1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Political Science
  4. Volume 18, 2015
  5. Article

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 18, 2015

How Do Campaigns Matter?

Abstract

A review of the evidence leaves no doubt election campaigns do matter in a variety of important ways. The serious questions concern when, where, why, how, for what, and for whom they matter. This essay reviews a selection of high-quality studies that address these questions, focusing on several distinct lines of research that have been particularly productive in recent years: on the effects of events and advertising in presidential elections; on the effects of campaign spending in elections for down-ballot offices; on the effects of mobilization campaigns on voting turnout; on campaign influences on the vote choice (with special attention to the effects of negative campaigns); and on the nature of persuadable voters. It also offers some suggestions of areas where additional research should be productive.

Keyword(s): campaign spending, elections, participation, voting
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-072012-113556
2015-05-11
2025-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/18/1/annurev-polisci-072012-113556.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-072012-113556&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrajano M. 2010. Campaigning to the New American Electorate: Television Advertising to Latinos Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramowitz AI. 1988. Explaining Senate election outcomes. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 82:385–403 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alvarez RM. 1997. Information and Elections Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  4. Ansolabehere S, Gerber A. 1994. The mismeasure of campaign spending: evidence from the 1990 U.S. House elections. J. Polit. 56:1106–18 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ansolabehere S, Iyengar S, Simon A. 1994. Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate?. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 93:901–9 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ansolabehere S, Snyder JM. 2002. The incumbency advantage in U.S. elections: an analysis of state and federal offices, 1942–2000. Elect. Law J. 1:315–38 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bardwell K. 2003. Not all money is equal: the differential effect of spending by incumbents and challengers in gubernatorial primaries. State Polit. Policy Q. 3:294–308 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bartels LM. 1991. Instrumental and “quasi-instrumental” variables. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 35:777–800 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bartels LM. 1993. Message received: the political impact of media exposure. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 87:267–85 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bartels LM. 2006. Priming and persuasion in presidential campaigns. See Brady & Johnston 2006 78–112
  11. Bartels LM. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Golden Age New York: Russell Sage [Google Scholar]
  12. Berelson RB, Lazarsfeld PN, McPhee WM. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  13. Bond RM, Fariss CJ, Jones JJ, Kramer ADI, Marlow C. et al. 2012. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489:295–98 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bonneau CW. 2007. The effects of campaign spending in state supreme court elections. Polit. Res. Q. 60:489–99 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bonneau CW, Cann DM. 2011. Campaign spending, diminishing marginal returns, and campaign finance restrictions in judicial elections. J. Polit. 73:1267–80 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brady H, Johnston R. 2006. Capturing Campaign Effects Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  17. Breaux DA, Gierzynski A. 1991. “It's money that matters”: campaign expenditures in state legislative primaries. Legis. Stud. Q. 16:429–43 [Google Scholar]
  18. Brown AR, Jacobson GC. 2008. Party, performance, and strategic politicians: the dynamics of elections for senator and governor in 2006. State Polit. Policy Q. 8:384–409 [Google Scholar]
  19. Campbell A, Converse PE, Miller WE, Stokes DE. 1960. The American Voter New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  20. Campbell JE. 2008. Do swing voters win elections?. See Mayer 2008 118–32
  21. Campbell JE, Cerry L, Wink K. 1992. The convention bump. Am. Polit. Q. 20:287–307 [Google Scholar]
