Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section

The Forum

A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics

Ed. by Disalvo, Daniel / Stonecash, Jeffrey

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2015: 0.250
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.318

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.255
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.296
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.191

Online
ISSN
1540-8884
See all formats and pricing
In This Section
Volume 10, Issue 4 (Feb 2013)

Issues

Campaign Effects and Dynamics in the 2012 Election

Costas Panagopoulos
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Political Science, 441 E. Fordham Road, Bronx, NY 10458, USA
  • Email:
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. [Crossref]

  • 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. [Crossref]

  • 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.

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

  • 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. [Crossref]

  • 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. [Crossref] [Web of Science]

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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 Science] [Crossref]

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

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

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

  • 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).

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

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

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

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

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in