But evidence of persuasion in general elections remained negligible. Reconducting their meta-analysis with all this new data, Kalla and Broockman concluded, once again, that contacting voters within two months of a general election does not persuade them.
The average effect was indistinguishable from zero. So what does this mean for campaigns? One takeaway is that campaigns and non-campaign groups like Working America could do well to focus more of their energy on boosting turnout at the end of a race than persuading voters earlier on. Another is that campaign funders should consider directing more money to primary election and ballot initiatives, where persuasion does appear possible.
But the authors found a couple possible exceptions in general elections too, when persuasion is possible. The first case occurred in the US Senate race in Oregon.
Smith was unusually pro-LGBTQ for a Republican at that time, most notably pushing for sexual orientation to be added to the federal hate-crimes statute. That led to a common misconception that he also favored abortion rights, when he actually identified as pro-life. With that in mind, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon and NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon worked together on a campaign in which they identified pro-choice voters and targeted them with mailings and phone calls hoping to educate them on Smith's actual views, and the pro-choice views of his opponent Jeff Merkley.
Crucially, the groups worked with political scientists to randomize which voters got these treatments. Harvard psychologist Todd Rogers and Temple University political scientist David Nickerson evaluated the campaign , and found that it was very effective. Merkley's vote share rose by 3. But this was a very strange situation. There are a few cases where a similar effort might work — say, if Republicans wanted to remind vehemently pro-life North Dakota voters that Democratic Sen.
The more intriguing case of persuasion working occurred in North Carolina. Working America, in the effort being studied by Kalla and Broockman, did an experiment early on in the election where canvassers left flyers attacking the Republican governor, Pat McCrory, for his signing of a "bathroom bill" restricting trans rights, which cost the state billions in business.
The experiment concluded that the flyer was persuasive for black voters, but not white voters. Working America then adjusted its technique and only handed out the flyer to black households. By the end of the campaign, the effort as a whole was persuasive, due to this targeting. This is an expensive technique, requiring as it does an additional experiment to identify demographics for whom certain messages work and demographics for whom they don't, and it relies on North Carolina having voter files that list voters' races, and on McCrory's endorsement of a very unpopular law.
It's not easily replicable. But it suggests that building on early studies can help campaigns improve their persuasiveness. But all that aside, it was a case where persuasion worked. And that matters. Even given its overall low effectiveness, persuasion is an important part of campaigning. They may casually follow the news but are otherwise too preoccupied to put much thought into who they might or might not support in a yet-to-be called election. There are more of those voters than there are pundits.
Their impressions, formulated almost entirely during the writ period, will affect the outcome more than the largely predetermined votes of the politicos. If the outcome has been predetermined, what is the point of advertising, lawn signs, rallies or door-knocking?
The outcome is not predetermined. Political insiders know that large portions of the electorate are moveable; they just need a reason to be moved. Accordingly, we will be bombarded with campaigning both of a provincial and local variety. The party leaders will feed the beast by providing carefully scripted rallies and events, orchestrated not for the attendees but rather for the voters tuning into the television and newspaper reports and watching online.
The leaders will also have scheduled media availabilities. However, those scrums are also orchestrated and the polished leaders will take limited questions, often only from friendly media sources and irrespective of the source, provide safe, talking point answers. Given how news travels instantaneously, leaders will need to be well briefed at all times, as they may be called upon to comment on a world event, a federal announcement or a candidate who has gone off script.
They will be judged by the electorate, not so much on the quality of their answers but on their poise and conviction when delivering it. Style over substance. And when unsure, stick to the talking points. For many casual observers, the leaders debate will be the single biggest factor in determining their voter preference. The leaders will be meticulously prepared.
Their answers need to be clever and preferably short enough to fit into a seven-second soundbite, as many voters will take their impressions from the journalists covering the debate, rather than from actually watching it themselves. A voter's impression of the respective leaders is arguably the biggest contributing factor in that voter's intention. Canadian politics has become so leader centric that many voters mistakenly believe that we elect our first ministers.
We don't elect our governments; we elect our legislatures. Regardless, the voter's impression of the leader will largely determine party preference, resulting in a vote for a local candidate flag bearer of that party. These events are attended largely, but not exclusively, by supporters of one candidate or the other. There are few votes in play. However, the forums are frequently covered by local and social media.
Description Contents If elections are easily predicted and voting behavior is easily explained with just a few fundamental variables, it seems quite plausible to argue that campaigns don't matter. This book attempts to answer the question, "Do campaigns matter? The crux of the argument is that although the national political and economic context of the election is very important, campaigns also play a crucial role in determining election outcomes.
In particular, campaign events, such as conventions and debates, are primarily responsible for changes in public opinion that occur during the campaign period. Using many different data sources from several presidential campaigns, this important volume demonstrates that election outcomes are jointly produced by campaigns and national conditions.
Covering an important and neglected subject, Do Campaigns Matter?
0コメント