Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter June 9, 2018

The Dynamics of Voter Preferences in the 2016 Presidential Election

Aaron C. Weinschenk and Costas Panagopoulos
From the journal The Forum

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.Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Erikson, Robert, and Christopher Wlezien. 2012. The Timeline of Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search 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.Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Holbrook, Thomas. 1994. “Campaigns, National Conditions and U.S. Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 973–998.Search in Google Scholar

Holbrook, Thomas. 1996. Do Campaigns Matter? Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Search 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.Search 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.Search 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.Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Anna. 2016. “Clinton Campaign Email: Comey Letters Threw the Election to Trump.” Politico..Search in Google Scholar

Panagopoulos, Costas. 2009a. “Campaign Dynamics in Battleground and Nonbattleground States.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (1): 119–130.Search in Google Scholar

Panagopoulos, Costas. 2009b. “Preelection Poll Accuracy in the 2008 General Elections.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 39 (4): 896–907.Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Panagopoulos, Costas. 2013. “Campaign Effects and Dynamics in the 2012 Election.” The Forum 10 (4): 36–39.Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Panagopoulos, Costas, and Aaron Weinschenk. 2016. A Citizen’s Guide to U.S. Elections: Empowering Democracy in America. New York: Routledge.Search 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..Search in Google Scholar

Silver, Nate. 2017. “The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton the Election.” FiveThirtyEight..Search in Google Scholar

Stimson, James. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Supplemental Material:

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2018-0008).

Published Online: 2018-6-9

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston