Convention effects: examining the impact of national presidential nominating conventions on information, preferences, and behavioral intentions

A Normative Assessment of 2016 Political Convention Speech Exposure: Perceived Political Threats and Anticipated General Election Legitimacy

“…Considering the nominating conventions from 1964 to 2012, Panagopoulos and Endres (2015) found that, “On average, Democratic candidates enjoyed an 11-point bump while Republican candidates received just under a ten-point bump” (p. 568). A smaller body of scholarly literature has offered individual-level voter effects from the nominating conventions (Hillygus & Jackman, 2003; Panagopoulos & Endres, 2015; Weinschenk, & Panagopoulos, 2016). Examining Al Gore’s democratic convention bump, Hillygus and Jackman (2003) found that the 2000 democratic convention bump was greatest for undecided voters, Independents, and mismatched partisans.…”

“…Beyond bumping candidate support, presidential nominating conventions are also educational where voters learn about the candidates’ policy positions (Stimson, 2004; Weinschenk & Panagopoulos, 2016) and about vice-presidential candidates (Kenski, Hardy, & Jamieson, 2010). The conventions are particularly important in introducing vice-presidential candidates to the national stage when they are relatively unknown to the public, as was the case with Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin in 2008.…”

“…Normatively speaking, the presidential nominating conventions should also foster political participation. Analyzing 2004 National Annenberg Election Study data, Weinschenk and Panagopoulos (2016) found that exposure to the conventions increased the probability of participating (i.e., donating money, attending a campaign event) during the 2004 election. These scholars conclude, “Although the conventions influence how voters feel about the candidates, they also help voters acquire information and mobilize them to engage in electoral politics” (p. 528).…”