IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v8y2018i3p2158244018796883.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher J. Devine
  • Kyle C. Kopko

Abstract

This article analyzes the strategic allocation of presidential campaign visits in 2016. In particular, we test whether each campaign disproportionately targeted its presidential versus vice presidential candidates’ visits toward voters with whom they shared a salient demographic or political characteristic. Our purpose in doing so is to discern whether—and, if so, among which groups—the campaigns perceived the candidates as having a strategic advantage in appealing to affiliated voters. To this end, we analyze an original database of 2016 campaign visits that includes local population characteristics for each host site. Our results indicate that each ticket’s visits were highly coordinated across states, but frequently divergent within states. At the substate level, we find several systematic differences in the populations visited by presidential versus vice presidential candidates—in some cases aligning with a candidate’s personal characteristics. We discuss these findings’ implications with respect to campaign strategy and vice presidential selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher J. Devine & Kyle C. Kopko, 2018. "Split Tickets? On the Strategic Allocation of Presidential Versus Vice Presidential Campaign Visits in 2016," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(3), pages 21582440187, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:8:y:2018:i:3:p:2158244018796883
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244018796883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244018796883
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244018796883?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shaw, Daron R., 1999. "The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide Presidential Votes, 1988–96," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 345-361, June.
    2. Thomas M. Holbrook & Scott D. McClurg, 2005. "The Mobilization of Core Supporters: Campaigns, Turnout, and Electoral Composition in United States Presidential Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(4), pages 689-703, October.
    3. King, David & Morehouse, David, 2004. "Moving Voters in the 2000 Presidential Campaign: Local Visits, Local Media," Working Paper Series rwp04-003, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Sigelman, Lee & Wahlbeck, Paul J., 1997. "The “Veepstakes†: Strategic Choice in Presidential Running Mate Selection," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(4), pages 855-864, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Davis, Brent, 2016. "“On the Campaign Trail: The Electoral Effects of Leader Visits”," MPRA Paper 75330, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Lingling Zhang & Doug J. Chung, 2020. "The Air War vs. the Ground Game: An Analysis of Multichannel Marketing in U.S. Presidential Elections," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 872-892, September.
    3. Hermann Schmitt & Sara Hobolt & Sebastian Adrian Popa, 2015. "Does personalization increase turnout? Spitzenkandidaten in the 2014 European Parliament elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 347-368, September.
    4. Donald Wittman, 2005. "Valence characteristics, costly policy and the median-crossing property: A diagrammatic exposition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(3), pages 365-382, September.
    5. Gloria Gennaro & Giampaolo Lecce & Massimo Morelli, 2019. "Intertemporal Evidence on the Strategy of Populism," Working Papers 647, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    6. Jean-François Godbout, 2013. "Turnout and presidential coattails in congressional elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 333-356, October.
    7. Klingler, Jonathan, 2014. "Political Capital in the 21st Century: An Electoral Theory of Going Public and Private," IAST Working Papers 15-19, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    8. Hummel, Patrick & Holden, Richard, 2014. "Optimal primaries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 64-75.
    9. Matthew L. Bergbower & Scott D. McClurg & Thomas Holbrook, 2015. "Presidential Campaign Spending and Correct Voting from 2000 to 2008," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1196-1213, November.
    10. Eric Dunaway & Felix Munoz-Garcia, 2020. "Campaign contributions and policy convergence: asymmetric agents and donations constraints," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 429-461, September.
    11. Wilson Law, 2021. "Decomposing political advertising effects on vote choices," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 188(3), pages 525-547, September.
    12. Larry M. Bartels, 2016. "Failure to Converge," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 667(1), pages 143-165, September.
    13. Jonathan R. Cervas & Bernard Grofman, 2017. "Why noncompetitive states are so important for understanding the outcomes of competitive elections: the Electoral College 1868–2016," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 251-265, December.
    14. Thomas Wood, 2016. "What The Heck Are We Doing in Ottumwa, Anyway? Presidential Candidate Visits and Their Political Consequence," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 667(1), pages 110-125, September.
    15. Dušan Pavlović & Dimitros Xefteris, 2020. "Qualifying the common pool problem in government spending: the role of positional externalities," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 446-457, December.
    16. Wendy K. Tam Cho & James G. Gimpel, 2010. "Rough Terrain: Spatial Variation in Campaign Contributing and Volunteerism," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 74-89, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:8:y:2018:i:3:p:2158244018796883. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.