Primaries frequently exacerbate ideological divisions within a party. When parties select more moderate candidates whom they believe will appeal to a broader audience, the nominee must find a way to win over their party’s base. We investigate the potential rewards of using the vice presidential nominee to increase voter turnout among those ideologically alienated by a party’s moderate nominee. We also examine the risks of a more extreme vice presidential nominee costing a president the support of moderate voters. To perform this analysis, we examine how voters’ ideologies and attitudes toward Sarah Palin affected their voter turnout and their vote choice. By doing this, we are able to assess the effectiveness of the attempt to activate the base and find that while vice presidential nominees may provide the opportunity to effectively target ideological groups, they may also contribute to a loss of support from moderately inclined voters.
AbramowitzA. (2011). Partisan polarization and the rise of the tea party movement. Unpublished manuscript, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
2.
AbramsonP. R.AldrichJ. H. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America. American Political Science Review, 76, 502-521.
3.
AdamsJ.MerrilS. (2003), Voter turnout and candidate strategies in American elections. Journal of Politics, 65,161-189.
4.
AdamsJ.DowJ.MerrillS. (2006). The political consequences of alienation and indifference-based voter abstention: Applications to presidential elections. Political Behavior, 28, 65-86.
5.
AlvarezR. M.NaglerJ. (1995). Economics, issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter choice in the 1992 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 714-744.
6.
American National Election Study. (2008). Pre-election survey [Computer File]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
7.
BlackD. (1948). On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 23-34.
8.
BrodyR. A.PageB. I. (1973). Indifference, alienation and rational decisions: The effects of candidate evaluation on turnout and vote. Public Choice, 15, 1-17.
9.
BroxB. J.CasselsM. L. (2009). The contemporary effects of vice-presidential nominees: Sarah Palin and the 2008 presidential campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 8, 349-363.
10.
BumillerE. (2008, September2). Disclosures on Palin raise questions on vetting process. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
11.
BurmilaE. M.RyanJ. M. (2013). Reconsidering the “Palin effect” in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Political Research Quarterly, 66, 952-959.
12.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
ChenL. J.ReevesA. (2011). Turning out the base or appealing to the periphery? An analysis of county-level candidate appearances in the 2008 presidential campaign. American Politics Research, 39, 534-556.
15.
ChengS.LongJ. S. (2007). Testing for IIA in the multinomial logit model. Sociological Methods & Research, 35, 583-600.
16.
ConverseP. E. (1966). The concept of the normal vote. In CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (Eds.), Elections and political order (pp. 9-39). New York, NY: John Wiley.
17.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (1986). Electoral politics as a redistributive game. Journal of Politics, 48, 370-389.
18.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
DowJ. K.EndersbyJ. W. (2004). Multinomial probit and multinomial logit: A comparison of choice models for voting research. Electoral Studies, 23, 107-122.
20.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper Row.
21.
ElisR. D.HillygusS.NieN. (2010). The dynamics of candidate evaluations and vote choice in 2008: Looking to the past or future?Electoral Studies, 29, 582-593.
22.
FinkelS. E. (1993). Reexamining the “minimal effects” model in recent presidential campaigns. Journal of Politics, 55, 1-21.
23.
FischleM. (2000). Mass response to the Lewinsky Scandal: Motivated reasoning or Bayesian updating?Political Psychology, 21, 135-159.
24.
HillygusD. S.ShieldsT. G. (2008). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
HolbrookT. M.McClurgS. D. (2005). The mobilization of core supporters: Campaigns, turnout, and electoral composition in United States presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 689-703.
26.
ImaiK.KingG.LauO. (2008). Towards a common framework for statistical analysis and development. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 17, 892-913.
27.
JesseeS. A. (2010). Voter ideology and candidate positioning in the 2008 presidential election. American Politics Research, 38, 195-210.
28.
KenskiK. (2010). The Palin effect and vote preference in the 2008 presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist, 54, 275-289.
29.
KnuckeyJ. (2012). The “Palin effect” in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 275-289.
30.
LacyD.BurdenB. C. (1999). The vote-stealing and turnout effects of Ross Perot in the 1992 U.S. presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 233-255.
31.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1944). The people’s choice. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
32.
LodgeM.McGrawK. M.StrohP. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83, 399-419.
33.
PeressM. (2011). Securing the base: Electoral competition under variable turnout. Public Choice, 148, 87-104.
