Abstract
Using daily polling data collected during the 2016 election, we examine the impact of fundamental conditions, campaign events, media coverage, and other relevant events and announcement on preference dynamics. We observe shifts in voter preferences for president over the course of the campaign and find evidence that these dynamics can be explained by specific circumstances and conditions. Our findings reinforce the potency of fundamental conditions, like presidential approval, but they also demonstrate that political events like national nominating conventions and debates can affect preferences in meaningful and enduring ways. Importantly, our research also suggests that developments commonly perceived to have affected voter preferences in 2016, like FBI Director James Comey’s memo to Congress about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails in October, likely exerted a minimal impact on the election, at least once the impact of other factors are taken into account. In this respect, some of our findings conflict with conventional accounts of campaign dynamics in 2016.
References
Campbell, James, Lynna Cherry, and Kenneth Wink. 1992. “The Convention Bump.” American Politics Quarterly 20: 287–307.10.1177/1532673X9202000302Search in Google Scholar
Christenson, Dino, Corwin Smidt, and Costas Panagopoulos. 2014. “Deus ex Machina: Candidate Web Presence and the Presidential Nomination Campaign.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (1): 108–122.10.1177/1065912913494017Search in Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert, and Christopher Wlezien. 2012. The Timeline of Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226922164.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert, Costas Panagopoulos, and Christopher Wlezien. 2010. “The Crystallization of Voter Preferences during the 2008 Presidential Campaign.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 40 (3): 482–496.10.1111/j.1741-5705.2010.03782.xSearch in Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale.Search in Google Scholar
Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Simon Jackman. 2003. “Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy.” American Journal of Political Science 47: 583–597.10.1111/1540-5907.00041Search in Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas. 1994. “Campaigns, National Conditions and U.S. Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 973–998.10.2307/2111729Search in Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas. 1996. Do Campaigns Matter? Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781452243825Search in Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas, Clayton Clouse, and Aaron Weinschenk. 2012. “Bringing the President Back In: The Collapse of Lehman Brothers and the Evolution of Retrospective Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2): 263–274.10.1177/1065912911398051Search in Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard, Michael Hagen, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 2004. The 2000 Presidential Election and the Foundations of Party Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511756207Search in Google Scholar
Linn, Suzanna, Jonathan Moody, and Stephanie Asper. 2009. “Explaining the Horse Race of 2008.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42 (3): 459–465.10.1017/S104909650909074XSearch in Google Scholar
Masket, Seth. 2009. “Did Obama’s Ground Game Matter? The Influence of Local Field Offices during the 2008 Presidential Election.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73: 1023–1039.10.1093/poq/nfp077Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, Anna. 2016. “Clinton Campaign Email: Comey Letters Threw the Election to Trump.” Politico.http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-campaign-email-comey-letters-threw-the-election-to-trump-231244.Search in Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2009a. “Campaign Dynamics in Battleground and Nonbattleground States.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (1): 119–130.10.1093/poq/nfp010Search in Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2009b. “Preelection Poll Accuracy in the 2008 General Elections.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 39 (4): 896–907.10.1111/j.1741-5705.2009.03713.xSearch in Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2012. “Campaign Context and Preference Dynamics in U.S. Presidential Elections.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 22 (2): 123–127.10.1080/17457289.2012.662232Search in Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2013. “Campaign Effects and Dynamics in the 2012 Election.” The Forum 10 (4): 36–39.10.1515/forum-2013-0010Search in Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas, and Benjamin Farrer. 2014. “Preelection Poll Accuracy and Bias in the 2012 General Elections.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 44 (2): 352–363.10.1111/psq.12117Search in Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas, and Aaron Weinschenk. 2016. A Citizen’s Guide to U.S. Elections: Empowering Democracy in America. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315717715Search in Google Scholar
Reuning, Kevin, and Nick Dietrich. 2016. “Media Coverage, Public Interest, and Support in Primary Elections.” Working Paper.Search in Google Scholar
Sides, John, and Kalev Leetaru. 2016. “A Deep Dive into the News Media’s Role in the Rise of Donald J. Trump.” The Monkey Cage.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/24/a-deep-dive-into-the-news-medias-role-in-the-rise-of-donald-j-trump/?utm_term=.fad407fe0d4b.Search in Google Scholar
Silver, Nate. 2017. “The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton the Election.” FiveThirtyEight.https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/.Search in Google Scholar
Stimson, James. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791024Search in Google Scholar
Velez, Yamil, and David Martin. 2013. “Sandy the Rainmaker: The Electoral Impact of a Superstorm.” PS: Political Science and Politics 46 (2): 313–323.Search in Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher, and Robert Erikson. 2002. “The Timeline of Presidential Election Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 64: 969–993.10.1111/1468-2508.00159Search in Google Scholar
Supplemental Material:
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2018-0008).
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
