Little evidence links the strategic decisions of campaigns to individual-level voting behavior. Yet for campaigns to matter in the way that experts argue, exposure to campaigns must also matter, so there should be observable differences in the structure of vote choice between battleground and nonbattleground states. Combining presidential campaign data with the Senate Election Study, the authors show that intense campaigning can activate factors such as race, ideology, partisanship, and presidential approval. The authors find that the campaigns affected different variables in 1988 than in 1992, which they hypothesize is the consequence of campaign messages.
Abramson, P.R., and W. Claggett.2001. Recruitment and political participation . Political Research Quarterly54 (4): 905-16.
2.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar.1995. Going negative: How political advertising shrinks and polarizes the electorate. New York: Free Press.
3.
Arceneaux, Kevin.2006. Do campaigns help voters learn? A cross-national analysis . British Journal of Political Science36 (1): 159-73.
4.
Barker, David, and Susan B. Hansen .2005. All things considered: Systematic cognitive processing and electoral decision making. Journal of Politics67 (2): 319-44.
5.
Bartels, Larry.2006. Priming and persuasion in presidential campaigns . In Capturing campaign effects, ed. Henry E. Brady and Richard Johnston, 78-114. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
6.
Berelson, Bernard R., Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee .1954. Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
Campbell, James E.2000. The American campaign: U.S. presidential campaigns and the national vote. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
8.
Carsey, T.M.2000. Campaign dynamics: The race for governor. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
9.
Clinton, Joshua D., and John S. Lapinski .2004. "Targeted" advertising and voter turnout: An experimental study of the 2000 presidential election . Journal of Politics66 (1): 69-96.
10.
Finkel, Steven.1993. Reexamining the "minimal effects" model in recent presidential elections. Journal of Politics55:1-21.
11.
Geer, John.2006. In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Gerber, Alan, and Donald Green.2004. Get out the vote! How to increase voter turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
13.
Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King.1993. Why are American presidential election polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science23:409-519.
14.
Goldstein, Kenneth, and Travis Ridout.2002. The politics of participation: Mobilization and turnout over time. Political Behavior24:3-29.
15.
Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber, eds. 2005. The science of voter mobilization. Special issue, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science601:1-204.
16.
Gwiasda, Gregory W.2001. Network news coverage of campaign advertisements: Media’s ability to reinforce campaign messages. American Politics Research29:461-82.
17.
Hetherington, Marc J.1996. The media’s role in forming voters’ national economic evaluations in 1992. American Journal of Political Science40 (2): 372-95.
18.
Hillygus, D. Sunshine.2005. The dynamics of turnout intention in election 2000 . Journal of Politics67 (1): 50-68.
19.
Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Simon Jackman.2003. Voter decision making in election 2000: Campaign effects, partisan activation, and the Clinton legacy. American Journal of Political Science47:583-96.
20.
Holbrook, Thomas.1994. Campaigns, national conditions, and U.S. presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science38 (4): 973-98.
21.
---. 1996. Do campaigns matter?Thousand Oaks , CA: Sage.
22.
Holbrook, Thomas M., and Scott D. McClurg .2005. The mobilization of core supporters: Campaigns, turnout, and electoral composition in United States presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science49 (4): 689-703.
23.
Huber, Gregory A., and Kevin Arceneaux .Forthcoming. Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. American Journal of Political Science.
24.
Huckfeldt, R., and J. Sprague.1992. Political parties and electoral mobilization: Political structure, social structure, and the party canvass. American Political Science Review86 (1): 70-86.
25.
Johnston, Richard, Michael G. Hagen, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson .2004. The 2000 presidential election and the foundations of party politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Kahn, K., and P. Kenny.1999. The Spectacle of U.S. Senate campaigns . Princeton, NJ: University of Princeton Press.
27.
King, G., R. Keohane, and S. Verba.1994. Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
Lau, R.R., and D.P. Redlawsk.2001. Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision-making. American Journal of Political Science45 (4): 951-71.
29.
Mendelberg, Tali.2001. The race card. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
30.
Miller, Warren E., Donald R. Kinder, Steven J. Rosenstone, and the National Election Studies.1999. American National Election Study: Pooled Senate Election Study, 1988, 1990, 1992 [Computer file]. 3rd version. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer], Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
31.
Popkin, S.L.1991. The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Shaw, Daron R.1999a. The effect of TV ads and candidate appearances on statewide presidential votes, 1988-1996. American Political Science Review93:345-61.
33.
---. 1999b. The methods behind the madness: Presidential electoral college strategies, 1988-1996. Journal of Politics61 (4): 893-913.
34.
---. 2006. The race to 270: The electoral college and the campaign strategies of 2000 and 2004. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
Simon, Adam F.2002. The winning message: Candidate behavior, campaign discourse, and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Stevenson, Randolph, and Lynn Vavreck.2000. Does campaign length matter? Testing for cross-national effects. British Journal of Political Science30:217-35.
37.
Wlezien, Christopher, and Robert S. Erikson .2002. The timeline of presidential election campaigns. Journal of Politics64:969-93.
38.
Wolak, Jennifer.2006. The consequences of presidential battleground strategies for citizen engagement. Political Research Quarterly59:353-61.
