Christopher J. Devine is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Dayton, in Dayton, Ohio. He is the co-author of The VP Advantage: How Vice Running Mates Influence Home State Voting in Presidential Elections (with Kyle C. Kopko, Manchester University Press, 2016), and has published research on topics including political parties, ideology, and the US presidency.
Hillary Clinton’s failure to visit the key battleground state of Wisconsin in 2016 has become a popular metaphor for the alleged strategic inadequacies of her presidential campaign. Critics who cite this fact, however, make two important assumptions: that campaign visits are effective, in general, and that they were effective for Clinton in 2016. I test these assumptions using an original database of presidential and vice presidential campaign visits in 2016. Specifically, I regress party vote share on each candidate’s number of campaign visits, at the county level, first for all counties located within battleground states, and then for counties located within each of six key battleground states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The results of this analysis do not clearly support either of the assumptions made by Clinton’s critics. In general, none of the presidential or vice presidential candidates – including Clinton – significantly influenced voting via campaign visits. However, Clinton is one of only two candidates – along with Mike Pence, in Ohio – whose campaign visits had a significant effect on voting in an individual state. Specifically, Clinton’s visits to Pennsylvania improved the Democratic ticket’s performance in that state by 1.2 percentage points. Also, there is weak evidence to suggest that Clinton might have had a similar effect on voting in Michigan. It is unclear from this evidence whether Clinton also would have gained votes, or even won, in Wisconsin had she campaigned in that state. But two conclusions are clear. First, Clinton’s visits to Democratic-leaning battleground states did not have the “backfiring” effect that her campaign reportedly feared. Second, Donald Trump did not win in Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin as a direct result of his campaign visits to those decisive states.
Allen, Jonathan, and Amy Parnes. 2017. Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign. New York: Crown.
Chen, Lanhee J., and Andrew Reeves. 2011. “Turning Out the Base or Appealing to the Periphery? An Analysis of County-Level Candidate Appearances in the 2008 Presidential Campaign.” American Politics Research 39: 534–556.
Clinton, Hillary Rodham. 2017. What Happened. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Devine, Christopher J. 2018. “Oh, the Places They’ll Go: The Geography and Political Strategy of Presidential Campaign Visits in 2016.” In Studies of Communication in the 2016 Presidential Campaign, edited by Robert E. Denton, Jr., 45–68. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Erikson, Robert S., and Thomas R. Palfrey. 1993. “The Spending Game: Money, Votes, and Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” Social Science Working Paper No. 806. California Institute of Technology. Accessed February 23, 2018. https://authors.library.caltech.edu/80776/1/sswp851.pdf.
Franklin, Charles. 2001. “Pre-election Polls in Nation and State: A Dynamic Bayesian Hierarchical Model.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 2001.
Gordon, Sanford C., Gregory A. Huber, and Dimitri Landa. 2007. “Challenger Entry and Voter Learning.” American Political Science Review 101: 303–320.
Heersink, Boris, and Brenton D. Peterson. 2017. “Truman Defeats Dewey: The Effect of Campaign Visits on Election Outcomes.” Electoral Studies 49: 49–64.
Herr, J. Paul. 2002. “The Impact of Campaign Appearances in the 1996 Election.” Journal of Politics 64: 904–913.
Hill, Jeffrey S., Elaine Rodriguez, and Amanda E. Wooden. 2010. “Stump Speeches and Road Trips: The Impact of State Campaign Appearances in Presidential Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 43: 243–254.
Holbrook, Thomas M. 2002. “Did the Whistle-Stop Campaign Matter?” PS: Political Science and Politics 35: 59–66.
Holbrook, Thomas M., and Scott D. McClurg. 2005. “The Mobilization of Core Supporters: Campaigns, Turnout, and Electoral Composition in United States Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 49: 689–703.
Johnston, Richard, Michael G. Hagen, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 2004. The 2000 Presidential Election and the Foundations of Party Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, Jeffrey M. 1998. “Does Bringing out the Candidate bring out the Votes? The Effects of Nominee Campaigning in Presidential Elections.” American Politics Quarterly 26: 395–419.
King, David C., and David Morehouse. 2004. “Moving Voters in the 2000 Presidential Campaign: Local Visits, Local Media.” In Lights, Camera, Campaign!: Media, Politics, and Political Advertising, edited by David A. Schultz, 301–317. New York: Peter Lang.
Spence, Michael. 1973. “Job Market Signaling.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 87 (3): 355–374.
Wood, Thomas. 2016. “What the Heck are We Doing in Ottumwa, Anyway? Presidential Candidate Visits and Their Political Consequence.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667: 110–125.
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.