Chapter 9

The Evolution of Campaigning

During election campaigns, political parties help structure voting choice

Successful campaigns need resources to acquire, analyze, and disseminate information Voter interests Campaign tactics Candidate message Voter turnout

The Evolution of Campaigning

Until 1950s, political parties ran most campaigns

Today’s candidates manage own campaigns Races more candidate-centered Must campaign for nomination as

well as election Parties help with funding and party

label

Nominations American political parties use

elections to choose party nominees In most other countries, party

leaders choose nominees In America, each state has own set

of laws regarding party nominations America puts large burden on

voters

Nomination for Congress and State Offices

All states use a primary election as all or part of the nomination process

Nomination process highly decentralized

Only half of regular party voters vote in a given primary

Many primary races have little or no competition

Primary Elections Four types of primary elections:

Closed primaries Open primaries Modified closed primaries Modified open primaries

Most scholars believe type of primary affects strength of party organizations

Nomination for President

Presidential candidates for each party chosen at national convention

Until 1960s, party delegates to national convention chose nominee

Since 1972, delegates have been chosen by complex process that includes the primary election and party caucuses

Selecting Convention Delegates

Different states and parties have different procedures for selecting delegates

States follow one of two basic formats: Presidential primary Presidential primary/caucus

Democratic selection proportional; Republicans “winner takes all”

Selecting Convention Delegates

Delegates selected openly back one of the presidential candidates

Primary elections and caucuses mean nominees’ names usually known before national conventions Early primaries and caucuses result

in “front-loading”

Changes in the Presidential

Nominating Process

Until 1968 Since 1972

Party Dominated Candidate Dominated

Few Primaries Many Primaries

Short Campaigns Long Campaigns

Easy Money Difficult Fundraising

Limited Media Coverage Media Focused

Late Decisions “Front-Loaded”

Open Conventions Closed Conventions

Campaigning for the Nomination

A complex, drawn-out process Invisible primary

Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary viewed as testing grounds

In 2008, narrowed field to five Republicans and seven Democrats

“Super Tuesday” resulted in one Republican and two Democrats with the most support by voters

Consequences of Presidential Campaigns

Races with no incumbents contested in both parties - Open Election

Incumbent presidents usually face little opposition

Iowa and New Hampshire do matter Candidates favored most by party

identifiers usually win nomination Winners owe little to national party

organization

Figure 9.1

From Many to Two: Presidential Hopefuls

Starting and Dropping Out

Elections By national law, all seats in House

of Representatives and 1/3 of seats in Senate elected every two years in general election State and local offices also on ballot President chosen every 4th year in

presidential election Non-presidential elections

congressional, mid-term, or off-year elections

Presidential Elections and the Electoral College

Presidency not automatically given to person with the most votes in the general election

General election selects electors who then select president

States receive one elector for each House and Senate seat Washington, D.C. also receives three

electors

The Electoral College Candidate must have a majority

of electoral votes (270) to win presidency

If no candidate receives majority, decision on president made by the House; Senate chooses vice president Each state has one vote Has only happened in 1800 and

1824

The Electoral College: Politics

Prior to 1860, most electors chosen by state legislatures

After 1860, electors chosen by popular vote

All states but Maine and Nebraska award electors “winner takes all”

Election in 2000 came down to Florida’s electoral votes

The Electoral College: Abolish It?

Over 700 proposals to abolish electoral college introduced in Congress over the years

Electoral vote system allows states to decide how electors chosen – a federal system

Many voters appear to prefer nationwide direct popular vote

Grover Cleveland (1888) and George W. Bush (2000) elected despite losing popular vote

Figure 9.4

The Popular Vote and the Electoral Vote

Support for the Electoral College

Generally, results from electoral vote system magnify popular vote results

Electoral college is a federal election system: Allows small states to have more

weight in process Campaigns carried out via personal

contact versus the large market media

Nationwide recounts not needed

Congressional Elections Candidates for president listed at

top of ballot, with other national, state, and local offices below

Voters can vote straight ticket or split ticket between 15% and 30% of voters

choose president from one party and congressional candidates from the other

Can result in divided government

Congressional Elections Democrats basically in power until

1994 Winners from single member

districts are candidates with the most votes “First-past-the-post” elections Districts drawn by the party in power

and usually benefit dominant party President’s party generally loses

seats in mid-term elections

Campaigns: The Political Context

Most important structural factors in campaign planning: Office sought Whether incumbent or challenger

Non-incumbents more successful in open elections

More populous and/or diverse districts mean more expensive campaigns

Party preference of electorate also important

Financing Quality of campaign organizations a

function of money However, money alone does not ensure

success “There are four parts to any campaign.

