IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v107y2026i3ne70152.html

Hostile Campaign Rhetoric and Electoral Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Jack Banks
  • Daniel F. Stone

Abstract

Introduction This paper examines whether hostile campaign rhetoric‐specifically incivility and character attacks‐affects electoral outcomes in U.S. gubernatorial elections from 2010 to 2023. While such rhetoric may mobilize supporters or attract attention, it may also generate voter backlash in an era of increasing affective polarization. The study evaluates whether candidates benefit electorally from adopting more aggressive and uncivil campaign strategies. Methods We construct novel measures of incivility and character attacks using three large language models, GPT‐4o, Claude Sonnet, and DeepSeek V3, alongside additional LLM‐based measures of ideological extremism and populism. These variables are incorporated into regression models of incumbent party vote share, controlling for established predictors of gubernatorial elections and additional political and contextual factors. We also address potential endogeneity by incorporating campaign polling data and conducting robustness checks across multiple specifications. Results We find that higher levels of incivility and character attacks are consistently associated with lower vote share, with effects of roughly 2.5‐3 percentage points per standard deviation increase. These relationships remain robust after controlling for ideology, populism, and early and mid‐campaign polling, suggesting they are not driven solely by underdog candidates adopting negative strategies. In contrast, ideological extremism and populism are generally not significantly associated with electoral outcomes once hostile rhetoric is accounted for. Conclusion The findings provide evidence that hostile campaign rhetoric is electorally disadvantageous on average, challenging the view that negative campaigning is strategically beneficial. While causal interpretation remains limited, the results suggest that candidates may overuse incivility due to misperceptions, incentives, or behavioral biases. Overall, the study highlights the potential electoral advantages of more civil and positive campaign strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Jack Banks & Daniel F. Stone, 2026. "Hostile Campaign Rhetoric and Electoral Outcomes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 107(3), May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:107:y:2026:i:3:n:e70152
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.70152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.70152
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.70152?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:socsci:v:107:y:2026:i:3:n:e70152. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.