Objectives. The largest increase of any ancestry group between the 1990 and 2000 Census in the United States were “unhyphenated Americans,” those whites who claimed an “American” or no ancestry. This article measures this group's voting habits in the 2008 elections. Methods. With individual‐level attitudinal data and county‐level voting data from the 2008 primary and 2000–2008 general elections, the analyses use quantitative methods to estimate unhyphenated Americans' voting behavior. Results. Evidence indicates a strong rejection of Obama among counties with high proportions of unhyphenated Americans in both the 2008 primary and general elections. Conclusion. While spatially concentrated in and near Appalachia, unhyphenated Americans' politics are distinctive irrespective of socioeconomic status, religion, and geography, being one of the few groups in which Barack Obama lost votes compared to previous Democratic nominees. Variation in the share of unhyphenated Americans explains more of the difference between 2008 and past elections than variation in the share of African Americans per county.

Sociologists have identified an emerging new ethnic population of “unhyphenated Americans,” those whites who claim an “American” ancestry, or none at all. This article measures the voting habits of these individuals in the 2010 elections. Research has shown that Barack Obama’s vote share suffered in the 2008 election in regions where these voters are concentrated. This paper extends that analysis to the 2010 midterm elections. I find that in districts where unhyphenated Americans are concentrated, Democratic candidates suffered reduced vote share and chances of victory. These findings show the importance of identity politics among white voters and raise further questions about the role of ethnicity and voting.

No abstract

How do campaigns decide what issues to emphasize for voters? According to most studies, campaigns rely on factors outside of their control-issue salience, party issue ownership, and district ideology. In this article, I argue that campaign messages are designed primarily based on the candidate. I examine the issue content of campaign advertisements from U.S. House and Senate campaigns from 2000 to 2004 and develop a measure that determines if candidates have developed a reputation on a particular issue.When candidates have developed such a reputation, their campaign is more likely to highlight that issue to voters than campaigns whose candidate has not developed such a reputation. This relationship is consistent across most issues and across two different measures of a campaign's issue agenda.

No abstract