# data[].attributes.body
Although many voter characteristics were assessed over time in the panel, the high level of stability of pet ownership meant that it was impossible to capitalize on change over time in pet ownership to predict change in presidential preferences. So in order to attack this research question thoroughly with crosssectional data, I amassed a large number of variables to represent potential confounding influences. First and foremost, these variables included traditional indicators of party membership and ideology. In addition, a second block of variables included perceptions of the economy. Given the gravity of the American economic situation and the many unfolding economic events during this period, perceptions of change in the national economy as well as changes in respondents’ personal economic fortunes were included in this block.

# data[].attributes.body
Some take this theme even further, suggesting that it is not simply identification with other pet owners, but also the assumption that a pet-owning politician has acquired specific officerelevant skills from their experiences. As Hank Pellissier surmises,

Perhaps if you can find ticks in your cat’s ears, you can eventually locate Osama bin Laden. If you can avoid dogfights, you can negotiate with the French. If you can use a pooper scooper, you can clean up the environment. If you can manage a rat’s brain tumor, you can set up a universal health-care system. (2004)

Whether for symbolic or imputed substantive reasons, group identification theory suggests that, all else being equal, dog owners should be drawn to dog-owning candidates.

# data[].attributes.body
The three-point difference in thermometer scores that survived an unusually extensive collection of control variables may not seem like a substantial effect at first. However, taken in context, one would be hard pressed to call this effect trivial. For example, considering oneself “born again” lowers support for Obama by less than this amount, and yet few would call this political contingent inconsequential.

# data[].attributes.body
The empirical expectations of a congruency-oriented theory would suggest that although Obama might suffer in popularity among dog owners, that impact might be balanced by greater support from owners of more Obama-like pets reflecting his particular character strengths and personality. As Davis suggests,

Many presidents share the same personality traits as their pets. Teddy Roosevelt was playful like his rowdy menagerie; Coolidge was stubborn, loyal and quiet like his raccoon, Rebecca; Jefferson and his mockingbird were clever and shy; Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his dog Fala had star qualities; and, like his fish, Reagan was an expert swimmer. (2004, 38)

# data[].attributes.body
“A professor must have a theory as a dog must have fleas.” —H. L. Mencken Given the lack of theoretical development in this area to date, I propose two exploratory theories as to why dog owners would not like Obama. One possibility is group identification—dog owners simply identify with other dog owners. The minimal group paradigm suggests that in-group favoritism can be stimulated even by very weak, transient, and meaningless group identifications (Tajfel et al. 1971). Thus a shared characteristic of this nature could certainly have the power to influence candidate preference. As a spokeswoman for the American Kennel Club explained, “You usually connect with things you’re familiar with” (Schmid 2008). Or, as the founder of the Presidential Pets Museum put it, “When the first family has a dog or cat running around, the public can relate to them better” (Schmid 2008). Pet ownership essentially humanizes politicians, makes them appear more trustworthy and down to earth. After all, if they can tolerate the occasional poop on the living room rug, they really can’t be all bad, can they?

# data[].attributes.body
I included standard demographic controls such as age, education, income, gender, and race. But more importantly, I included variables that might also locate dog owners and their political interests in some other way. These variables included being married, owning one’s own home, the presence of minor children in the home, the presence of guns in the home (to go with hunting dogs), rural versus urban/metropolitan place of residence, the extent of religiosity, whether respondents considered themselves “born again,” and household size.

# data[].attributes.body
Whether these pet-president congruencies occur by accident or are based on underlying affinities sensed across species within the animal kingdom remains to be seen. But unlike group identification, congruency theory would suggest that although dog ownership may have negatively impacted support for Obama, other kinds of pet ownership could have had a counterbalancing positive impact.

# data[].attributes.body
The central independent variables were dummies representing different types of pet ownership, including ownership of one or more dogs, cats, horses, ferrets, birds, fish, reptiles, or other pets on measures of support for Obama during the general election campaign period. Two dependent variables served this purpose. A candidate’s relative advantage in feeling thermometer scores is known to be the best single predictor of vote choice before an election (Bartels 1988). For this reason, I used the relative advantage of Obama over McCain in feeling thermometer scores as the first dependent variable. A second analysis used the postelection report of actual vote as assessed during the final wave of this panel study.

# data[].attributes.body
A second theoretical possibility is that pet owners favor politicians to the extent that the candidates’ positive personal characteristics are reflected in the type of pet that potential voters own and admire. For example, dog-owning voters may like dogowning candidates because they associate them with dog-like characteristics such as doggedness, face-licking, and crotchsniffing. In the context of the 2008 election, one might then expect cat owners to have been drawn to Obama because of his calm, cool, reserved demeanor. Dog owners, on the other hand, might have been drawn more to the emotionally effusive McCain. As Mark Twain put it, a dog is “a blundering outspoken fellow.” Although he seldom drooled on camera, McCain’s reputation as a reckless maverick who spoke his mind all too quickly could have been seen as a boon by dog lovers, who tend to value emotional transparency and straightforward displays of uncensored emotion. If one of the candidates were to jump on you at the door and lick your ear, it would surely be McCain. A smoother, more sophisticated entrance would be expected of Obama.

# data[].attributes.body
To examine these theories, I drew on the National Annenberg Election Study. This five-wave panel study tracked a large, randomly selected sample of respondents throughout the 2008 presidential campaign. In addition to information on pet ownership and support for the major candidates, this study provides a wealth of background information on respondents that allows us to rule out many potentially spurious interpretations of the relationship between pets and politics.