The Timeline of Presidential Election Campaigns

Little is known about the evolution of electoral sentiment over the campaign cycle. How does the outcome come into focus as the election cycle evolves? Do voters' preferences evolve in a patterned and understandable way? What role does the election campaign play? In this article, we address these issues. We translate general arguments about the role of campaigns into a set of formal, statistical expectations. Then, we outline an empirical analysis and examine poll results for the 15 U.S. presidential elections between 1944 and 2000. Our analysis focuses specifically on two questions. First, to what extent does the observable variation in aggregate poll results represent real movement in electoral preferences (if the election were held the day of the poll) as opposed to mere survey error? Second, to the extent polls register true movement of preferences owing to the shocks of campaign events, do the effects last or do they decay? Answers to these questions tell us whether and the extent to which campaign events have effects on preferences and, if so, whether these effects persist until Election Day. The answers thus inform us about what we ultimately want to know: Do campaigns have any real impact on the election outcome? The results of our analysis suggest that they do.

[1]  Campaign Effects in Theory and Practice , 2001 .

[2]  Suzanna Deboef Persistence and aggregations of survey data over time: from microfoundations to macropersistence☆ , 2000 .

[3]  Matthew J. Lebo,et al.  You must remember this: dealing with long memory in political analyses , 2000 .

[4]  Christopher Wlezien An essay on 'combined' time series processes , 2000 .

[5]  James E. Campbell The American Campaign: U.S. Presidential Campaigns and the National Vote , 2000 .

[6]  James C. Garand,et al.  Before the vote : forecasting American national elections , 2000 .

[7]  D. Shaw A Study of Presidential Campaign Event Effects from 1952 to 1992 , 1999, The Journal of Politics.

[8]  John H. Aldrich,et al.  Change and Continuity in the 1996 and 1998 Elections , 1999 .

[9]  Robert S. Erikson,et al.  Presidential Polls as a Time Series: The Case of 1996 , 1999 .

[10]  Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier,et al.  Investigating Political Dynamics Using Fractional Integration Methods , 1998 .

[11]  Jim Granato,et al.  Near-Integrated Data and the Analysis of Political Relationships , 1997 .

[12]  R. Michael Alvarez,et al.  Information and elections , 1997 .

[13]  James E. Campbell Polls and Votes , 1996 .

[14]  Thomas M. Holbrook Do Campaigns Matter , 1996 .

[15]  Of Time and Presidential Election Forecasts , 1996 .

[16]  M. Lodge,et al.  The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation , 1995, American Political Science Review.

[17]  Richard R. Lau,et al.  AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF “TRIAL HEAT” POLLS DURING THE 1992 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION , 1994 .

[18]  Gary King,et al.  Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable? , 1993, British Journal of Political Science.

[19]  Steven E. Finkel,et al.  Reexamining the "Minimal Effects" Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns , 1993, The Journal of Politics.

[20]  Richard Johnston Letting the people decide : dynamics of a Canadian election , 1992 .

[21]  James E. Campbell,et al.  The Convention Bump , 1992 .

[22]  Dennis F. Kinsey,et al.  The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns , 1993 .

[23]  D. J. Lanoue,et al.  The "Turning Point" , 1991 .

[24]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Survey Errors and Survey Costs , 1990 .

[25]  James E. Campbell,et al.  Trial-Heat Forecasts of the Presidential Vote , 1990 .

[26]  Irving Crespi,et al.  Pre-Election Polling: Sources of Accuracy and Error , 1990 .

[27]  John G. Geer,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES ON THE ELECTORATE'S PREFERENCES FOR CANDIDATES , 1988 .

[28]  M. Traugott,et al.  Assessing the Accuracy of Polls and Surveys , 1986, Science.

[29]  F. Capra The Turning Point , 1982 .