  22. Clymer A, Winneg K. 2008. Swing voters? Hah! The not very “persuadables” and the not really “undecideds” in 2004. See Mayer 2008 112–17
  23. Dale A, Strauss A. 2009. Don't forget to vote: text message reminders as a mobilization tool. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 53:787–804 [Google Scholar]
  24. De Figueiredo JM, Ji CH, Kousser T. 2011. Financing direct democracy: revisiting research on campaign spending and citizen initiatives. J. Law Econ. Organ. 27:485–514 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dimock M, Clark A, Horowitz JM. 2008. Campaign dynamics and the swing vote in the 2004 election. See Mayer 2008 58–74
  26. Donnay PB, Ramsden GP. 1995. Public financing of legislative election in Minnesota. Legis. Stud. Q. 30:351–64 [Google Scholar]
  27. Druckman J. 2004. Priming the vote: campaign effects in U.S. Senate elections. Polit. Psychol. 25:577–94 [Google Scholar]
  28. Eggen D, Farnam TW. 2012. Spending by independent groups had little election impact, analysis finds. Washington Post Nov. 7. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/spending-by-independent-groups-had-little-election-impact-analysis-finds/2012/11/07/15fd30ea-276c-11e2-b2a0-ae18d6159439_story.html [Google Scholar]
  29. Elms L, Sniderman P. 2006. Informational rhythms of incumbent-dominated congressional elections. See Brady & Johnston 2006 221–41
  30. Enos RD, Fowler A, Vavreck L. 2013. Increasing inequality: the effect of GOTV mobilization on the composition of the electorate. J. Polit. 76:273–88 [Google Scholar]
  31. Erikson RS, Palfrey T. 1998. Campaign spending and incumbency: an alternative simultaneous equation approach. J. Polit. 60:355–73 [Google Scholar]
  32. Erikson RS, Wlezien C. 2012. The Timeline of Presidential Elections: How Campaigns Do (and Do Not) Matter Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  33. Farrar-Myers VA, Gulati J, Skinner R. 2013. The impact of super PACs on the 2010 and 2012 congressional elections Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., Chicago [Google Scholar]
  34. Federal Election Commission 2013. FEC summarizes campaign activity of the 2011–2012 election cycle. Press release, Apr. 19. http://www.fec.gov/press/press2013/20130419_2012-24m-Summary.shtml
  35. Fowler EF, Ridout TN. 2013. Negative, angry, and ubiquitous: political advertising in 2012. Forum 10:51–61 [Google Scholar]
  36. Franz MM, Ridout TN. 2010. Political advertising and persuasion in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. Am. Polit. Res. 38:303–29 [Google Scholar]
  37. Fridkin KL, Kenney PJ. 2011. The role of candidate traits in campaigns. J. Polit. 73:61–73 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gelman AS, King G. 1993. Why are American presidential polls so variable when election outcomes are so predictable?. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 23:409–51 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gerber AS. 2004. Does campaign spending work?. Am. Behav. Sci. 47:541–74 [Google Scholar]
  40. Gerber AS, Gimpel JG, Green DP, Shaw DR. 2011. How large and long lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 105:135–50 [Google Scholar]
  41. Gerber AS, Green DP. 1999. Does canvassing increase voter turnout: a field experiment. PNAS 96:10939–42 [Google Scholar]
  42. Gerber AS, Green DP. 2000a. The effect of canvassing, direct mail, and telephone contact on turnout: a field experiment. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 94:653–63 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gerber AS, Green DP. 2000b. The effect of a non-partisan get-out-the-vote drive: an experimental study of leafleting. J. Polit. 62:846–57 [Google Scholar]
  44. Gerber AS, Green DP. 2001. Do phone calls increase voter turnout? A field experiment. Public Opin. Q. 65:75–85 [Google Scholar]
  45. Gierzynski A, Breaux DA. 1996. Legislative elections and the importance of money. Legis. Stud. Q. 21:337–57 [Google Scholar]
  46. Giles MW, Pritchard A. 1985. Campaign expenditures and legislative election in Florida. Legis. Stud. Q. 10:71–88 [Google Scholar]
  47. Goidel RK, Gross DA. 1994. A systems approach to campaign finance in U.S. House elections. Am. Polit. Q. 22:125–53 [Google Scholar]
  48. Goldstein K, Freedman P. 2000. New evidence for new arguments: money and advertising in 1996 Senate elections. J. Polit. 62:1087–108 [Google Scholar]
  49. Green DP, Aronow PM, McGrath MC. 2012. Field experiments and the study of voter turnout. J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 23:27–48 [Google Scholar]
  50. Green DP, Calfano BR, Aronow PM. 2014. Field experimental designs for the study of media effects. Polit. Commun. 31:168–80 [Google Scholar]
