Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Forum

A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics

Ed. by Disalvo, Daniel / Stonecash, Jeffrey

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.397

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.476
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.331

Online
ISSN
1540-8884
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 10, Issue 4 (Feb 2013)

Issues

Campaign Effects and Dynamics in the 2012 Election

Costas Panagopoulos
Published Online: 2013-02-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/forum-2013-0010

Abstract

This article analyzes the evolution of voter preferences in the 2012 presidential election cycle. It also examines the influence of specific events, in order to help explain the dynamics we observe over the course of the campaign. I find considerable evidence of campaign-event effects on aggregate voter preferences in 2012, reinforcing the notion that events help to shape campaign dynamics.

References

  • Erikson, Robert, and Christopher Wlezien. 1999. “Presidential Polls as a Time Series: The Case of 1996.” Public Opinion Quarterly 63: 163–177.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Erikson, Robert, Costas Panagopoulos, and Christopher Wlezien. 2004. “Likely (and Unlikely) Voters and the Assessment of Campaign Dynamics.” Public Opinion Quarterly 68 (4): 588–601.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Erikson, Robert, Costas Panagopoulos, and Christopher Wlezien. 2009. “The Crystallization of Voter Preferences during the 2008 Presidential Campaign.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 40 (3): 482–496.Google Scholar

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

  • Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King. 1993. “Why Are American Presidential Election Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable?" British Journal of Political Science 23 (3): 409–451.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gerber, Alan, Donald Green, James Gimpel, and Daron Shaw. 2011. “How Large and Long-Lasting Are Persuasive Effects of Televised Campaign Ads? Results from a Randomized Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 105 (1): 135–150.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hill, Seth, James Lo, Lynn Vavreck, and John Zaller. 2010. “The Duration of Advertising Effects in Political Campaigns.” Working Paper. Los Angeles, CA: Department of Political Science, UCLA.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Johnston, Richard, Emily Thornson, and Andrew Gooch. 2010. “The Economy and the Dynamics of the 2008 Presidential Campaign: Evidence from the National Annenberg Election Study.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 20 (2): 271–289.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.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

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

  • Panagopoulos, Costas. 2010. “The Dynamics of Campaign Preferences in the 2010 Congressional Midterm Elections.” The Forum 8 (4): Article 9.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. (September).Google Scholar

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

  • Wlezien, Christopher. 1999. “Presidential Election Polls in 2000: A Study in Dynamics.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 33 (1): 172–187.Google Scholar

  • Wlezien, Christopher, and Robert Erikson. 2002. “The Timeline of Presidential Election Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 64: 969–993.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Costas Panagopoulos

Costas Panagopoulos is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Electoral Politics and Democracy at Fordham University.


Corresponding author: Costas Panagopoulos, Department of Political Science, 441 E. Fordham Road, Bronx, NY 10458, USA


Published Online: 2013-02-09


Details about Pollster’s aggregation methodology are available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-jackman/modelbased-poll-averaging_b_1883525.html. (Accessed November 20, 2012.)

The Pollster estimates are correlated with the Gallup Daily Tracking poll measures (correlation coefficient=0.46, p<0.01), for example.

Lowess (locally weighted scatter plot smoothing) creates a new value for each time point based on the results of regressions using a designated number of surrounding data points. Predictions from these regressions are weighted based on their temporal distance from the point in question to generate the new value [see Erikson and Wlezien (1999) for additional details].

The Republican convention took place in Tampa, FL August 27–30, 2012, and the Democratic convention took place in Charlotte, NC September 3–7, 2012.

For the purposes of the current study, we consider the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy to have started on October 29 when much of the devastation was concentrated in the tri-state area of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.


Citation Information: The Forum, ISSN (Online) 1540-8884, ISSN (Print) 2194-6183, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/forum-2013-0010.

Export Citation

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Aaron Weinschenk and Costas Panagopoulos
Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 2016, Volume 26, Number 4, Page 511

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in