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.
Campbell, James, Lynna Cherry, and Kenneth Wink. 1992. “The Convention Bump.” American Politics Quarterly 20: 287–307.
Christenson, Dino, Corwin Smidt, and Costas Panagopoulos. 2014. “Deus ex Machina: Candidate Web Presence and the Presidential Nomination Campaign.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (1): 108–122.10.1177/1065912913494017)| false
Erikson, Robert, Costas Panagopoulos, and Christopher Wlezien. 2010. “The Crystallization of Voter Preferences during the 2008 Presidential Campaign.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 40 (3): 482–496.10.1111/j.1741-5705.2010.03782.x)| false
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale.
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.
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: 583–597.10.1111/1540-5907.00041)| false
Holbrook, Thomas. 1996. Do Campaigns Matter? Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
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.
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): 263–274.10.1177/1065912911398051)| false
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2012. “Campaign Context and Preference Dynamics in U.S. Presidential Elections.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 22 (2): 123–127.10.1080/17457289.2012.662232)| false
This journal provides a forum for professionally informed commentary on issues affecting contemporary American politics. This includes but is not limited to issues engaging parties, elections, and political participation; the news media, interest groups, Congress, the Presidency, and the Courts; trends in public finance, presidential popularity, congressional productivity; in contemporary, historical, or comparative perspective.