Candidate Appearances in Presidential Elections, 1972-2000

Abstract

Although many recent studies have examined presidential campaigns, most have concentrated on television advertising or news media coverage as the key variables of interest.Few empirical analyses have focused on the pattern of candidate appearances and almost none have considered changes in these patterns over time. This gap is intriguing because some places should tend to receive more attention than others, and yet we know very little about the electoral strategies that determine where and why candidates make appearances. We expect that presidential campaigns have increasingly emphasized visits to particular locales because these visits are critical for driving the agenda and shaping voter perceptions through local news media coverage. Our analysis of presidential campaign appearances at the county, media market, and state levels in general elections from 1972-2000 indicates that presidential candidate appearances are increasing both in number and in geographic scope over time. While candidate appearances are concentrated in areas with especially dense and large populations, most eligible voters live in media markets that receive at least one visit by a presidential candidate, and the percentage of eligible voters exposed to especially intense personal campaigning has been on the rise. In contrast to our expectations, our findings suggest that presidential campaign appearances have not become more narrowly focused on smaller segments of the American population.

In Play: A Commentary on Strategies in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election

“…Thus, we should not expect the amount of coverage to be the same for each visit. In an article on candidate visits, Althaus et al (2002) make this point quite nicely:…”

“…7. Althaus, Scott L., Peter F. Nardulli, and Daron R. Shaw, 2002. "Candidate appearances in presidential elections, 1972-2000."…”

Split Tickets? On the Strategic Allocation of Presidential Versus Vice Presidential Campaign Visits in 2016

“…First, whereas previous studies examine the patterns and electoral effects of vice presidential (as well as presidential) campaign visits (e.g., Althaus et al, 2002;Hill, Rodriguez, & Wooden, 2010;Shaw, 2006), ours is the first to test for systematic differences in the strategic allocation of campaign visits within a party ticket, based on demographic and political population characteristics. In doing so, we also provide direct insight into the strategic considerations that may have influenced specific vice presidential selections-in contrast to previous studies analyzing the strategic considerations influencing selection processes, generally (Baumgartner, 2008;Sigelman & Wahlbeck, 1997).…”

“…The most commonly cited empirical indicators of campaign strategy are candidate visits and advertising expenditures-often described by political scientists as the campaign equivalents of "time" and "money" (Bartels, 1985;Johnston, Hagen, & Jamieson, 2004;Shaw, 1999Shaw, , 2006. The former, by many accounts, provides particular strategic insight; according to Althaus, Nardulli, and Shaw (2002), "Most campaign strategists will say that a candidate's time is the campaign's most valuable resource" (p. 50; also see Chen & Reeves, 2011;King & Morehouse, 2004). 1 Why is this the case?…”

“…Chen and Reeves (2011)-whose research is most similar to ours, in that they analyze the relationship between local population characteristics and campaign visit allocations by each party ticket, generally-also cite as an advantage the accessibility of county-level economic, demographic, and contextual variables. Althaus, Nardulli, and Shaw (2002) analyze the effect of campaign visits at the county and media market levels, as well. To isolate the independent effect of county-level dynamics, we also include a similar measure for state competitiveness in our empirical models.…”