Nonbattleground States Research Articles

Communication Behaviors During Presidential Elections

AbstractIn this study, we use an information utility framework to examine people’s communication behaviors during presidential elections. Data from the National Annenberg Election Study (2004, 2008) and Google Trends (2012, 2016) reveal increases in several communication behaviors (e.g., attention to campaign information, discussing politics, internet searches) closer to Election Day. Moreover, these increases were not uniform throughout the election, with increases concentrated around official campaign events (e.g., presidential conventions and debates). In addition, some evidence showed that people are more likely to engage in communication behaviors in battleground compared to nonbattleground states.

Abstention, Protest, and Residual Votes in the 2016 Election

ObjectiveWe analyze the significant increase in the residual vote rate in the 2016 presidential election. The residual vote rate, which is the percentage of ballots cast in a presidential election that contain no vote for president, rose nationwide from 0.99 to 1.41 percent between 2012 and 2016.MethodWe use election return data and public opinion data to examine why the residual vote rate increased in 2016.ResultsThe primary explanation for this rise is an increase in abstentions, which we argue results primarily from disaffected Republican voters rather than alienated Democratic voters. In addition, other factors related to election administration and electoral competition explain variation in the residual vote rates across states, particularly the use of mail/absentee ballots and the lack of competition at the top of the ticket in nonbattleground states. However, we note that the rise in the residual vote rate was not due to changes in voting technologies.ConclusionOur research has implications for the use of the residual vote as a metric for studying election administration and voting technologies.

Battleground States and Local Coverage of American Presidential Campaigns

Analyses of television news and major newspapers have led to the critique that “the media” ignore the issues in campaigns, which could explain studies that show limited effects for media coverage on knowledge. These studies overlook great variation in the quantity and quality of news coverage in local information environments. Using data collected from local newspaper websites during the 2012 American presidential election, we show the quality and quantity of local news campaign coverage differ substantially between battleground and nonbattleground states. In an effort to differentiate themselves from other news outlets, newspapers in battleground states play up the local angle (e.g., candidate visits), resulting in less attention to issues in their stories. These findings suggest the voters most important to the election outcome (i.e., those in battleground states) may have less information on candidate issue positions available within their local media market.

The Selective Enforcement of Government Regulation: Battleground States and the EPA

This paper examines whether government regulation is selectively enforced. In the United States, the Electoral College system determines the outcome of presidential elections. This system creates incentives for politicians to direct policy favors to those states that represent the median voter in the Electoral College (so-called or swing states). In this paper, we examine whether regulators treat battleground states more favorably than non-battleground states. Specifically, we examine the probability that the EPA will find a facility in violation of the Clean Water Act if it is located in a battleground state relative to those located in non-battleground states. We find that violation rates for facilities located in battleground states are significantly lower than those in non-battleground states. Identification is obtained by the analysis of the violation rates of similar facilities located across the border between battleground and non-battleground states using a number of analytical frameworks, including difference-in-difference estimates for facilities located in states that change battleground status.

Campaign Context and Preference Dynamics in U.S. Presidential Elections

Previous scholarship finds that campaigns “matter” in that these enterprises have the capacity to influence voter preferences. Insights about how campaigns exert effects on preferences are less abundant, however. In this paper, we elaborate a theory of campaign effects that proposes campaigns matter, at least in part, because they function as a filter to mediate the impact of events. By amplifying and reinforcing the impact of relevant events, campaigns help voters process campaign developments, permitting citizens to form, crystallize or update candidate preferences. In quadrennial presidential contests, active campaigns are generally limited to battleground states, setting up natural experiments that allow scholars to investigate the claim that competitiveness influences campaign dynamics by generating vigorous campaigns that intensify the impact of events. We examine this hypothesis by comparing the dynamics of voter preferences for U.S. president in battleground and non-battleground states in the fall 2008 campaign using statewide survey data. The results confirm our hypothesis by showing that events exerted both short- and longer-term effects in battleground states, while any impact on voter sentiment in non-battleground states was short-lived.

Stump Speeches and Road Trips: The Impact of State Campaign Appearances in Presidential Elections

AbstractTravel, stump speeches, and pressing-the-flesh make up a large part of any presidential electoral campaign. Obviously, candidates feel that their appearances are important, as they make hundreds of appearances between Labor Day and Election Day. But are they right? Well over 100 million people cast ballots in November, but only the tiniest fraction of voters meets or catches a glimpse of either of the candidates. Do candidate appearances and contact sway voters in some way? In this article, we use changes in weekly state tracking polls to determine the impact of candidate appearances in battleground and non-battleground states. Using polling data from the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections, we find that campaign appearances can change a candidate's polling percentages, and that the impact varies by candidate and location (battleground state, safe Democratic state, or safe Republican state). We also find that the selection of a vice-presidential candidate is important, because of this candidate's ability to campaign effectively.

