In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

★ Chapter 2 The Theory of the Predictable Campaign DO PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS aVect the results of presidential elections? The answer is that they do. That this is not altogether obvious, particularly in light of the predictability of election results, is because most eVects of presidential campaigns are themselves systematic and predictable. This chapter presents the theory of the predictable campaign, the reasons why most of the eVects of presidential campaigns are systematic. From some perspectives, the idea that presidential campaigns have largely systematic eVects on election results may be hard to believe. Presidential campaigns are chaotic. Each involves diVerent candidates with diVerent backgrounds , capabilities, strengths, and flaws. Each takes place under diVerent circumstances and addresses diVerent issues. Candidate strategies and media interests evolve and shift through the course of campaigns with new developments that arise and in reaction to the opponent’s campaign. With all of these diVerences and with all of the flux during campaigns, how can most campaign eVects be systematic and predictable? The theory of the predictable presidential campaign oVers an explanation. There are three components to this theory. The first is that the eVects of campaigns are, in fact, limited. Because partisanship in the electorate is pervasive, potent, and stable and because retrospective evaluations of the candidates and issues allow many additional voters to decide before the campaign how they will vote, the candidates have a stable base of support in place before the campaign begins. Beyond this stable base, the minimal eVects conundrum and the high level of competition in presidential campaigns further narrow the range of potential campaign eVects. The theory’s second component is that several of the most important circumstances setting the contexts for campaigns are in place and known prior to the campaign. Two regular but variable contexts for presidential campaigns are the incumbency status of the candidates and the state of the national economy. Both of these factors essentially play themselves out in fairly predictable ways over the course of the campaign, becoming incorporated into voter decisions. The third component of the theory is that vigorous presidential campaigns narrow the gap between candidates leading and trailing in the polls. Competition produces some convergence. Before the campaign gets under way, one side or the other may have built a sizable lead. This poll lead often is the result of the public hearing predominantly one side of things. The 1996 election oVers a good example. While the eventual Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole was attempting to secure his party’s nomination from several opponents, the Democratic Party was already running a massive national media campaign extolling the achievements of the first Clinton administration. One side eVectively started the general election campaign long before the other, and for several weeks voters heard only one side of the story. As a result, Clinton built a large poll lead over Dole. When general election campaigns begin for both candidates, both sides are heard. Both candidates’ campaigns are credible, well financed, highly visible, and have access to the media for their messages. The eVect of this competition is to put both candidates on more nearly equal footing and to narrow the vote gap between the candidates. For these reasons and several others, the regular course of the presidential campaign is for the trailing candidate to gain support and close the gap on the frontrunner. Figure 2.1 is a causal model presenting the general elements of the theory of the predictable campaign. The starting point in the model is the grouping of the pre-campaign fundamentals. The fundamentals are all of the politically relevant conditions in place before the campaign begins, including the longstanding partisan attachments of voters and their ideological perspectives as well as the state of the economy and all other social conditions that voters might care about in deciding how to vote. Many of these fundamentals have already aVected voters and are the basis for voters arriving at early decisions. This establishes the stable context for the campaign, the direct link from the fundamentals to the election results. Some portion of the impact of the fundamentals , however, aVects the developments of the campaign and how the campaign is interpreted by voters.1 In particular, economic developments not yet fully incorporated into the political assessments of voters and the advantages of presidential incumbency systematically aVect the campaign and the impressions it leaves with the voters. These campaign-processed fundamentals and the theory of the predictable campaign • 27 [18.224.30.118] Project MUSE (2024-04...

Share