Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:21:19.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medicare for All, Some, or None? Testing the Effects of Ambiguity in the Context of the 2020 Presidential Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2021

Elizabeth N. Simas Open the ORCID record for Elizabeth N. Simas [Opens in a new window]
Elizabeth N. Simas*
Affiliation:
University of Houston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political scientists have long contemplated whether candidates are better off taking more ambiguous policy positions. Taking advantage of a lack of clarity in Senator Kamala Harris’s healthcare position, I use an original survey experiment to apply these theories to the case of the 2020 presidential election. I find that ambiguity offers Harris little to no advantage over two of her leading Democratic primary opponents and, among certain subjects, harms her relative to Senator Elizabeth Warren. I also find negative effects on Harris’s favorability relative to President Donald Trump. These results have interesting implications for both the 2020 election and the broader study of candidate rhetoric because they illustrate potential downsides to avoiding clear issue statements.

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 208 - 213
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alesina, Alberto, and Cukierman, Alex. 1990. “The Politics of Ambiguity.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 105 (4): 829–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callander, Steven, and Wilson, Catherine H.. 2008. “Context-Dependent Voting and Political Ambiguity.” Journal of Public Economics 92 (3–4): 565–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cillizza, Chris, and Enten, Harry. 2018. “Why Kamala Harris Is the New Democratic Frontrunner.” CNN, November 12. Available at www.cnn.com/2018/11/12/politics/2020-rankings-democrats/index.html.Google Scholar
Coppock, Alexander, and McClellan, Oliver A.. 2019. “Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents.” Research & Politics 11 (1): 103–30.Google Scholar
Dunn, Amina. 2019. “Democrats Differ over Best Way to Provide Health Coverage for All Americans.” Pew Research Center, July 26. Available at www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/26/democrats-differ-over-best-way-to-provide-health-coverage-for-all-americans.Google Scholar
Gregorian, Dareh, Sarlin, Benjy, and Hillyard, Vaughn. 2019. “Kamala Harris Walks Back Her Hand-Up Moment on Health Insurance in Democratic Debate.” NBC News, June 28. Available at www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/kamala-harris-walks-back-her-hand-moment-health-insurance-democratic-n1024756.Google Scholar
Hamby, Peter. 2019. “‘Winning Campaigns Have a Message’: The Self-Sabatoging of Kamala Harris.” Vanity Fair, December 9. Available at www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/the-self-sabotaging-of-kamala-harris?page=9.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L., Krosnick, Jon A., Visser, Penny S., Gardner, Wendy L., and Cacioppo, John T.. 2001. “Attitudes toward Presidential Candidates and Political Parties: Initial Optimism, Inertial First Impressions, and a Focus on Flaws.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 930–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrynowski, Zach. 2020. “Several Issues Tie as Most Important in 2020 Election.” Gallup, January 13. Available at https://news.gallup.com/poll/276932/several-issues-tie-important-2020-election.aspx.Google Scholar
Jensen, Thomas. 2009. “Projection Effects and Strategic Ambiguity in Electoral Competition.” Public Choice 141:213–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Simas, Elizabeth N.. 2010. “Risk Orientations and Policy Frames.” Journal of Politics 72 (2): 381–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Simas, Elizabeth N.. 2012. “Risk Attitudes, Candidate Characteristics, and Vote Choice.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (4): 747–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnikov, Yanna, and Ryan, John Barry. 2017. “Choice vs. Action: Candidate Ambiguity and Voter Decision Making.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 14 (4): 479–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lah, Kyung, Luhby, Tami, and Krieg, Gregory. 2019. “Kamala Harris Unveils ‘Medicare for All’ Plan that Preserves Role for Private Insurance. ” CNN, July 29. Available at www.cnn.com/2019/07/29/politics/kamala-harris-health-care-plan/index.html.Google Scholar
Milita, Kerri, Ryan, John Barry, and Simas, Elizabeth N.. 2014. “Nothing to Hide, Nowhere to Run, or Nothing to Lose: Candidate Position-Taking in Congressional Elections.” Political Behavior 36 (2): 427–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milita, Kerri, Simas, Elizabeth N., Ryan, John Barry, and Krupnikov, Yanna. 2017. “The Effects of Ambiguous Rhetoric in Congressional Elections.” Electoral Studies 46:48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, Scott, and Zechmeister, Elizabeth. 2001. “Better the Devil You Know Than the Saint You Don’t? Risk Propensity and Vote Choice in Mexico.” Journal of Politics 63 (1): 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, Brendan, McGhee, Eric, Sides, John, Masket, Seth, and Greene, Steven. 2012. “One Vote Out of Step? The Effects of Salient Roll Call Votes in the 2010 Election.” American Politics Research 40 (5): 844–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2019. “In a Politically Polarized Era, Sharp Divides in Both Party Coalitions.” Available at www.people-press.org/2019/12/17/views-of-the-major-problems-facing-the-country.Google Scholar
Piston, Spencer, Krupnikov, Yanna, Milita, Kerri, and Ryan, John Barry. 2018. “Clear as Black and White: The Effects of Ambiguous Rhetoric Depend on Candidate Race.” Journal of Politics 80 (2): 662–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarlin, Benjy. 2019. “Does ‘Medicare for All’ End Private Insurance? Depends Which Candidate You Ask.” NBC News, May 14. Available at www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1005071.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.” American Political Science Review 66 (2): 555–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simas, Elizabeth. 2020. “Replication Data for: Medicare for All, Some, or None?: Testing the Effects of Ambiguity in the Context of the 2020 Presidential Election.” Harvard Dataverse. Available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NAH0FD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simas, Elizabeth N., and Murdoch, Doug. 2020. “‘I Didn’t Lie, I Misspoke’: Voters’ Responses to Questionable Campaign Claims.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 7 (2): 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2015. “Everything to Everyone: The Electoral Consequences of the Broad-Appeal Strategy in Europe.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 841–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2009. “The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity.” American Political Science Review 103 (1): 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Simas Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NAH0FD
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Simas supplementary material

Appendix

Download Simas supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 383.1 KB