  51. Green DP, Krasno JS. 1988. Salvation for the spendthrift incumbent: reestimating the effects of campaign spending in House elections. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 32:884–907 [Google Scholar]
  52. Green DP, Krasno JS. 1990. Rebuttal to Jacobson's “New evidence for old arguments.”. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 34:363–72 [Google Scholar]
  53. Hadwiger D. 1990. Money, turnout, and ballot measure success in California cities. Western Polit. Q. 45:539–47 [Google Scholar]
  54. Hastie R, Park B. 1986. The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or online. Psychol. Rev. 9:258–68 [Google Scholar]
  55. Hill SJ, Lo L, Vavreck L, Zaller J. 2013. How quickly we forget: the duration of persuasion effects from mass communications. Polit. Commun. 30:521–47 [Google Scholar]
  56. Hillygus DS. 2010. Campaign effects on vote choice. Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior JE Leighley 326–45 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  57. Hillygus DS, Shields TG. 2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  58. Holbrook TM. 1994. Campaigns, national conditions, and U.S. presidential elections. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 38:25–46 [Google Scholar]
  59. Holbrook TM. 1996. Do Campaigns Matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  60. Holbrook TM, Weinschenk AC. 2014. Campaigns, mobilization, and turnout in mayoral elections. Polit. Res. Q. 67:42–55 [Google Scholar]
  61. Hsu J. 2014. More of the same: the high-cost impotence of Citizens' United Honors thesis. Dep. Polit. Sci., Univ. Calif. San Diego [Google Scholar]
  62. Huber GA, Arceneaux K. 2007. Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 51:957–77 [Google Scholar]
  63. Jacobson GC. 1978. The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 72:469–91 [Google Scholar]
  64. Jacobson GC. 1980. Money in Congressional Elections New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  65. Jacobson GC. 1985. Money and votes reconsidered: congressional elections, 1972–1982. Public Choice 47:7–62 [Google Scholar]
  66. Jacobson GC. 1990. The effects of campaign spending in House elections: new evidence for old arguments. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 34:334–62 [Google Scholar]
  67. Jacobson GC. 2006a. Measuring campaign spending effects in U.S. House elections. See Brady & Johnston 2006 199–220
  68. Jacobson GC. 2006b. Campaign spending effects in U.S. Senate elections: evidence from the National Annenberg Election Survey. Elect. Stud. 25:195–226 [Google Scholar]
  69. Jacobson GC. 2011. A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People. New York: Longman, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  70. Jacobson GC. 2013. The Politics of Congressional Elections New York: Pearson, 8th ed.. [Google Scholar]
  71. Jacobson GC. 2014. It's nothing personal: the decline of the incumbency advantage in congressional elections Presented at Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc., Chicago [Google Scholar]
  72. Johnston R, Jamieson KH, Hagen MG. 2004. The Presidential Campaign of 2000 and the Foundation of Party Politics New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  73. Jamieson KH. 2013a. Electing the President 2012: The Insider's View Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press [Google Scholar]
  74. Jamieson KH. 2013b. Messages, microtargeting, and new media technologies. Forum 11:429–35 [Google Scholar]
  75. Kahn KF, Kenney PJ. 1999. The Spectacle of U.S. Senate Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  76. Keith BE, Magleby DB, Nelson CJ, Orr E, Westlye MC, Wolfinger RE. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  77. Kenney C, McBurnett M. 1994. An individual-level, multi-equation model of expenditure effects in contested House elections. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 88:699–707 [Google Scholar]
  78. Kenski K, Hardy BW, Jamieson KH. 2010. The Obama Victory: How Media, Money, and Message Shaped the 2008 Election New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  79. Krebs TB. 1998. The determinants of candidates' vote share and the advantages of incumbency in city council elections. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 42:921–35 [Google Scholar]
  80. Lau RL, Sigelman L, Heldman C, Babbitt P. 1999. The effects of negative political advertisements: a meta-analytic review. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 93:851–75 [Google Scholar]
  81. Lau RL, Sigelman L, Rovner IB. 2007. The effects of negative political campaigns: a meta-analytic reassessment. J. Polit. 69:1176–209 [Google Scholar]
