Mobilization Strategies of the Democrats and Republicans, 1956-2000

Abstract

Although democracies offer citizens the opportunity to participate in their own governance, not all individuals do so. As intermediaries between elected officials and the public, one of the primary functions of political parties is to mobilize support for their candidates. Using NES data, I examine the strategic nature of party contacting over the 1956-2000 period. I find that both parties target individuals whose personal characteristics make them more predisposed to be politically active, individuals likely to support the party' s candidates, individuals more capable of influencing others, and individuals in areas with competitive elections. However, these general tendencies exhibit variation across time and party. Most notably, party contacting behavior has adapted to developments in the political/party system including the upheavals in American politics during the 1960s.

Mobilizing the Seldom Voter: Campaign Contact and Effects in High-Profile Elections

“…There is irony of course in the fact that the people most likely to be mobilized by campaign communication such as direct mail, in-person canvassing, and telephone calls are also the least likely to receive it. As Goldstein and Ridout (2002) and Gershtenson (2003) demonstrate, parties target wealthy, older, educated partisans with histories of election participation, i.e., regular voters. We found similar patterns in reported contact-though we capture both party and non-party sources of campaign communication-in our 2002 sample.…”

“…7 But who is contacted and by what means? On the first score, Goldstein and Ridout (2002) and Gershtenson (2003) provide convincing evidence that campaign strategists target particular kinds of people, and that they have honed these skills in recent years. Political parties (the contact source they investigate) direct their appeals to individuals who are wealthier, older, and more educated; they also target those with strong partisan attachments and histories of election participation.…”

The Consequences of Battleground and “Spectator” State Residency for Political Participation

“…Most scholars are concerned about the persuasive effects of presidential campaigns (Shaw 2006;Johnston et al 2004;Holbrook 1994Holbrook , 1996Finkel 1993), while others have examined their effect on partisanship (Allsop and Weisberg 1988), public opinion (Gelman and King 1993;Ansolabehere et al 1993), political information (Wattenberg and Brians 1999), and issue preferences and priorities (Alvarez 1997;Wattenberg and Brians 1999). Recently, scholars have begun to shift their attention to the mobilizing effects of presidential campaigns (Holbrook and McClurg 2005;Bergan et al 2005;Hill and McKee 2005;Gershtenson 2003;Gerber and Green 2000) arguing that this is an especially important issue in an era ''when campaigns have lost their local organizational roots'' (Holbrook and McClurg 2005, p. 701). Most of these studies, however, have interpreted ''mobilization'' in a narrow fashion by focusing only on turnout.…”

Giving Voice to Latino Voters: A Field Experiment on the Effectiveness of a National Nonpartisan Mobilization Effort

“…The contents of this report reflect the views of the author, not NALEO or the NALEO Educational Fund. tion while neglecting those with weak partisan ties and low voting propensities (Gershtenson 2003;Rosenstone and Hansen 1993;Huckfeldt and Sprague 1992).…”