Bullock III, C. 1984. “Racial Crossover Voting and the Election of Black Officials.” The Journal of Politics 46(1):238–51. [Crossref]
Political Pulse – Cable National Report. 2012 “Cable Television Advertisement Bureau.”
Calvert, R. 1985. “The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice.” The Journal of Politics 47(2):530–55. [Crossref]
Coombs, S. 1981. “Editorial Endorsements and Election Outcomes.” In More Than News: Media Power in Public Affairs, edited by M. B. MacKuen and S. L. Coombs. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
DellaVigna, S. 2009. “Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field.” Journal of Economic Literature 47(2):315–72. [Crossref]
DellaVigna, S. and Kaplan E. 2006. “The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting.” NBER Working paper No. 12169.
DellaVigna, S., and E. Kaplan. 2007. “The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(3):1187–234. [Crossref]
Erickson, R. E. 1976. “The Influence of Newspaper Endorsements in Presidential Elections: The Case of 1964.” American Journal of Political Science 10:207–33. [Web of Science]
Gentzkow, M., and J. Shapiro. 2004. “Media, Education and Anti-Americanism in the Muslim World.” Journal of Economics Perspectives 18(3):117–33. [Crossref]
Gentzkow, M., and J. Shapiro. 2010. “What Drives Media Slant? Evidence from U.S. Newspapers.” Econometrica 78(1):35–72. [Web of Science]
Gerber, A., D. Karlan, and D. Bergan. 2009. “Does the Media Matter? A Field Experiment Measuring the Effect of Newspapers on Voting Behavior and Political Opinions.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1(2):35–52. [Crossref] [Web of Science]
Huberman, G., and T. Regev. 2001. “Contagious Speculation and a Cure for Cancer: A Nonevent That Made Stock Prices Soar.” Journal of Finance 56(1):387–96. [Crossref]
Jacobson, G. 1985. “Money and Votes Reconsidered: Congressional Elections 1972–1982.” Public Choice 47(1):7–62.
Jacobson, G. 2004. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 6th ed. New York: Pearson Longman.
Kahn, K. F., and P. Kenney. 2002. “The Slant of the News: How Editorial Endorsements Influence Campaign Coverage and Citizens’ Views of Candidates.” American Political Science Review 96(2):381–94.
Krebs, T. 1998. “The Determinants of Candidate Vote Share and the Advantages of Incumbency in City Council Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 42(3):921–35. [Crossref]
Ladd, J., and G. Lenz. 2009. “Exploiting a Rare Communication Shift to Document the Persuasive Power of the News Media.” American Journal of Political Science 53(1):394–410. [Crossref] [Web of Science]
Lieske, J. 1989. “The Political Dynamics of Urban Voting Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science 33(1):150–74. [Crossref]
About the article
Published Online: 2013-10-09
I refer to endorsements published on Election Day as Tuesday Endorsements. Tuesday Effect refers to the causal effect of a Tuesday Endorsement on election outcomes and provides a suggested interpretation of the Tuesday Advantage. These terms are used, because American elections take place on Tuesdays.
According to a survey conducted by the Cable Television Advertisement Bureau in 2011, 75% of voters are undecided about their votes in local races one week before an election.
Limited attention is discussed and formalized in DellaVigna (2009). In his framework, he assumes that the value of a good V is determined by an opaque (o) and a visible (v) component, as in . However, due to inattention, a consumer perceives the value to be , where θ is the degree of inattention. In the context of this article, the opaque information refers to endorsements published before Election Day. This assumption is in line with the intuition that Tuesday recommendations are more salient, since they are provided on the day they are used.
There is a vast body of literature that shows a strong and positive association between votes and received endorsements, including Erickson (1976), Coombs (1981), Bullock (1984), Lieske (1989), and Krebs (1998). Ladd and Lenz (2009) use quasi-experimental evidence to establish a causal relationship. They explore an exogenous shift in newspaper endorsements to the Labour Party in the 1997 British election and find a large endorsement effect.
If a candidate received an endorsement from multiple newspapers, his/her electoral outcome at the county level was matched to the characteristics of the endorsing newspaper with the highest circulation in the county. Upon following this rule, each candidate was coded to only one last endorsement publication day per county.
These states were selected because the group of newspapers audited by ABC is more representative of the total number of newspapers than in other states. They represent around 30% of total newspapers in these eight states. For the remaining states, ABC’s sample represents around 20% of total newspapers. Representativeness is crucial to the analysis. Locations where ABC newspapers are not representative are more prone to have county electoral outcomes erroneously matched with a newspaper, and, therefore, with its last endorsement publication date.
The remaining newspapers (24%) switched their endorsement timing across the 2002 and 2006 elections. These are more likely to endorse tactically and choose to publish their list of endorsements on Election Day when they are more confident about their endorsed candidates’ chances of winning the election. Based on results not shown in this article, a Tuesday Advantage is not revealed for candidates endorsed by this group of papers.
In addition to the proximity to the election, these days – Monday and Sunday – were chosen because most of the newspapers (87%) in the sample last published their endorsements within three days of the election.
The approach of exploring within-candidate variation in endorsements, with the inclusion of candidate-fixed effects, is possible for gubernatorial races, because these candidates receive four newspaper endorsements on average.
According to a National survey conducted by the Cable Television Advertisement Bureau in 2011, 60% of individuals decide their votes a week before the national election. This proportion is 75% for local elections.
I follow the definition in Snyder and Stromberg (2010, 361).
Snyder and Stromberg (2010) document that an increase in congruency from zero to one is associated with around 170 stories about the congressperson.
As discussed in Snyder and Stromberg (2010), the congruency measure explores the “economic geography” factors that determine newspapers’ political coverage (such as their reader share in the area). The fact that congruency matters in determining the Tuesday Effect shows that economic incentives also explain media influence on elections.