  82. Lazarsfeld PN, Berelson RB, Gaudet H. 1944. The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  83. Leal DL. 2006. Electing America's Governors: The Politics of Executive Elections New York: Palgrave-Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  84. Leighley JE, Nagler J. 2013. Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  85. Levitt ST. 1994. Using repeat challengers to estimate the effects of campaign spending on election outcomes in the U.S. House. J. Polit. Econ. 4:777–98 [Google Scholar]
  86. Lewis-Beck MS, Stegmaier M. 2014. Symposium: U.S. presidential election forecasting. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 47:284–347 [Google Scholar]
  87. Lewis-Beck M, Rice TW. 1992. Forecasting Elections Washington, DC: CQ Press [Google Scholar]
  88. Libit H, Craig T. 2002. Allegations fly as election day nears. Baltimore Sun, Nov. 4. http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.turnout04nov04-story.html#page=1
  89. Lodge M, McGraw KM, Stoh P. 1989. An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 83:399–419 [Google Scholar]
  90. Lodge M, Steenbergen M, Brau S. 1995. The responsive voter: campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 89:309–26 [Google Scholar]
  91. Magleby DB. 2011. The Change Election: Money, Mobilization, and Persuasion in the 2008 Federal Elections Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  92. Magleby DB, Patterson KD. 2008. The Battle for Congress: Iraq, Scandal, and Campaign Finance in the 2006 Election Boulder, CO: Paradigm [Google Scholar]
  93. Malhotra N, Michelson MR, Rogers T, Valenzuela AA. 2011. Text messages as mobilization tools: the conditional effect of habitual voting and election salience. Am. Polit. Res. 39:664–81 [Google Scholar]
  94. Mayer WG. 2008. The Swing Voter in American Politics Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press [Google Scholar]
  95. Mayer WG, Teixeira R. 2008. The state of the discussion. See Mayer 2008 133–42
  96. National Institute on Money in State Politics 2014. Total dollars for all candidates and committees. http://www.followthemoney.org/database/nationalview.phtml
  97. Nickerson DW. 2008. Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102:49–57 [Google Scholar]
  98. Panagopoulos C, Green DP. 2008. Field experiments testing the impact of radio advertisements on electoral competition. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 52:156–68 [Google Scholar]
  99. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. 1985. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion New York: Springer-Verlag [Google Scholar]
  100. Popkin SL. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  101. Popkin SL. 2012. The Candidate: What It Takes to Win—and Hold—The White House New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  102. Romer D, Kenski K, Waldman P, Adasiewicz C, Jamieson KH. 2004. Capturing Campaign Dynamics: The National Annenberg Election Survey. New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  103. Romer D, Kenski K, Winneg K, Adasiewicz C, Jamieson KH. 2006. Capturing Campaign Dynamics 2000 & 2004: The National Annenberg Election Survey Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press [Google Scholar]
  104. Rosenstone S. 1983. Forecasting Presidential Elections New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  105. Rosenstone S, Hansen JM. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and American Democracy New York: Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  106. Shaw DR. 1999a. A study of presidential campaign event effects from 1952 to 1992. J. Polit. 61:387–422 [Google Scholar]
  107. Shaw DR. 1999b. The effect of TV ads and candidate appearances on statewide presidential votes, 1988–1996. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 93:345–61 [Google Scholar]
  108. Shaw DR. 2008. Swing voting and U.S. presidential elections. See Mayer 2008 75–101
  109. Sides J, Vavreck L. 2013. The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  110. Squire P. 1995. Candidates, money, and voters: assessing the state of congressional elections research. Polit. Res. Q. 48:891–97 [Google Scholar]
  111. Tufte ER. 1978. Political Control of the Economy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  112. Vavreck L. 2009. The Message Matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  113. Zaller J. 2004. Floating voters in U.S. presidential elections, 1948–2000. Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change WE Saris, P Sniderman 166–212 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-072012-113556
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error