The candidate, the issues of the candidate, the campaign organization, and the money to run the campaign with. Without money, you can forget the other three.” -- former House Speaker Thomas (“Tip”) O’Neill

Regulating Campaign Financing

State and federal governments regulate campaign financing

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) passed in 1971 Amendments in 1972 created Federal

Election Commission (FEC) Limits on political action committee

(PAC) contributions – both soft and hard money

After court challenges, 1974 FECA governed elections for about 30 years

Regulating Campaign Financing

Increases in campaign contributions and spending led to Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in 2002 Limits on contributions by individuals Banned soft money contributions to

political parties Allowed 527 committees to spend

unlimited amounts for media, with some limits

2007 Supreme Court ruling struck down ban on issue ads before elections

2010 Supreme Court ruling overturned ban on corporate contributions to candidates Citizens United vs. FEC

Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns

Both FECA and BCRA provided for public financing for presidential campaigns Subject to spending limits

Until 1996, all eligible candidates used public funds for primary elections

Since 1996, more and more candidates refusing public funds for primaries

Funding for general election follows different rules; most candidates used until 2004

Private Financing of Congressional Campaigns Candidates for national office

raised over $3 billion during the 2007-2008 primary and general elections Obama raised almost $750 million McCain raised almost $370 million Congressional candidates raised

almost $1.4 billion

Future Trends in Campaign Finance

Public funding faces uncertain future

Major candidates can raise more money on their own Contribution bundlers Internet fundraising

BCRA limited soft money but not amounts raised for presidential campaigns

Strategies and Tactics Strategies are broad approaches

to campaigns Party-centered strategies Issue-oriented strategies Candidate-oriented strategies

Strategies must take into account political context

Pollsters and Political Consultants

Well-funded campaigns buy “polling packages” Benchmark poll Focus groups Trend polls Tracking polls

Information gathered then used to tailor campaign to current political situation

Making the News News coverage valuable because

it’s free and seems objective to the public Incumbents have advantage

News coverage frequently limited to “sound bites”

Horse-race metaphors limit attention to issues: bandwagons, losing ground, the front-runner, and the likely loser

Advertising the Candidate

Main objective for campaigns ads: name recognition Voters may not recall name but

recognize on a list, such as a ballot Must also point out virtues of

candidate Campaign ads also sometimes

attack opponent or play on emotions Majority of ads use electronic media

Advertising the Candidate

Recent years’ ads tend to mention personal characteristics rather than policy preferences

Negative ads can be either attack ads or contrast ads

Media sometimes report controversial ads as news

Candidates must “approve” message in their ads; independent groups do not

Using the Internet Use started in 1992 with e-mail to

supporters Democrats pioneered Internet

usage in election campaigns, both to raise funds and mobilize supporters Also use social networking sites,

blogs, and YouTube Internet inexpensive way to quickly

contact supporters, but TV still best way to reach average voters

Explaining Voting Choice

Long-term forces predispose voters to choose certain types of candidates Party identification most important

Short-term forces associated with particular elections Combination of candidates and

policy positions on current issues

Party Identification Over half of electorate decides

candidate before party conventions Early decisions generally vote based

on party identification Each candidate in 2008 received 90%

of vote of self-described partisans Independents generally favored Obama

Republicans have won more elections due to lack of Democratic voter turnout and other short-term factors

Figure 9.6

Effect of Party Identification on the Vote, 2008

Issues and Policies Candidates exploit issues that

seem to be important to voters Incumbent’s record versus

problems pointed out by challenger Even with no incumbent, that

party’s candidate may be tied to outgoing president

Candidates’ Attributes Attributes important because

most voters lack information about candidates’ past performance and policy stands

Stereotypical thinking may play into some voters’ decisions

Evaluating the Voting Choice

Party identification and candidate attributes not basis for voting according to democratic theory Citizens should vote based on past

performance and proposed policies However, all are factors when

developing statistical models to explain voting Historically, attributes and party

identification most important

Evaluating the Voting Choice

Recent studies show increase in policy-based voting

Relationship between party identification and voters’ positions on issues more distinct today

Alignment between party and ideology almost perfect in congressional voting

Campaign Effects While campaign may not cause

change in party identification, can influence enough votes to change outcome of election

Television ads main method for transmitting candidates’ message

Battleground states key Presidential campaign in 2008 most

expensive ever No major candidate took federal

matching funds in primary; only McCain in general election

The Presidential Debates

First televised debate in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon

In 1976, televised debates began airing regularly

Presidential and vice-presidential debates in 2008 election led to rise in support for Obama in election polls

Campaigns, Elections, and Parties

Party organizations not central to elections in America

Both parties follow majoritarian model by formulating different party platforms and pursuing announced policies when in office Weak connection between party

platform and voters during campaigns and elections

Party platforms do not play major role in elections, especially those for House and Senate seats

Parties and the Pluralist Model

The way parties operate in America more like pluralist model Function as two giant interest groups

Parties prefer candidates who support party platform However, candidates operate as

entrepreneurs, and may vote against party leadership

Stronger parties might be able to better coordinate government policies after elections