Mobilizing the Mobilized: The Electoral Recruitment Paradox

The campaign mobilization literature argues that contacting will have the most influence on individuals who are socioeconomically or politically disadvantaged. Yet evidence persistently shows that the advantaged are disproportionately contacted. This paradox is explained once one recognizes that contacting during elections serves divergent goals that are tied to the election cycle and to election competitiveness. Broadly speaking, contacting in elections should be seen as having two participatory recruitment stages: a resource gathering stage—with resources coming from the advantaged—and a mass-mobilization stage—where every vote counts only when elections are competitive. This theory is supported with the 2000 Annenberg election data. In the resource gathering stage, income, education, and strong party identification increased the likelihood that an individual was contacted by the campaigns. In contrast, only income predicted mobilization stage campaign contact in nonbattleground states. Finally, a battleground state individual’s likelihood of being contacted slightly decreased as income rose.

Campaign Dynamics in Battleground and Nonbattleground States

Strategic considerations rooted in the Electoral College sys- tem of presidential elections compel presidential campaigns to allocate resources disproportionately to competitive states. In contemporary cam- paigns, this results in a situation in which many voters are entirely un- exposed to activities over the duration of the campaign. The implications of lopsided communications that relegate voters in uncom- petitive states to bystander status in presidential campaigns are potentially significant and merit greater scrutiny. In this study, I analyze how the dy- namics of voter preferences in uncompetitive states compare to those in battleground states. Using data from the 2000 National Annenberg Elec- tion Survey, I find that the preferences of voters in battleground states are more variable but more stable than their counterparts in nonbattleground states. As expected, I also find stronger evidence of effects in battleground states. Survey researchers routinely probe Americans' presidential vote intentions well in advance of Election Day (Crespi 1988). Scholars have mined these data extensively to investigate the effects of events on dynamics (Gelman and King 1993; Holbrook 1996; Campbell 2000; Johnston, Hagen, and Jamieson 2004), but evidence of substantial movement in voter preferences that can be attributed to the presidential is rare. In their analyses of pres- idential elections between 1944 and 2000, for example, Wlezien and Erikson (2002, p. 978) show that the maximum range of preference variation over the fall campaign, after taking sampling error into account, is about six percentage points on average. Still, the authors conclude that, campaign events, broadly defined, do have meaningful effects, and that, (r)eal change in preferences remains and at least some meaningful portion carries over to Election Day.

Living in a Battleground

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.

The Consequences of Battleground and “Spectator” State Residency for Political Participation

This study uses pooled NES and state-level turnout data from 1988 through 2004 to assess whether a participation gap is emerging in the United States between the residents of battleground and non-battleground states in presidential elections. The analysis finds that Electoral College (EC) participatory disparities are more likely to occur in voting and meeting attendance than in donating and political discussion. Moreover, it suggests that such disparities are more likely to occur when presidential elections are nationally competitive. The study also demonstrates that when participatory gaps do occur they are the result of a surge in participation among battleground state residents—not of citizen withdrawal in safe states, as many EC critics contend.

Identifying the Persuasive Effects of Presidential Advertising

Do presidential campaign advertisements mobilize, inform, or persuade citizens? To answer this question we exploit a natural experiment, the accidental treatment of some individuals living in nonbattleground states during the 2000 presidential election to either high levels or one‐sided barrages of campaign advertisements simply because they resided in a media market adjoining a competitive state. We isolate the effects of advertising by matching records of locally broadcast presidential advertising with the opinions of National Annenberg Election Survey respondents living in these uncontested states. This approach remedies the observed correlation between advertising and both other campaign activities and previous election outcomes. In contrast to previous research, we find little evidence that citizens are mobilized by or learn from presidential advertisements, but strong evidence that they are persuaded by them. We also consider the causal mechanisms that facilitate persuasion and investigate whether some individuals are more susceptible to persuasion than others.

The Electoral College, Mobilization, and Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election

This study takes a two-stage approach to examining the impact of the electoral college on turnout in the 2000 presidential election. First, we examine whether battleground states received more media spending and visits by the candidates and their party committees compared to nonbattleground states. Second, we examine whether media spending and candidate visits were related to state-level turnout. The results of the project show that the battleground states did receive significantly more media expenditures and candidate visits from the two major party campaigns than nonbattleground states. Furthermore, when controlling for state-level contextual and political factors, the more media expenditures and candidate visits a state received the higher the state turnout. Finally, the analysis reveals that state battleground status indirectly impacted state-level turnout through its effect on media spending and candidate visits.