Do Campaigns Matter?

Jordan Wegner
Dr. Murray
POLS 3317
27 January 2016
Module 1
The question of whether or not campaigns effect elections is an interesting one. The argument does not seem to be whether campaigns have any effect at all. Rather, the question asked is whether the effect is large enough to be worth consideration. Those who disregard campaigns in the political process argue that the political campaign only effects the election at the margins. It generally does not matter unless in extremely close cases. Others say that a campaign can change the outcome of any election, and, in fact, not just at the margins. Although both sides acknowledge that campaigns are not necessarily the largest factor in an election, they differ in their view of a campaign's actual impact. The pro-campaign side uses shifting equilibrium, event impact on public opinion, and the contribution to political knowledge to illustrate how much campaigns do matter. On the opposite side, it is argued that campaigns only effect voters at the margins, and that there are a great many predetermined factors that have a far greater influence on which way a voter votes.
As mentioned, the strongest argument that campaigns effect elections is also the most simple. Any effect is an effect that matters. In The Electoral Challenge: Theory Meets Practice, 2nd edition (Craig and Hill, editors), Thomas Holbrook argues that "there exists for each election cycle an equilibrium level of support for the candidates" (5). He then makes the case that support will fluctuate for the candidates and that these fluctuations are in response to certain "campaign events" (Craig & Hill 5). While Holbrook admits that other factors were larger in determining the election, he maintains that it is possible that the fluctuations and small changes in candidate support, had they gone differently – or, had the politicians campaigned differently – the outcome of the elections that he studied could have changed. The view of fluctuations in campaign support is also shared by Burton and Shea in Campaign Craft: The Strategies, Tactics, and Art of Political Campaign Management, 4th edition. Burton and Shea argue that "every election sees idiosyncratic campaign effects such as candidate gaffes, strategic blunders, and campaign events gone awry" (30). Both agree that campaigns fluctuate, and that those fluctuations have the ability to influence the outcome of elections. Campaigns matter in a much more practical way as well. Supporters of the statement "campaigns matter" also argue that political campaigns provide voters with much needed political information. Campaign help "bring voters the information they need to make 'enlightened' decisions" (Craig & Hill 6). The assertion that campaigns bring voters important information is even more relevant in the technological age in which we live. In the study "The Rise Of Twitter In The Political Campaign: Searching For Intermedia Agenda-Setting Effects In The Presidential Primary" by Conway, Bethany A., Kate Kenski, and Di Wang, the authors state that "social media are now essentials of the political campaign" (365). They claim that social media sites, especially Twitter, are used "to diffuse information to a growing audience" (Conway 365). The further claim is made that social media is "a resource to collect data, enhance audience reach, and follow the activities of high-profile news sources" (Conway 365). Especially with the advent of social media, campaigns, on any platform, provide the public with important information.
The strongest arguments against the importance of campaigns mainly deal with their effectiveness in relation to other factors that determine voter choice. As mentioned before, even those who say campaigns matter admit that it is not the largest determinant in an election. Voters are generally "predisposed to supporting one party or the other" (Craig & Hill 2) based on "the political and economic context of the election" (Craig & Hill 5). Burton and Shae concur, stating that "partisanship and the state of the economy [tower] over the short-term, small-scale handiwork of candidates and their operatives" (23). This argument is known as The People's Choice. This view is supported in the essay "Responsive Elections: The Effect Of Public Opinion On Political Campaigns" by Bevan, Shaun, and Mona Krewel. The essay states that "every campaign is influenced by its political context" (549). They state that there is "a party that benefits from the state of the economy" (Bevan 550), and that party is the party in charge if it is doing well. Voters generally know how they will vote before the campaign even begins. This is all part of the minimal effects argument, which states that, according to Burton and Shea, "political campaigns have only a marginal impact on electoral outcomes" (24).
Though there are many more arguments for both sides, the most important concern fluctuations in support, voter information, and voter predisposition. Ultimately, the question isn't whether campaigns matter. Rather, it is how much do they matter?









Works Cited
Bevan, Shaun, and Mona Krewel. "Responsive Elections: The Effect Of Public Opinion On Political Campaigns." Electoral Studies 40 (2015): 548-555. ScienceDirect. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.
Burton & Shea. Campaign Mode: Strategic Vision in Congressional Elections. Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
Conway, Bethany A., Kate Kenski, and Di Wang. "The Rise Of Twitter In The Political Campaign: Searching For Intermedia Agenda-Setting Effects In The Presidential Primary." Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication 20.4 (2015): 363-380. PsycINFO. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.
Craig & Hill. The Electoral Challenge: Theory Meets Practice, 2nd edition. CQ Press, 2011.




Wegner 4