The Dog that Didn ’ t Bark : The Role of Canines in the 2008 Campaign

Using the most extensive dataset available on the 2008 election, I examine the impact of dog ownership on presidential vote preference. Canines were elevated to the status of a campaign issuewhen, during the2008campaign,BarackObamapubliclypromised his daughters a dog after the electionwas over, a campaign promise that has since been fulfilled.However, thisannouncementappearstohaveunintentionallyhighlightedtheabsence of akeypointofpotential identificationbetween this candidateandvoters, and thus tohave significantly undermined the likelihood that dog-owning voters would support Obama. I elaborate upon the implications of this finding for future presidential candidates. This study is in memory of Lee Sigelman, who always made me laugh. “If you want a friend inWashington, get a dog.” —President Harry Truman American presidents have always had pets, although their political significance is vastly understudied. White House occupants have long included many species, from John Quincy Adams’ pet alligator to Jefferson’s pet grizzly cubs toMadison’s famed parrot who attended the inaugural ball. According to one authoritative source, around four hundred pets have lived in the White House to date (Davis 2004). In fact, if one counts horses, Barack Obama is the very first elected president to be petless.1 Moreover, Obama’s petlessness was widely publicized during the election through his public promise to his daughters of a post-election canine companion. While some pundits felt this promise only made him appearmore charming to the pet-lovingAmerican public, it may have unintentionally highlighted a key point of difference between the candidate and the public. Republican John McCain, on the other hand, had a menagerie that included two dogs, a cat, two turtles, a ferret, three parakeets, and some saltwater fish.Moreover, given the attention that the campaign promise drew to pets (and Obama’s lack thereof ), it is not surprising that the American public was well aware of this point of difference between the two candidates. Presidential pets, and canines in particular, have been widely acknowledged to play a significant role in the political success of their masters. Many presidential pups have become celebrities in their own right, exceeding even their masters’ success in the White House. President Harding’s Airedale, Laddie Boy, became a national celebrity and was given a chair at cabinet meetings. Roosevelt’s black Scottie, Fala, traveled abroad and joined the president at internationalmeetings promotingworld peace. Pushinka, a fluffy little white dog given to Caroline Kennedy by Nikita Khrushchev, was long suspected of being infestedwith bugs.However, after an extensive Secret Service clearance process, she was allowed to have intimate relations with the Kennedy’sWelsh terrier, Charlie, and the two went on to produce four pupniks (Davis 2004). Roosevelt’s dog, Fala, later gave Nixon the inspiration for his infamous “Checkers speech” about his own dog. In short, canines have clearly played an important role in presidential politics, affecting both a politician’s image and effectiveness. Despite their high profiles once in office, there is little empirical evidence as to whether or why dogs matter either to electoral prospects or to a president’s success once in office. A recent poll probing the voting trends of dog owners—who comprise nearly half of all U.S. households—found significant potential for influence in local elections. A whopping 98.6% of dog owners said that a candidate’s position or track record on issues such as breed discrimination, breed bans, or leash laws played a significant role in their electoral choice (My Dog Votes 2006). Drawing on the most extensive collection of data on electoral opinion in the United States, my study examines empirical evidence from the 2008 presidential election regarding the impact of canines, and offers several potential theoretical explanations for this phenomenon. Two limitations plague research to date. First, evidence that a dog benefits or harms a given politician has tended to be anecdotal at best. In the few cases inwhich systematic empirical evidence has been applied to this question, the results have been examined in simple bivariate terms.CandidateA leads among pet owners, or Candidate B is the favorite among dog owners, for example. Such observations are very limited in what they can explain, because none of the many potentially spurious DianaMutz is Samuel A. Stouffer Professor of Political Science and Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, where she also serves as the director for the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics at the Annenberg Public Policy Center. She is the author of numerous books and articles on American political behavior and public opinion and is a Fellow of the AmericanAcademy of Arts and Sciences.Mutz served as co-PI of the2008NationalAnnenbergElectionStudy.Shecanbereachedatdmutz@asc.upenn.edu. Fea tu res ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. doi:10.1017/S1049096510001125 PS • October 2010 707 explanations for the observed relationship are explored or systematically ruled out. Analyses surrounding the 2008 election have been similarly lacking in theoretical and empirical detail. Based on a June 2008 poll, the Associated Press announced that dog owners preferred McCain to Obama, 43% to 34%, respectively (Associated Press 2008). However informative these results may be, they tell us little about the role that dogs play in the formation of electoral opinion or why there is a difference in political views between the dog-owning and non-dog-owning public. In the analyses that follow, I attempt to rule out the potential for spurious relationships by estimating a largemultivariatemodel that predicts liking for Obama as well as pre-election vote choice. Moreover, I test the singularity of dog-ownership in its political influence, as opposed to pet ownership more generally. Most importantly, I provide two theories as to why dog owners may have turned away from Obama in 2008: group identification and pet-candidate trait congruity. Ultimately, I find that (1) the relationship between dog ownership and support for Obama survives extensive and excessive controls, and (2) there is greater support for the group identification explanation. Early in his run for the presidency, Obamamade a widely publicized promise to get his daughters a dog after the election, regardless of outcome. This gesture may have seemed superficially endearing, as campaign promises go. However, I argue that in the end, this promise backfired on Obama by raising the salience of his family’s doglessness and thus alienating a significant proportion of the electorate. As Stregowski (2008) noted shortly before the presidential election, “A huge focus has been placed upon the fact that Obama does not have any pets.” In the end, election data corroborated this claim. Although dog ownership did not trump ideology or party allegiance as a predictor of support for Obama, it produced a significant impact on feelings toward Obama, as well as on vote preference.