Under New (Issue) Ownership: Unpacking Competence, Preferences, and Priorities

• In Event: How Public Opinion Does (and Does Not) Constrain Elites

Abstract

The long literature on “ownership” of issues by political parties has been plagued by measurement issues related to exactly how voters cognitively represent these associations. In particular, most explanations typically revolve around assessments of competency of the political parties, while revisionist accounts have noted the role of partisan priorities in shaping these associations. Additionally, rising polarization has called into question how much ownership needs to be shared across partisan lines for an issue to truly be owned. Using a question-wording experiment with over 40 salient issues in American politics in which respondents are asked to assess the competency of the parties, their preferences between the parties, and beliefs about which party prioritizes the issue, we help settle these competing explanations as the source of ownership. We find important differences across question-wording and issues, as well as broken out by respondent partisanship and their own issues preferences. These results call into question the usefulness of the concept of issue ownership in modern American politics.

Authors

• Stephen N Goggin, San Diego State University

• John Henderson, Yale University