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


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.500
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.623

CiteScore 2018: 0.83

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.595
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.631

Online
ISSN
1540-8884
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 16, Issue 1

Issues

The Dynamics of Voter Preferences in the 2016 Presidential Election

Aaron C. Weinschenk
  • Corresponding author
  • University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, WI 54311, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Costas Panagopoulos
Published Online: 2018-06-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2018-0008

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.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

References

  • Campbell, James, Lynna Cherry, and Kenneth Wink. 1992. “The Convention Bump.” American Politics Quarterly 20: 287–307.CrossrefGoogle 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.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale.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.CrossrefGoogle 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

  • 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.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle 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.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.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.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle 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.

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

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

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

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

  • Reuning, Kevin, and Nick Dietrich. 2016. “Media Coverage, Public Interest, and Support in Primary Elections.” Working Paper.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.

  • Silver, Nate. 2017. “The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton the Election.” FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/.

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

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

About the article

Published Online: 2018-06-09


Citation Information: The Forum, Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 123–135, ISSN (Online) 1540-8884, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2018-0008.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in