IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v47y2003i4p583-596.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy

Author

Listed:
  • D. Sunshine Hillygus
  • Simon Jackman

Abstract

How do citizens respond to campaign events? We explore this question with a unique repeated measures survey design, fielded during the 2000 presidential campaign. We model transitions in support for the major party candidates following the party conventions and presidential debates. In the aggregate, Gore support increases following the conventions (but not the debates), while Bush support increases with the debates (but not the conventions). But there is considerable microlevel variation in the data: responsiveness to campaign events is greatest among Independents, undecided voters, and “mismatched partisans,” but exactly how these groups respond differs for each event. Moreover, attitudes toward then President Clinton mediate the effect of the campaign events on voter preferences. Two primary conclusions follow: (1) rich data sets are required to observe the effects of campaign events; (2) the influence of campaign events on vote choice is conditional on previous preferences, partisan dispositions, and political context.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Sunshine Hillygus & Simon Jackman, 2003. "Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 583-596, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:47:y:2003:i:4:p:583-596
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-5907.00041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00041
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-5907.00041?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:373-380 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Elena Costas-Pérez, 2014. "Political corruption and voter turnout: mobilization or disaffection?," Working Papers 2014/27, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    3. Liu, Yezheng & Ye, Chang & Sun, Jianshan & Jiang, Yuanchun & Wang, Hai, 2021. "Modeling undecided voters to forecast elections: From bandwagon behavior and the spiral of silence perspective," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 461-483.
    4. Hygor Piaget M Melo & Saulo D S Reis & André A Moreira & Hernán A Makse & José S Andrade Jr., 2018. "The price of a vote: Diseconomy in proportional elections," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Elena Costas-Pérez, 2014. "Political corruption and voter turnout: mobilization or disaffection?," Working Papers 2014/27, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    6. Joshua Robison & Randy T. Stevenson & James N. Druckman & Simon Jackman & Jonathan N. Katz & Lynn Vavreck, 2018. "An Audit of Political Behavior Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(3), pages 21582440187, August.
    7. Sergiu Gherghina & Elena Rusu, 2021. "Begin Again: Election Campaign and Own Opinions Among First‐Time Voters in Romania," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1311-1329, July.
    8. Eric Hanley, 2021. "Sexism as a political force: The impact of gender‐based attitudes on the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1408-1427, July.
    9. Stuti SAXENA, 2017. "Cybernetic Model of Voting Behavior," Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, KSP Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 87-104, March.
    10. Morelli, Massimo & Gennaro, Gloria & Lecce, Giampaolo, 2021. "Mobilization and the Strategy of Populism Theory and Evidence from the United States," CEPR Discussion Papers 15686, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Meredith, Marc & Malhotra, Neil, 2008. "Can October Surprise? A Natural Experiment Assessing Late Campaign Effects," Research Papers 2002, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    12. Yarrow Dunham & Antonio A. Arechar & David G. Rand, 2019. "From foe to friend and back again: The temporal dynamics of intra-party bias in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 373-380, May.
    13. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2019. "How Do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multi-Country Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," NBER Working Papers 26572, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:wly:amposc:v:47:y:2003:i:4:p:583-596. 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.