Moving Voters in the 2000 Presidential Campaign: Local Visits, Local Media

Faculty Research Working Papers Series Moving Voters in the 2000 Presidential Campaign: Local Visits, Local Media David King and David Morehouse January 2004 RWP04-003 The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Moving Voters in the 2000 Presidential coverage, which often offset the “costs” of Campaign: appearing before relatively small audiences Local Visits, Local Media1 in out-of-the-way parts of America. Indeed, in many instances, local campaign David C. King, appearances likely “move” the vote more David Morehouse2 than higher priced advertisements. Running candidates from place to Harvard University, John F. Kennedy place and running commercials in various School of Government places are mainstays of presidential campaigns. We expect, though, that on a January 14, 2004 dollars per vote basis, candidate trips to key regions are very often a more effective way to move voters than blanketing an area with Running for office. That phrase, television advertisements. This chapter with an emphasis on the word “running,” explores the effects of Vice President Gore’s conjures for us memories of candidates August 2000 Mississippi River Trip on darting among cities in the closing days of a moving voter preferences. With a working campaign, of klieg lights on tarmacs, of knowledge of the Gore campaign in caffeinated staffers and the tangible particular (one of the authors was a senior yearning among candidates to have their advisor and trip director for Vice President voices heard, to connect with voters, and to Gore), we share new data about the impact be a hundred places and on a million minds of local visits on local polls of likely voters. simultaneously. A candidate’s time is the most Candidates want to reach potential precious commodity in presidential voters, but more than reaching voters, they campaigns. Money, the fruit of an want to move them. This difference between investment of personal time by candidates, reaching potential voters and actually makes it possible for campaigns to use moving voters to be supporters is crucial in television, radio, print, the Internet, and campaigns, and it is at the heart of our personal visits. The goal, naturally, is to proposition in this chapter: there is a poorly- reach as many voters as possible with a understood tradeoff between spending persuasive message or image, then move money on television commercials and them to vote for the candidate, and to do so having candidates make campaign in the most cost effective ways. The Gore appearances. campaign spent $44.6 million on television Local campaign appearances ads and media consulting services from generate tremendous free local media September through November 2000. Over the same period, $10.7 million went to travel 1 Forthcoming in David Schultz, ed., Lights, expenses, including – among other things – Camera, Campaign, (New York: Peter Lange, costs for airplanes, hotels, event equipment 2004). and decorations. Over those critical months, 2 David C. King is Associate Professor of Public Policy and David Morehouse is Deputy Director of $4.14 was spent on television for every Executive Programs, both at Harvard University’s $1.00 spent on campaign visits. John F. Kennedy School of Government. We thank Is that ratio, 4.14 to 1, even close to Secretary Dan Glickman and Catherine McLaughlin, being an optimal tradeoff between running both of the Institute of Politics, for supporting this commercials and running the candidate? In research. We also thank Peter Buttigieg, Greg Dorchak, Amanda Fuchs, Harrison Hickman, Charles precise terms, that is an unanswerable Franklin, Ken Goldstein, Paul Resnick, Eric question without a randomized control- Rosenbach, and David Schultz. group experiment, but in general terms, we Page 1 can make headway in understanding how to astonishing 302,450 presidential spots for in assess the tradeoff. Recent work by Alan the 2000 campaign (Goldstein 2004). Gerber, Don Green and David Nickerson at The Bush and Gore campaigns made Yale University gives us an indication for thousands of strategic choices about how much money it takes to increase voter allocating both time and money between turnout. (Which is not the same as turning candidate visits and television advertising out a voter for a specific candidate.) Using buys. Scholarly literature on this fall in two experiments in which potential voters were groups – one focusing primarily on local randomly assigned to control and treatment visits (Holbrook 2002, 1996, Campbell groups, the Yale studies estimate that door- 2000, Shaw 1999b, Jones 1998), and the to-door visits by campaigns cost from $12 to other largely examining the impact of $20 per vote, as do phone banks run by television ads (Shaw 1999a, Freedman & volunteers. Professionally run phone banks Goldstein 1999, Ansolabehere & Iyengar mobilize relatively few voters and cost $140 