Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:46:29.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic Candidates, Campaign Dynamics, and Campaign Advertising in Gubernatorial Races

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Thomas M. Carsey ,
Robert A. Jackson ,
Melissa Stewart  and
James P. Nelson
Thomas M. Carsey*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, USA
Robert A. Jackson
Affiliation:
Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
Melissa Stewart
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi, USA
James P. Nelson
Affiliation:
University of Texas–Pan American, Edinburg, USA
*
Thomas M. Carsey, Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3265, USA Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political campaigns are dynamic struggles between candidates to define the informational context for voters. Although much research describes how campaigns unfold or explores their effects on voters, less attention has been given to developing and testing a dynamic theory of candidate interaction during campaigns. In this study, the authors examine three different theories of candidate behavior, testing each using data on the TV advertisements aired in 23 gubernatorial elections held in 2002. The analysis examines both the total advertising efforts and the total negative advertising efforts of candidates in these races, differentiating between candidates based on partisanship, incumbency status, and whether they won or lost. The authors find support for all three theories, demonstrating their complementary nature and the value of analyzing campaigns as dynamic processes.

Keywords

electionscampaignsgovernorscampaign advertisingrational expectations
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 269 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ansolabehere, Stephen D., and Iyengar, Shanto. 1995a. Going Negative: How Political Advertising Shrinks and Polarizes the Electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen D., and Iyengar, Shanto. 1995b. “Winning through Advertising: It's All in the Context.” In Campaigns and Elections American Style, eds. Thurber, James A. and Nelson, Candice J.. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 101–111.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen D., Iyengar, Shanto, and Simon, Adam. 1999. “Replicating Experiments Using Aggregate and Survey Data: The Case of Negative Advertising and Turnout.” American Political Science Review 93:901–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen D., Iyengar, Shanto, Simon, Adam, and Valentino, Nicholas. 1994. “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?” American Political Science Review 88:829–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M., and Zaller, John. 2001. “Presidential Vote Models: A Recount.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34:9–20.Google Scholar
Brandt, Patrick T., & Williams, John T.. 2006. Multiple Time Series Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Darmofal, David, and Farrell, Christian A.. 2009. “The Aggregate Dynamics of Campaigns.” The Journal of Politics 71:309–23.Google Scholar
Brown, Adam R., and Jacobson, Gary C.. 2008. “Party, Performance, and Strategic Politicians: The Dynamics of Elections for Senator and Governor in 2006.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 8:384–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M. 2000. Campaign Dynamics: The Race for Governor. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
De Boef, Suzanna, and Keele, Luke. 2008. “Taking Time Seriously.” American Journal of Political Science 52:184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004a. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98:671–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004b. “Priming the Vote: Campaign Effects in a U.S. Senate Election.” Political Psychology 25:577–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Kifer, Martin J., and Parkin, Michael. 2009. “Campaign Communications in U.S. Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 103:343–66.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Ostermeier, Eric. 2004. “Candidate Strategies to Prime Issues and Image.” The Journal of Politics 66:1205–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert A., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Finkel, Steven E., and Geer, John G.. 1998. “A Spot Check: Casting Doubt on the Demobilizing Effect of Attack Advertising.” American Journal of Political Science 42:573–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, Abrams, Samuel, and Pope, Jeremy. 2003. “The 2000 US Presidential Election: Can Retrospective Voting Be Saved.” British Journal of Political Science 33:163–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, Paul, Franz, Michael, and Goldstein, Kenneth. 2004. “Campaign Advertising and Democratic Citizenship.” American Journal of Political Science 48:723–41.Google Scholar
Freedman, Paul, and Goldstein, Kenneth. 1999. “Measuring Media Exposure and the Effects of Negative Campaign Ads.” American Journal of Political Science 43:1189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, John R., Williams, John T., and Lin, Tse-Min. 1989. “Vector Autoregression and the Study of Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 33:842–77.Google Scholar
