survey of likely primary voters in Michigan, we show that Joe Biden's comeback win was due primarily to the change in perception of his viability following South Carolina and Super Tuesday, especially among the more moderate portion of the Democratic electorate. In subsequent county-level analyses we find that the difference between Bernie Sanders's win in 2016 and loss in 2020 was more a function of changes in the Democratic primary electorate than in his appeal. Our work suggests that gains in viability do not benefit all candidates equally. Moreover, viability can be generated later in the schedule than previously thought and to decisive ends. We consider the implications of our findings for understanding Michigan's outcome in November.
ABSTRACT
Political trust is a perennially important concern and the events of the last few years have, in many ways, heightened this importance. The relevant scholarship has done much to meet this challenge but continues to struggle with definitional unclarities and an inability to provide accounts that consistently operate as expected. The current research seeks to test the potential of a classic model of trust from the organizational sciences that makes specific arguments regarding the psychological nature and mechanisms of the construct in helping to address these concerns. Using data from a national convenience sample, we provide preliminary evidence which suggests that measures and models addressing this theoretical account of psychological trust form unidimensional and reliable measures that may more precisely explain the process of political trust and outperform current measures in predicting relevant correlates. We conclude by discussing the implications and limitations of our work and, in so doing, lay a foundation for a new research agenda for political trust.
