Indian Politics & Policy Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2020 | Page 34

Indian Politics & Policy
16 Asian Survey 52 (2012): 239–439; Sandeep Shastri, K.C. Suri, and Yogendra Yadav, eds., Electoral
Politics in Indian States: Lok Sabha Elections in 2004 and Beyond (New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2009); Sanjay Kumar, and Praveen Rai, Measuring Voting Behaviour in India
(New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 2013); Economic and Political Weekly 39 (2004); Economic
and Political Weekly XLIV (2009); Pradeep Chhibber, “Are National Elections Any More Than
Aggregations of State-Level Verdicts?” Economic and Political Weekly 44 (2009): 58–63; Studies
in Indian Politics 3 (2015); Studies in Indian Politics 7 (2019).
17 Jeffrey Wooldridge. (2009). Introductory Econometrics. Fourth Edition. South-Western.
18 Jonathan Kastellec and Eduardo Leoni, “Using Graphs instead of Tables in Political Science,”
Perspectives on Politics 5 (2007): 755–71.
19 I also estimate Models 1 and 2 with additional control variables such as economic class, rural,
and gender. I find small but significant effects. Class is negatively correlated with incumbent
vote. Upper classes tend to turn against incumbents. Rural and female voters tend to vote for
the incumbent. The marginal effects are in the range of 1 to 3 percent. The effects of economic
evaluations and party attachment are unaffected. I do not present these results here, but they
are available upon request.
20 See, for example, Pradeep Chhibber and Rahul Verma, “The Rise of the Second Dominant
Party System in India: BJP’s New Social Coalition in 2019,” Studies in Indian Politics 7 (2019):
131–48.
21 See, for instance, Christophe Jaffrelot, “Class and Caste in the 2019 Indian Election – Why
Have So Many Poor Started Voting for Modi,” Studies in Indian Politics 7 (2019): 149–60.
22 The effects of economic evaluations and partisanship on the BJP vote hold even when I drop
Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Punjab, and Tamil Nadu (states where the BJP
vote shares are small) from the sample. The effects of class and rural, however, disappear.
23 Mark Pickup and Geoffrey Evans, “Addressing the Endogeneity Of Economic Evaluations In
Models Of Political Choice,” Public Opinion Quarterly 77 (2013): 735–54.
24 Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Wareen E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes, The American
Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960); William G. Jacoby, “The Impact of Party Identification on Issue
Attitudes,” American Journal of Political Science 32 (1988): 643–61; Brian J. Gaines, James H.
Kuklinski, Paul J. Quirk, Buddy Peyton, and Jay Verkuilen, “Same Facts, Different Interpretations:
Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq,” Journal of Politics 69 (2007): 957–74.
25 Geoffrey Evans and Mark Pickup, “Reversing the Causal Arrow,” Journal of Politics 72 (2010):
1236–51; Matthew Ladner and Christopher Wlezien, “Partisan Preferences, Electoral Prospects,
and Economic Expectations,” Comparative Political Studies 40 (2007): 571–96; Christopher
Wlezien, Mark Franklin, and Daniel Twiggs, “Economic Perceptions and Vote Choice:
Disentangling the Endogeneity,” Political Behavior 19 (1997): 7–17.
26 Michael Lewis-Beck, S.D. Roderick Kiewiet, and Nicholas Martini, “The Nature of Economic
Perceptions in Mass Publics,” Electoral Studies 32 (2013): 524–28.
27 Irfan Nooruddin, “Making Surveys Work Better: Experiments in Public Opinion Research,”
Studies in Indian Politics 2 (2014): 105–08; Anustubh Agnihotri and Rahul Verma, “Design
Based Approach in Social Science Research,” Studies in Indian Politics 4 (2016): 241–48.
28 Rahul Verma, “By rejecting Raghubar Das, Jharkhand Sends a Message to the BJP,” Hindustan
Times, December 24, 2019.
30