Measuring the effect strategic choices have on electoral outcomes is problematic, because this requires an assessment of the outcome under a counterfactual that is not observed. To overcome this problem, we extend the synthetic control approach for causal inference to circumstances with multiple treated cases and use it to estimate the effect of vice-presidential candidates on their home states’ vote. Existing research has concluded that vice-presidential candidates have little effect on the outcome of elections in their home states. However, our results from elections spanning 1884-2012 suggest that vice-presidential candidates increase their tickets’ performance in their home states by 2.67 percentage points on average—considerably higher than previous studies have found. In addition, our results suggest that the vice-presidential home state advantage (HSA) could have swung four presidential elections since 1960, if presidential candidates had chosen running mates from strategically optimal states.
AbadieA.DiamondA.HainmuellerJ. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105, 493-505.
2.
AbadieA.DiamondA.HainmuellerJ. (2011). Synth: An R package for synthetic control methods in comparative case studies. Journal of Statistical Software, 42, 1-17.
3.
AbadieA.DiamondA.HainmuellerJ. (2015). Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 495-510.
4.
AbadieA.ImbensG. W. (2008). On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Econometrica, 76, 1537-1557.
5.
AcemogluD.JohnsonS.KermaniA.KwakJ.MittonT. (2013, December). The value of connections in turbulent times: Evidence from the United States (NBER Working Paper No. 19701). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19701
6.
BlackE.BlackM. (1973). The Wallace vote in Alabama: A multiple regression analysis. Journal of Politics, 35, 730-736.
7.
BroganD. W. (1954). Politics in America. New York, NY: Harper.
8.
CarsonJ. L.JenkinsJ. A. (2011). Examining the electoral connection across time. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 25-46.
9.
CarsonJ. L.RobertsJ. M. (2007). Strategic politicians and U.S. House elections, 1874-1914. Journal of Politics, 67, 474-496.
10.
Congressional Quarterly Press. (2010). Guide to U.S. elections. Washington, DC: Author.
11.
DevineC. J.KopkoK. C. (2011). The vice presidential home state advantage reconsidered: Analyzing the interactive effect of home state population and political experience, 1884-2008. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41, 1-17.
12.
DevineC. J.KopkoK. C. (2013). Presidential versus vice presidential home state advantage: A comparative analysis of electoral significance, causes and processes, 1884-2008. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 43, 814-838.
13.
DudleyR. L.RapoportR. B. (1989). Vice-presidential candidates and the home state advantage: Playing second banana at home and on the road. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 537-540.
14.
EriksonR. S.WlezienC. (2012). The timeline of presidential elections. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
FisherR. A. (1935). The design of experiments. London, England: Oliver and Boyd.
16.
FowlerA. (2013). Electoral and policy consequences of voter turnout: Evidence from compulsory voting in Australia. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8, 159-182.
17.
GarandJ. C. (1988). Localism and regionalism in presidential elections: Is there a home state or regional advantage?The Western Political Quarterly, 41, 85-103.
18.
GrofmanB.KlineR. (2010). Evaluating the impact of vice presidential selection on voter choice. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40, 303-309.
19.
HoD. E.ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15, 199-236.
20.
HolbrookT. M. (1991). Presidential elections in space and time. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 91-109.
21.
JacobsonG. C.KernellS. (1981). Strategy and choice in congressional elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
KeeleL.McConnaughyC.WhiteI. (2012). Strengthening the experimenter’s toolbox: Statistical estimation of internal validity. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 484-499.
23.
KeyV. O. (1949). Southern politics in state and nation (1st ed.). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
24.
KolodnyR. (1998). Pursuing majorities: Congressional campaign committees in American politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
25.
KreifN.GrieveR.HangartnerD.TurnerA. J.NikolovaS.SuttonM. (2015). Examination of the synthetic control method for evaluating health policies with multiple treated units. Health Economics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/hec.3258
26.
LaddJ. M.LenzG. S. (2009). Exploiting a rare communication shift to document the persuasive power of the news media. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 394-410.
27.
Lewis-BeckM. S. (2005). Election forecasting: Principles and practice. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7, 145-164.
28.
Lewis-BeckM. S.RiceT. W. (1983). Localism in presidential elections: The home state advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 27, 548-556.
29.
LiouY. M.MusgraveP. (2014). Refining the oil curse: Country-level evidence from exogenous variations in resource income. Comparative Political Studies, 47, 1584-1610.
30.
RomeroD. W. (2001). Requiem for a lightweight: Vice presidential candidate evaluations and the presidential vote. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 31, 454-463.
31.
RosenbaumP. R. (2002). Covariance adjustment in randomized experiments and observational studies. Statistical Science, 17, 286-327.
32.
RosenstoneS. J. (1983). Forecasting presidential elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
RoveK. (2012, April25). I was wrong about Dick Cheney. The Wall Street Journal, Op-ed.
34.
ShawD. R. (2006). Race to 270: The electoral college and the campaign strategies of 2000 and 2004. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
SidesJ.VavreckL. (2013). The gamble: Choice and chance in the 2012 presidential election. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
SigelmanL.WahlbeckP. J. (1997). The “veepstakes”: Strategic choice in presidential running mate selection. American Political Science Review, 91, 855-864.
37.
SilbeyJ. H. (2010). Regimes, epochs, state authority, and the nature of American political life over two centuries. Historical Methods, 43, 171-174.
38.
TatalovichR. (1975). “Friends and neighbors” voting: Mississippi, 1943-73. Journal of Politics, 37, 807-814.
39.
WawroG. J.KatznelsonI. (2014). Designing historical social scientific inquiry: How parameter heterogeneity can bridge the methodological divide between quantitative and qualitative approaches. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 526-546.
40.
WoolleyJ. T.PetersG. (2013). The American presidency project (Online Repository). Available from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
41.
XuY. (2015). Generalized synthetic control method for causal inference with time-series cross-sectional data (MIT Political Science Department Research Paper No. 2015-1). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2584200
