Place or Partisanship? The Conditional Role of Identities on Candidate Support

• Author: Miles T. Armaly,Daniel Fudge
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X211027859
• Published date: 01 November 2021
• Date: 01 November 2021

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211027859

American Politics Research

2021, Vol. 49(6) 655 –665

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X211027859

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

“Everything is related to everything else, but near things are

more related than distant things”—W.R. Tobler

In recent election cycles, a great deal of ink has been

spilled on “Why Republicans Don’t Even Try to Win Cities

Anymore” (Badger & Bui, 2016) and “How Democrats Can

Win Back Rural Voters” (Dudzinsky & Robinson, 2019).

Implicit in these statements is that, despite a well-established

link between rural (urban) voters and support for Republican

(Democratic) candidates (Scala & Johnson, 2017), geogra-

phy is not a stand-in for partisanship; Democrats can find

support among the rural, and Republicans among the urban.

Partisanship and place—though commonly related (Martin

& Webster, 2018; McKee, 2008) —are distinct social identi-

ties. Just as partisan attachments shape political attitudes and

behaviors, so too can place-based attachments. Indeed, place

is an important heuristic in evaluations of candidates. As

Jacobs and Munis (2018) show, rural voters, for instance, are

more supportive of candidates they suspect to be rural based

on campaign mailer imagery.

Heretofore, much of the scholarship on the politics of

place has focused largely on the role of place-based identifi-

cation with minor consideration of the strength of identifica-

tion, or of the identity in a broader set of competing social

identities. More specifically, although existing research

offers helpful insights into the role of place-based identity

(e.g., Jacobs & Munis, 2018), we believe it is important to

more fully incorporate place and partisan identities.1 To be

clear, other studies do not entirely ignore partisanship—

many include the identification as a control variable. In this

paper, we expand on work like that of Jacobs and Munis and

explicitly ask what happens when two important social

identities—place and partisanship—create cross-pressures

on political evaluations and behavior. Do the positive effects

of shared place persist among counter-partisans? Do co-

partisans punish candidates with whom they do not share a

place? Finally, inasmuch as identities can produce both

expressive “cheap talk” (e.g., Lelkes & Westwood, 2017)

and more substantive behavioral effects (e.g., Green et al.,

2002), we consider whether place-based attachments have

behavioral implications.

Based on this research, as well as open questions about

the (un)conditional role of place (Jacobs & Munis, 2018;

Panagopoulos & Bailey, 2019), we ask three primary ques-

tions. First, does the unique role of place persist when con-

sidering a behavioral measure of political support? More

specifically, will place compel donations to a candidate?

Second, does the role of place persist when conditioned by

partisanship? Are counter-partisans who share place still

willing to support the candidate? Existing research suggests

they would. Third, does the strength of attachment to a place

(as opposed to mere residency) help explain the role of

place? Can the forceful influence of partisanship be dimin-

ished by strong place attachment?

1027859APRXXX10.1177/1532673X211027859American Politics ResearchFudge and Armaly

research-article2021

1University of Mississippi, University, USA

Corresponding Author:

Miles T. Armaly, University of Mississippi, 133 Deupree, University,

MS 38677, USA.

Email: milestarmaly@gmail.com

Place or Partisanship? The Conditional

Role of Identities on Candidate Support

Daniel Fudge1 and Miles T. Armaly1

Abstract

Recent work on the influence of social identities reveals that placed-based attachments serve as a powerful heuristic when

making political assessments. When a politician makes a place-based appeal—such as cuing rural origins—individuals who

share that identity more strongly support the candidate. Yet, other important identities—namely, partisanship—are strongly

related to place. Here, we attempt to disentangle the unique influence of a place-based identity (and the strength thereof) on

candidate support. Additionally, we ask whether shared place can compel supportive behavior, rather than merely increase

expressive support. Using a unique survey experiment, we find that those who strongly identify with a place are more willing

to donate to the campaign of a shared-place candidate, relative to weaker place identification, but only among co-partisans.

We find little evidence that place attachment influences supportive behavior beyond the role of partisanship. Disparate

identities—here, place and partisanship—that create cross-pressures can operate in tandem.

Keywords

social identity, place, rural and urban, candidate support