Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy

How do citizens respond to campaign events? We explore this question with a unique repeated measures survey design, fielded during the 2000 presidential campaign. We model transitions in support for the major party candidates following the party conventions and presidential debates. In the aggregate, Gore support increases following the conventions (but not the debates), while Bush support increases with the debates (but not the conventions). But there is considerable microlevel variation in the data: responsiveness to campaign events is greatest among Independents, undecided voters, and “mismatched partisans,” but exactly how these groups respond differs for each event. Moreover, attitudes toward then President Clinton mediate the effect of the campaign events on voter preferences. Two primary conclusions follow: (1) rich data sets are required to observe the effects of campaign events; (2) the influence of campaign events on vote choice is conditional on previous preferences, partisan dispositions, and political context.

[1]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign , 1954 .

[2]  P. Converse,et al.  The American voter , 1960 .

[3]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign , 1968 .

[4]  Morris P. Fiorina,et al.  Retrospective voting in American national elections , 1981 .

[5]  Gregory B. Markus,et al.  The Impact of Personal and National Economic Conditions on the Presidential Vote: A Pooled Cross-Sectional Analysis , 1988 .

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

[7]  G. Jacobson,et al.  Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946–86 , 1989, American Political Science Review.

[8]  Peter R. Schrott,et al.  ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES OF “WINNING” TELEVISED CAMPAIGN DEBATES , 1990 .

[9]  C. Franklin Eschewing Obfuscation? Campaigns and the Perception of U.S. Senate Incumbents , 1991, American Political Science Review.

[10]  J. Zaller,et al.  The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1992 .

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

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

[13]  Larry M. Bartels Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure , 1993, American Political Science Review.

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

[15]  P. Diggle,et al.  Analysis of Longitudinal Data , 2003 .

[16]  S. Iyengar,et al.  Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate , 1995 .

[17]  Diana C. Mutz,et al.  Political persuasion and attitude change , 1996 .

[18]  P. Diggle,et al.  Analysis of Longitudinal Data. , 1997 .

[19]  Robert Huckfeldt,et al.  Partisan Cues and the Media: Information Flows in the 1992 Presidential Election , 1998, American Political Science Review.

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

[21]  D. Shaw The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide Presidential Votes, 1988–96 , 1999, American Political Science Review.

[22]  S. Jackman In and Out of War and Peace: Transitional Models of International Conflict , 2000 .

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

[24]  Joshua D. Clinton Panel Bias from Attrition and Conditioning: A Case Study of the Knowledge Networks Panel ⁄ , 2001 .

[25]  DYNAMICS OF THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: EVIDENCE FROM THE ANNENBERG SURVEY , 2001 .

[26]  S. Abrams,et al.  The 2000 US Presidential Election: Can Retrospective Voting Be Saved? , 2003, British Journal of Political Science.