1995, Finkel 1993). Both candidate visits to $150 per vote, which is far more costly and television advertisements certainly have than direct mail, at $40 per vote (Gerber & an important impact on votes, but the Green 2003, 2001a, 2001b, 2000a, 2000b; relative impacts are difficult to gauge. Gerber, Green & Nickerson 2003). In a There is no clear causal arrow running from similar set of experiments focusing on a visits to votes or from TV ads to votes. partisan turnout campaign for Michigan Indeed, voters need to be in some sense Governor Jennifer Granholm in 2002, predisposed to a candidate for a visit to have Friedrichs (2003) found slightly lower costs an impact (Vavreck, Spiliotes & Fowler per vote, but his analysis confirms the 2002) just as television ads have an impact futility of relying so heavily, as most that depends largely on a viewer’s ideology presidential campaigns do, on paid phone and party identification (Joslyn & Ceccoli banks. 1996). The Yale studies have important Candidate visits have direct and lessons for presidential campaigns. indirect effects on voters. Some are Candidates will want to avoid cost- personally persuaded by a candidate (the ineffective techniques, such as paid phone direct effect). Many more voters in an area banks. Yet in the 2000 campaign and again that has been recently been visited by a in the 2004 Democratic primaries, these candidate, however, are moved by the local phone banks were used in record numbers. media coverage of candidate visits. The distinction that campaigns need to Campaign visits can have very large make, once again, is between reaching multiplier effects through local media voters and moving them. Phone calls reach outlets. Television, especially, reaches but do not move many voters. Television voters, but the free local media generated by advertisements may well reach voters, if candidate visits are especially valuable and they are not channel-surfing during are likely to have been underappreciated by commercials, but the advertisements may campaigns. not move many voters from the “undecided” column. Indeed, voters have become more Local Media skeptical of the charges and claims made in campaign ads, and in highly competitive In July of 2000, the Gore campaign races, viewers may quickly reach a began discussions on campaign tactics and saturation point (Just et al, 1996). Ken how to best generate energy and positive Goldstein and his colleagues tracked an press coverage leading into and out of the Democratic Convention. Previous Page 2 Democratic Presidential campaigns had used tuned while local television news stories – thematic trips with creative modes of replete with video of the high school transportation to great effect in generating marching band – are running. And a positive local and national press coverage candidate’s interview with a trusted local and energizing the base. For example, in columnist or news anchor is often more 1992, the Clinton/Gore campaign left New compelling than an Associated Press story York, site of the 1992 Democratic by a remote reporter in Texas or Tennessee. Convention, in a bus caravan across New In 1996, the Clinton/Gore campaign, York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. trying to replicate some of the campaign They subsequently had bus trips in the Lake magic from the 1992 campaign, decided to Erie Region, Texas, Georgia, and North use a train instead of a bus to travel to Carolina. These were designed to go Chicago for the Convention. The train through battle ground states and hit both started in Huntington, West Virginia and small towns and large media markets, while traveled on a whistle stop tour through Ohio, conveying a sense of connectedness with Kentucky, and Illinois on it’s way to the everyday Americans. The rolling bus trips convention. This trip also managed to create became a campaign metaphor for the energy, mobilize supporters, generate Clinton campaign and were credited with positive local press coverage, and provide a playing a pivotal role in Clinton’s upset win novelty for the national media. over the incumbent George Bush. Part of the geographic strategy of both of Local newspapers and television these trips was not only to travel through stations are eager to cover campaign events, targeted states, but to stop in 2nd and 3rd tier and they tend to approach politics with less cities and towns that were within reasonable cynicism than one finds among the national proximity to larger media market hubs, and press corps. Candidates covered by local preferably multi-media markets. This media outlets generate sustained stories, strategy allowed the campaign to go into often crossing several news cycles. crucial swing areas that do not normally get Furthermore, voters pay closer attention to many presidential candidate visits. These local television news than they do to towns often provided a more Americana- national news coverage of campaigns.

Load more