Toward an Ideological Common Space: Extending Bonica's CFscores to the Citizen Level.

Bonica's (Am J Polit Sci 58(2):367–386, 2014) campaign finance-based ideology scores, or CFscores, create an ideological common space that allows researchers to compare a wide variety of actors. Because relatively few citizens donate to candidates, however, the public is not well represented in this common space. This paper addresses that gap. It uses random forest machine learning on data from the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study to impute CFscores for respondents who did not donate to candidates, based on how their policy views compared to those who did. These new scores are robust to differences in issue importance between donors and non-donors, and they outperform other ideological measures in predicting vote choice. The scores are then applied to a substantive exercise. Past research shows that extreme candidates for governor are penalized more by voters than those in lower-profile races. The implied mechanism—that vote choice for governor is more ideologically-driven—can be directly tested with imputed CFscores, since they uniquely allow comparisons between voters and candidates across races. An analysis of voting behavior in 2012 confounds expectations. Ideology appears to factor no more into vote choice for governor than for US House. These novel findings underscore the value of extending CFscores to non-donating survey respondents, and while current efforts are limited by data availability, this study offers encouragement and a roadmap to that end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]