Separation by Television Program: Understanding the Targeting of Political Advertising in Presidential Elections

Ridout, Travis N.; Michael, Franz; Goldstein, Kenneth M.; Feltus, William J.

doi:10.1080/10584609.2011.619509

Cited by 48 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Leading up to the presidential election in 2012, candidates and their supporters aired more than 1.1 million TV ads (Wesleyan Media Project 2012; Washington Post 2012). Even during the preceding o -year congressional election, TV advertising accounted for between 40% and 50% of campaigns' budgets (Ridout et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political Advertising and Election Results*

Spenkuch

Toniatti

2018

The Quarterly Journal of Economics

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the persuasive e ects of political advertising. Our empirical strategy exploits FCC regulations that result in plausibly exogenous variation in the number of impressions across the borders of neighboring counties. Applying this approach to uniquely detailed data on television advertisement broadcasts and viewership patterns during the 2004{12 presidential campaigns, our results indicate that total political advertising has almost no impact on aggregate turnout. By contrast, we nd a positive and economically meaningful e ect of advertising on candidates' vote shares. Taken at face value, our estimates imply that a standard deviation increase in the partisan di erence in advertising raises the partisan di erence in vote shares by about 0.5 percentage points. Evidence from a regression discontinuity design suggests that advertising a ects election results by altering the partisan composition of the electorate.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political Advertising and Election Results*

Spenkuch

Toniatti

2018

The Quarterly Journal of Economics

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The DCP conceivably could do the same for those under 26 (Chattopadhyay, , p. 13). While age alone is an imperfect way to identify DCP beneficiaries, as not all 19–25‐year‐olds can in practice obtain dependent coverage, political parties have data that support targeted messaging during elections (e.g., Ridout, Franz, Goldstein, & Feltus, ), and such data are also used in post‐election administrative functions (Hersh, , pp. 2–3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the ACA's Dependent Coverage Provision Generating Positive Feedback Effects Among Young Adults?

Chattopadhyay

2017

Poverty & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Has the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) 2010 dependent coverage provision (DCP) created a positive policy‐opinion feedback loop among its stated beneficiaries—adults under age 26? Such feedbacks are well documented around programs like Social Security that make explicit government transfers, but may be more limited around policies that—like the DCP—channel private‐sector resources to their target populations. It is also unknown whether single provisions within multipronged policies can elicit feedbacks around the parent policy as a whole. This article tests whether 19–25‐year‐olds differ from adults aged 26–34 in support for the ACA, civic predisposition, political efficacy, and political participation in 2012. Analyses also compare 2012 to 2008. The article then studies insured 19–25‐year‐olds in 2014, testing whether those using parental insurance differed from those using other insurance in ACA support, responses to threats to the ACA, and beliefs that the ACA is personally helpful. Young adults show virtually no signs of DCP‐inspired political feedbacks. These results do not appear strictly attributable to the youth of this target population. Rather, feeble feedbacks may owe to ACA attitudes resting on factors other than the DCP, to Democrats failing to mobilize young adults, and to the DCP's limited ability to reach low‐income earners.

show abstract

“…For example, Aubrey (2006) used a two-wave panel study 2 years apart to explore the influence of sexually objectifying media images on student's self-objectification and levels of body surveillance (see also e.g., de Zúñiga, Molyneux, & Zheng, 2014). There were some exceptions using other data sources, such as Ridout, Franz, Goldstein, and Feltus (2012) and Romer, Jamieson, and Aday (2003). Studies of production were relatively rare in this category; one example being a study of international film trade in 1996 and 2004 (Chung, 2011).…”

Section: Temporal Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%