Geer, John G. 2006. In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1993. “Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Voters Are So Predictable?” British Journal of Political Science 23:409–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Kenneth, and Freedman, Paul. 2000. “New Evidence for New Arguments: Money and Advertising in the 1996 Senate Elections.” The Journal of Politics 62:1087–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Kenneth, and Freedman, Paul. 2002. “Campaign Advertising and Voter Turnout: New Evidence for a Stimulation Effect.” The Journal of Politics 64:721–40.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Kenneth, and Ridout, Travis N.. 2004. “Measuring the Effects of Televised Political Advertising in the United States.” Annual Reviews in Political Science 7:205–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granato, Jim, and Sunny Wong, M. C.. 2004. “Political Campaign Advertising Dynamics.” Political Research Quarterly 57:349–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Robert A., and Carsey, Thomas M.. 2007. “U.S. Senate Campaigns, Negative Advertising, and Voter Mobilization in the 1998 Midterm Election.” Electoral Studies 26:180–95.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard, Blais, Andre, Brady, Henry E., and Crete, Jean. 1992. Letting the People Decide: Dynamics of a Canadian Election. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard, Hagen, Michael G., and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 2004. The 2000 Presidential Election and the Foundations of Party Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Kenney, Patrick J.. 1999. The Spectacle of U.S. Senate Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Noah, Park, David K., and Ridout, Travis N.. 2006. “Dialogue in American Political Campaigns? An Examination of Issue Convergence in Candidate Television Advertising.” American Journal of Political Science 50:724–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasno, Jonathan, and Seltz, Daniel E.. 2000. Buying Time: Television Advertising in the 1998 Congressional Elections. Brennan Center for Justice: New York University School of Law.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Pomper, Gerald M.. 2001. “Negative Campaigning by U.S. Senate Candidates.” Party Politics 7:69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Pomper, Gerald M.. 2002. “Effectiveness of Negative Campaigning in U.S. Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 46:47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., Sigelman, Lee, Heldman, Caroline, and Babbitt, Paul. 1999. “The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment.” American Political Science Review 93:851–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebo, Matthew J., Walker, Robert W., and Clarke, Harold D.. 2000. “You Must Remember This: Dealing with Long Memory in Political Analyses.” Electoral Studies 19:31–48.Google Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S. 2009. “Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis.” American Journal of Political Science 53:821–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, Inessa. 2001. “Estimating Panel-Data Autoregressions, Package of Programs for Stata.” Columbia University, Mimeo.Google Scholar
Love, Inessa, and Zicchino, Lea. 2006. “Financial Development and Dynamic Investment Behavior: Evidence from Panel VAR.” Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 46:190–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, Michael D., and Williams, John T.. 2001. Compound Dilemmas: Democracy, Collective Action, and Superpower Rivalry. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Thomas E. 1994. Out of Order. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40:825–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, John R., Benoit, William L., and Hansen, Glenn J.. 2003. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952–2000.” Political Science Quarterly 118:599–626.Google Scholar
Ridout, Travis N., Franz, Michael, Goldstein, Kenneth, and Freedman, Paul. 2002. “Measuring the Nature and Effects of Campaign Advertising.” http://polisci.wisc.edu/tvadvertising/ (May 23, 2011).Google Scholar
Runkel, David. 1989. Campaign for President: The Managers Look at 1988. Dover, MA: Auburn House.Google Scholar
Salmore, Barbara G., and Salmore, Stephen A.. 1989. Candidates, Parties, and Campaigns: Electoral Politics in America. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Sides, John. 2005. “Strategic Interaction between Political Candidates.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Sides, John. 2006a. “The Origins of Campaign Agendas.” British Journal of Political Science 36:407–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sides, John. 2006b. “Swing Your Partner: The Importance of Interactions in Campaigns.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Sigleman, Lee, and Buell, Emmett H. Jr. 2004. “Avoidance or Engagement? Issue Convergence in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960-2000.” American Journal of Political Science 48:650–61.Google Scholar
Simon, Adam F. 2002. The Winning Message: Candidate Behavior, Campaign Discourse, and Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, Christopher A. 1972. “Money, Income, and Causality.” American Economic Review 62:540–52.Google Scholar
Sims, Christopher A. 1980. “Macroeconomics and Reality.” Econometrica 48:1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaperdas, Stergios, and Grofman, Bernard. 1995. “Modeling Negative Campaigning.” American Political Science Review 89:49–61.Google Scholar
Spiliotes, Constantine J., and Vavreck, Lynn. 2002. “Campaign Advertising: Partisan Convergence or Divergence?” The Journal of Politics 64:249–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theilmann, John, and Wilhite, Allen. 1998. “Campaign Tactics and the Decision to Attack.” The Journal of Politics 60:1050–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P., and Brians, Craig Leonard. 1999. “Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer?” American Political Science Review 93:891–9.Google Scholar