The Mixed Effects of Candidate Visits on Campaign Donations in the 2020 Presidential Election

Abstract

Recent scholarship on the effect of candidate visits in presidential elections has found that appearances by candidates appear to mobilize both supporters and opponents. Specifically, in the 2016 presidential election, donations to campaigns of the visiting presidential candidates increased, but—in the case of Republican nominee Donald Trump—so did donations to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. In this paper, we extend this research by assessing the effect of visits on campaign donations by presidential and vice presidential candidates in the 2020 election. We find evidence that visits by Donald Trump and Kamala Harris had strong mobilizing and counter-mobilizing effects, increasing donations to both campaigns. We find weak evidence that visits by Joe Biden increased contributions to his campaign, but we do not find evidence that his visits had a counter-mobilizing effect, and we find no evidence that visits by Mike Pence affected donations in either direction.

Keywords

presidential elections campaign visits campaign donations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramowitz

A. I.

Webster

(2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12–22.

Abramowitz

A. I.

Webster

S. W.

(2018). Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Advances in Political Psychology, 39(1), 119–135.

Ballard

A. O.

Hassell

H. J. G.

Heseltine

(2021). Be careful what you wish for: The impacts of president Trump’s midterm endorsements. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 46(2), 459–491.

Gelman

Goel

Rivers

Rothschild

(2016). The mythical swing voter. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 11(1), 103–130.

Heersink

Peterson

B. D.

(2017). Truman defeats Dewey: The effect of campaign visits on election outcomes. Electoral Studies, 49, 49–64.

Heersink

Peterson

B. D.

Peterson

J. C.

(forthcoming). Mobilization and counter-mobilization: The effect of candidate visits on campaign donations in the 2016 presidential election. The Journal of Politics.

Herr

J. P.

(2002). The impact of campaign appearances in the 1996 election. The Journal of Politics, 64(3), 904–913.

Hill

J. S.

Rodriquez

Wooden

A. E.

(2010). Stump speeches and road trips: The impact of state campaign appearances in presidential elections. Political Science and Politics, 43(02), 243–254.

Holbrook

T. M.

(1994). Campaigns, national conditions, and US presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 38(4), 973–998.

10.

Holbrook

T. M.

(2002). Did the whistle-stop campaign matter? Political Science and Politics, 35(01), 59–66.

11.

Holbrook

T. M.

McClurg

S. D.

(2005). The mobilization of core supporters: Campaigns, turnout, and electoral composition in United States presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 689–703.

12.

Jones

J. M.

(1998). Does bringing out the candidate bring out the votes? The effects of nominee campaigning in presidential elections. American Politics Quarterly, 26(4), 395–419.

13.

Kalla

J. L.

Broockman

D. E.

(2018). The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: Evidence from 49 field experiments. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 148–166.

14.

King

D. C.

Morehouse

(2004). Moving voters in the 2000 presidential campaign. In Schultz

(Ed.), Lights, camera, campaign!: Media, politics, and political advertising (pp. 301–318). Peter Lang.

15.

Kriner

D. L.

Reeves

(2015). The particularistic president: Executive branch politics and political inequality. Cambridge University Press.

16.

Shaw

D. R.

(1999). The effect of TV ads and candidate appearances on statewide presidential votes, 1988–96. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 345–361.

17.

Shaw

D. R.

(2006). The race to 270: The Electoral College and the campaign strategies of 2000 and 2004. The University of Chicago Press.

18.

Shaw

D. R.

Gimpel

J. G.

(2012). What if we randomize the governor’s schedule? Evidence on campaign appearance effects from a Texas field experiment. Political Communication, 29(2), 137–159.

19.

Sides

Vavreck

(2013). The gamble: Choice and chance in the 2012 presidential election. Princeton University Press.

20.

Vavreck

Spiliotes

C. J.

Fowler

L. L.

(2002). The effects of retail politics in the New Hampshire primary. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 595–610.

21.

Verba

Schlozman

K. L.

Brady

(1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.

22.

Wood

(2016). What the heck are we doing in Ottumwa, anyway? Presidential candidate visits and their political consequence. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1), 110–125.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.30 MB